Dataset Information

Anatomical effects of dexamethasone intravitreal implant in diabetic macular oedema: a pooled analysis of 3-year phase III trials.

ABSTRACT: To assess long-term effects of dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX implant) monotherapy on retinal morphology in diabetic macular oedema (DME).Two multicentre, masked, phase III studies with identical protocols randomised patients with DME, best-corrected visual acuity of 34-68 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters and central subfield retinal thickness (CSRT) ?300?µm to DEX implant 0.7, 0.35?mg or sham procedure. Patients were followed up for 3?years (39?months if treated at month 36), with retreatment allowed at ?6-month intervals. Patients needing other macular oedema (ME) therapy exited the study. Changes from baseline in CSRT, macular volume and ME grade, area of retinal thickening, macular leakage, macular capillary loss and diabetic retinopathy severity were assessed.After 3?years, more eyes treated with DEX implant 0.7 and 0.35?mg than sham showed improvement (although small) in ME grade (p<0.05 vs sham). DEX implant 0.7?mg delayed time to onset of two-step progression in diabetic retinopathy severity by ?12?months. DEX implant 0.7 and 0.35?mg produced small, non-sustained reductions in macular leakage but had no significant effect on macular capillary loss.DEX implant 0.7 or 0.35?mg, administered at ?6-month intervals over 3?years, produced sustained retinal structural improvement in DME.NCT00168337 and NCT00168389.

SUBMITTER: Danis RP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4893085 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Anatomical effects of dexamethasone intravitreal implant in diabetic macular oedema: a pooled analysis of 3-year phase III trials.

Danis Ronald P RP Sadda Srinivas S Li Xiao-Yan XY Cui Harry H Hashad Yehia Y Whitcup Scott M SM

The British journal of ophthalmology 20151118 6

<h4>Background/aim</h4>To assess long-term effects of dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX implant) monotherapy on retinal morphology in diabetic macular oedema (DME).<h4>Methods</h4>Two multicentre, masked, phase III studies with identical protocols randomised patients with DME, best-corrected visual acuity of 34-68 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters and central subfield retinal thickness (CSRT) ≥300 µm to DEX implant 0.7, 0.35 mg or sham procedure. Patients were followed up ...[more]

PMID: 26581718

Similar Datasets

Project description:PURPOSE:To evaluate changes in colour vision following intravitreal injection of Dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex) in patients with diabetic macular oedema (DMO). Both red-green (RG) and yellow-blue (YB) chromatic sensitivity were assessed using the Colour Assessment & Diagnosis (CAD) test which isolates the use of colour signals and provides age-corrected, statistical limits for normal trichromats. To determine whether colour changes and visual acuity (VA) post-treatment relate to central sub-field retinal thickness (CST). METHODS:Fourteen patients with DMO who were undergoing treatment with Ozurdex were recruited for this study. RG and YB colour thresholds were measured using the CAD test, best corrected visual acuity was assessed using the ETDRS chart and CST was measured using spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). All tests were performed monocularly at baseline and 24 weeks post injection. RESULTS:All patients (n = 14 eyes), had significant loss of RG and YB chromatic sensitivity at baseline (p<0.05). The mean age was 56 ± 9.5 years. The age specific, monocular, upper normal limits for a 56 year old subject are 2.66 for RG and 2.85 for YB. In this study, the measured, pre injection thresholds (mean±SD) were 22.6 ± 11.3 for RG and 16.2 ± 3.76 for YB. There was significant improvement in RG threshold post injection (i.e., 19.2 ± 10.8 (p<0.05)). No significant changes were found in the YB thresholds with corresponding mean and range values of: 15.8 ± 4.6 (p = 0.23). CST pre-treatment was 542 ±135 ?m. After treatment and by week 24 the CST values decreased to 435 ±127 ?m. CONCLUSIONS:RG colour thresholds provide a sensitive measure of functional change in diabetic subjects with macular oedema. The YB system is damaged severely in the DMO patients studied and shows little or no recovery post treatment. The improvement in VA and particularly in RG colour vision correlate well with the measured decrease in CST. The results suggest that the improvement in the RG chromatic sensitivity can provide a useful biomarker for monitoring the efficacy of treatment in DMO.

Project description:Diabetic macular edema (DME) resembles a chronic, low-grade inflammatory reaction, and is characterized by blood-retinal barrier (BRB) breakdown and retinal capillary leakage. Corticosteroids are of therapeutic benefit because of their anti-inflammatory, antiangiogenic, and BRB-stabilizing properties. Delivery modes include periocular and intravitreal (via pars plana) injection. To offset the short intravitreal half-life of corticosteroid solutions (~3 hours) and the need for frequent intravitreal injections, sustained-release intravitreal corticosteroid implants have been developed. Dexamethasone intravitreal implant provides retinal drug delivery for ?6 months and recently has been approved for use in the treatment of DME. Pooled findings (n=1,048) from two large-scale, randomized Phase III trials indicated that dexamethasone intravitreal implant (0.35 mg and 0.7 mg) administered at ?6-month intervals produced sustained improvements in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and macular edema. Significantly more patients showed a ?15-letter gain in BCVA at 3 years with dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.35 mg and 0.7 mg than with sham injection (18.4% and 22.2% vs 12.0%). Anatomical assessments showed rapid and sustained reductions in macular edema and slowing of retinopathy progression. Phase II study findings suggest that dexamethasone intravitreal implant is effective in focal, cystoid, and diffuse DME, in vitrectomized eyes, and in combination with laser therapy. Ocular complications of dexamethasone intravitreal implant in Phase III trials included cataract-related events (66.0% in phakic patients), intraocular pressure elevation ?25 mmHg (29.7%), conjunctival hemorrhage (23.5%), vitreous hemorrhage (10.0%), macular fibrosis (8.3%), conjunctival hyperemia (7.2%), eye pain (6.1%), vitreous detachment (5.8%), and dry eye (5.8%); injection-related complications (eg, retinal tear/detachment, vitreous loss, endophthalmitis) were infrequent (<2%). Dexamethasone intravitreal implant offers a viable treatment option for DME, especially in cases that are persistent or treatment (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor/laser) refractory.

Project description:PurposeThis retrospective study aimed to compare the efficacy of intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) and intravitreal dexamethasone implant (IDI) for pseudophakic vitrectomized eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME) in a single institution.MethodsPseudophakic vitrectomized eyes with treatment-naïve center-involved DME were enrolled, with one eye in each patient. They were divided into two groups: one group receiving IDI every 3 to 4 months and another group receiving IVR using 3 monthly plus treat-and-extend injections, all with monthly follow-up for 6 months. Switch of intravitreal drugs or deferred macular laser was not allowed. Primary outcome measures included change in central foveal thickness (CFT) in 1 mm by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at Month 6.ResultsTwenty-two eyes were included in the IDI group and 26 eyes in the IVR group. The baseline demographics, glycosylated hemoglobin level, intraocular pressure (IOP), BCVA, and CFT did not significantly differ (p > 0.05). Compared to baseline data, CFT decreased and BCVA improved significantly after either IDI or IVR at Month 6 (p < 0.05). Significantly better mean final BCVA (0.38 logMAR vs. 0.62 logMAR, p=0.04), more mean visual gain (-0.30 logMAR vs. -0.15 logMAR, p=0.02), lower mean final CFT (310.9 μm vs. 384.2 μm, p=0.04), and larger mean CFT decrease (-150.0 μm vs. -60.1 μm, p=0.03) were found in the IDI group compared to those in the IVR group. A smaller mean treatment number (2.6 vs. 5.6, p < 0.001) and higher rate of postinjection ocular hypertension requiring topical hypotensive agent therapy (27.3% vs. 0%, p=0.0002) were demonstrated in the IDI group than those in the IVR group.ConclusionWe concluded that IDI and IVR can both effectively treat vitrectomized eyes with DME. Dexamethasone implants had significantly better visual/anatomical improvement, smaller treatment number, and higher rate of elevated IOP after injection than IVR in pseudophakic vitrectomized eyes with DME in a 6-month period.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To estimate the costs and healthcare resources of patients with diabetic macular oedema (DME) who received intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents or a dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX-implant) in Korea. DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study. SETTING:The Korean National Health Insurance claim data from 1 January 2015 to 30 June 2017 were retrieved from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. PARTICIPANTS:Adult patients with DME who were diagnosed with diabetic retinopathy or DME and received ranibizumab, aflibercept or a DEX-implant in conjunction with intravitreal injection were included. Patients whose primary diagnoses were age-related macular degeneration or retinal vein occlusion were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Healthcare resource utilisation and costs related to DME in the 12-month postindex period. RESULTS:During the study period, 182 patients and 414 patients were identified in the anti-VEGF and DEX-implant groups, respectively, and there was no significant difference in the demographic characteristics between the two groups. The outpatient eye care-related medical costs were US$3002.33 for the anti-VEGF group vs US$2250.35 for the DEX-implant group (p<0.0001). After adjusting the relevant covariates based on the generalised linear model, the estimated outpatient eye care-related medical costs were 33% higher in the anti-VEGF group than in the DEX-implant group (p<0.0001, 95% CI 22% to 45%). The utilisation pattern of the two groups showed no significant difference except for the number of intravitreal injections, which was higher in the anti-VEGF group (2.69±2.29) than in the DEX-implant group (2.09±1.37, p<0.001). CONCLUSION:The average annual eye-related medical cost of the DEX-implant group was significantly lower than that of the anti-VEGF group during the study period, which was mainly due to decreased utilisation of eye care-related injections. Further long-term studies are needed.

Project description:Dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.7 mg (DEX 0.7) was approved for treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) after demonstration of its efficacy and safety in the MEAD registration trials. We performed subgroup analysis of MEAD study results to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DEX 0.7 treatment in patients with previously treated DME.Three-year, randomized, sham-controlled phase 3 study in patients with DME, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 34-68 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters (20/200-20/50 Snellen equivalent), and central retinal thickness (CRT) ? 300 ?m measured by time-domain optical coherence tomography. Patients were randomized to 1 of 2 doses of DEX (0.7 mg or 0.35 mg), or to sham procedure, with retreatment no more than every 6 months. The primary endpoint was ? 15-letter gain in BCVA at study end. Average change in BCVA and CRT from baseline during the study (area-under-the-curve approach) and adverse events were also evaluated. The present subgroup analysis evaluated outcomes in patients randomized to DEX 0.7 (marketed dose) or sham based on prior treatment for DME at study entry.Baseline characteristics of previously treated DEX 0.7 (n = 247) and sham (n = 261) patients were similar. In the previously treated subgroup, mean number of treatments over 3 years was 4.1 for DEX 0.7 and 3.2 for sham, 21.5% of DEX 0.7 patients versus 11.1 % of sham had ? 15-letter BCVA gain from baseline at study end (P = 0.002), mean average BCVA change from baseline was +3.2 letters with DEX 0.7 versus +1.5 letters with sham (P = 0.024), and mean average CRT change from baseline was -126.1 ?m with DEX 0.7 versus -39.0 ?m with sham (P <? .001). Cataract-related adverse events were reported in 70.3% of baseline phakic patients in the previously treated DEX 0.7 subgroup; vision gains were restored following cataract surgery.DEX 0.7 significantly improved visual and anatomic outcomes in patients with DME previously treated with laser, intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor, intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide, or a combination of these therapies. The safety profile of DEX 0.7 in previously treated patients was similar to its safety profile in the total study population.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00168337 and NCT00168389, registered 12 September 2005.

Dataset Information

Anatomical effects of dexamethasone intravitreal implant in diabetic macular oedema: a pooled analysis of 3-year phase III trials.

Publications

Anatomical effects of dexamethasone intravitreal implant in diabetic macular oedema: a pooled analysis of 3-year phase III trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure