Dataset Information

Case Series Investigating the Efficacy and Safety of Bilateral Fluocinolone Acetonide (ILUVIEN(®)) in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema: 10 Eyes with 12 Months Follow-up.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

This short case series presents the results from 5 patients with bilateral chronic diabetic macular edema (DME), 12 months after they were initially treated with ILUVIEN (®) [0.2 μg/day fluocinolone acetonide (FAc)].

Methods

Ten eyes from five patients with pseudophakic lenses were investigated. Patients had bilateral, chronic DME and had received prior laser and anti-VEGF therapy. Visual and anatomic outcomes were investigated 12 months post-FAc implant in both eyes.

Results

At baseline, central retinal thickness (CRT) was 645.3 ± 176.1 microns (mean ± standard deviation), intraocular pressure (IOP) was 13.7 ± 3.6 mmHg and visual acuity (VA) was 44.5 ± 18.6 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters. Mean CRT improved at 6 months (341.7 ± 169.7 microns) and 12 months (287.4 ± 103.1 microns) and there were concurrent improvements in VA (ETDRS letters were 56 ± 16 and 55 ± 16 at 6 and 12 months, respectively). Mean IOP was stable throughout and ≤21 mmHg. Left and right eyes were compared in the 5 patients by plotting changes in CFT, IOP and VA at 12 months, from baseline levels.

Conclusion

This bilateral case series demonstrates the effectiveness of a sustained, controlled low dose of FAc in the management of bilateral DME over a 12-month period. The FAc implant has shown to work well in treatment of bilateral DME, although longer follow-up of these patients is still needed.

Funding

Publication charges were funded by Alimera Sciences Ltd.

SUBMITTER: Elaraoud I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4909676 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDiabetic macular oedema (DMO) may lead to visual loss and blindness. Several pharmacological treatments are available on the National Health Service (NHS) to United Kingdom patients affected by this condition, including intravitreal vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (anti-VEGFs) and two types of intravitreal steroid implants, releasing dexamethasone or fluocinolone acetonide (FAc). This study aimed to assess the value for money (cost-effectiveness) of the FAc 0.2??g/day implant (ILUVIEN®) in patients with chronic DMO considered insufficiently responsive to other therapies.MethodsWe developed a Markov model with a 15-year time horizon to estimate the impact of changes in best-corrected visual acuity in DMO patients on costs and quality-adjusted life years. The model considered both eyes, designated as the "study eye", defined at model entry as phakic with an ongoing cataract formation or pseudophakic, and the "fellow eye". The model compared the FAc 0.2??g/day implant with a 700??g dexamethasone implant (pseudophakic patients only) or with usual care, defined as a mixture of laser photocoagulation and anti-VEGFs (phakic and pseudophakic patients). Costs were estimated from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services; full NHS prices were used for drugs.ResultsIn patients who were pseudophakic at baseline, at 36?months, the FAc implant provided an additional gain of 4.01 and 3.64 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters compared with usual care and the dexamethasone implant, respectively. Over the 15-year time horizon, this translated into 0.185 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at an extra cost of £3066 compared with usual care, and 0.126 additional QALYs at an extra cost of £1777 compared with dexamethasone. Thus, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were £16,609 and £14,070 per QALY gained vs. usual care and dexamethasone, respectively. In patients who were phakic at baseline, the FAc 0.2??g/day implant provided an additional gain of 2.96 ETDRS letters at 36?months compared with usual care, which, over 15?years, corresponded to 0.11 additional QALYs at an extra cost of £3170, resulting in an ICER of £28,751 per QALY gained.ConclusionThe FAc 0.2??g/day implant provided good value for money compared with other established treatments, especially in pseudophakic patients.