Dataset Information

Ozurdex (dexamethasone intravitreal implant) for the treatment of intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis: a systematic review of the current evidence.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:This study aims to determine if the intravitreal dexamethasone implant (DEX implant, Ozurdex; Allergan, Inc., Irvine, California) is effective for treating intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis as a monotherapy or adjunctive treatment to systemic immunomodulatory therapies. METHODS:A systematic review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed database searches was conducted with the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence criteria to select publications. Available background information and patient data from each study was tabulated. Outcomes studied were central retinal thickness (CRT), best corrected visual acuity, intraocular inflammation (anterior chamber cells, vitreous haze), number of patients with prior and concomitant immunomodulatory treatments, intraocular pressure (IOP) elevation (? 25?mmHg), and other adverse effects associated with the implant. RESULTS:One hundred ninety-five (61.51%) patients had previous immunomodulatory treatment while 232 (64.8%) were treated with concomitant immunomodulatory therapy with the DEX implant. CRT decreased by an average of 198.65??m (42.74%). Visual acuity improved to an average of 0.451 (logMAR) or 20/57 (Snellen) which is a 43.11% improvement from baseline. One hundred seventy-three (59%) of eyes were quiescent at the end of the trials, of which 40 (13.7%) previously inflamed eyes became quiescent. Elevated IOP occurred in 91 (20.6%). The most common adverse events were cataract/posterior subcapsular opacities in 47 (11.03%) patients and conjunctival hemorrhage in 24 (5.44%) patients. CONCLUSIONS:The DEX implant is an effective medication for the treatment of posterior segment uveitis, uveitic macular edema, and results in improved visual acuity. Development of elevated IOP and cataract should be closely monitored as they are tangible risks associated with the DEX implant. This study was not able to determine whether the DEX implant was more effective as a monotherapy or as an adjunctive therapy to systemic immunomodulatory treatment.

SUBMITTER: Saincher SS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6954157 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Ozurdex (dexamethasone intravitreal implant) for the treatment of intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis: a systematic review of the current evidence.

Saincher Saanwalshah Samir SS Gottlieb Chloe C

Journal of ophthalmic inflammation and infection 20200110 1

<h4>Background</h4>This study aims to determine if the intravitreal dexamethasone implant (DEX implant, Ozurdex; Allergan, Inc., Irvine, California) is effective for treating intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis as a monotherapy or adjunctive treatment to systemic immunomodulatory therapies.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed database searches was conducted with the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence criteria to select publications. ...[more]

PMID: 31925591

Similar Datasets

Project description:To evaluate the 3-year incremental cost-effectiveness of fluocinolone acetonide implant versus systemic therapy for the treatment of noninfectious intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis.Randomized, controlled, clinical trial.Patients with active or recently active intermediate, posterior, or panuveitis enrolled in the Multicenter Uveitis Steroid Treatment Trial.Data on cost and health utility during 3 years after randomization were evaluated at 6-month intervals. Analyses were stratified by disease laterality at randomization (31 unilateral vs 224 bilateral) because of the large upfront cost of the implant.The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over 3 years: the ratio of the difference in cost (in United States dollars) to the difference in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs of medications, surgeries, hospitalizations, and regular procedures (e.g., laboratory monitoring for systemic therapy) were included. We computed QALYs as a weighted average of EQ-5D scores over 3 years of follow-up.The ICER at 3 years was $297,800/QALY for bilateral disease, driven by the high cost of implant therapy (difference implant - systemic [?]: $16,900; P < 0.001) and the modest gains in QALYs (? = 0.057; P = 0.22). The probability of the ICER being cost-effective at thresholds of $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY was 0.003 and 0.04, respectively. The ICER for unilateral disease was more favorable, namely, $41,200/QALY at 3 years, because of a smaller difference in cost between the 2 therapies (? = $5300; P = 0.44) and a larger benefit in QALYs with the implant (? = 0.130; P = 0.12). The probability of the ICER being cost-effective at thresholds of $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY was 0.53 and 0.74, respectively.Fluocinolone acetonide implant therapy was reasonably cost-effective compared with systemic therapy for individuals with unilateral intermediate, posterior, or panuveitis but not for those with bilateral disease. These results do not apply to the use of implant therapy when systemic therapy has failed or is contraindicated. Should the duration of implant effect prove to be substantially >3 years or should large changes in therapy pricing occur, the cost-effectiveness of implant versus systemic therapy would need to be reevaluated.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the relative effectiveness of systemic corticosteroids plus immunosuppression when indicated (systemic therapy) versus fluocinolone acetonide implant (implant therapy) for noninfectious intermediate, posterior, or panuveitis (uveitis).DesignRandomized controlled parallel superiority trial.ParticipantsPatients with active or recently active uveitis.MethodsParticipants were randomized (allocation ratio 1:1) to systemic or implant therapy at 23 centers (3 countries). Implant-assigned participants with bilateral uveitis were assigned to have each eye that warranted study treatment implanted. Treatment-outcome associations were analyzed by assigned treatment for all eyes with uveitis.Main outcome measuresMasked examiners measured the primary outcome: change in best-corrected visual acuity from baseline. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported quality of life, ophthalmologist-graded uveitis activity, and local and systemic complications of uveitis or therapy. Reading Center graders and glaucoma specialists assessing ocular complications were masked. Participants, ophthalmologists, and coordinators were unmasked.ResultsOn evaluation of changes from baseline to 24 months among 255 patients randomized to implant and systemic therapy (479 eyes with uveitis), the implant and systemic therapy groups had an improvement in visual acuity of +6.0 and +3.2 letters (P = 0.16, 95% confidence interval on difference in improvement between groups, -1.2 to +6.7 letters, positive values favoring implant), an improvement in vision-related quality of life of +11.4 and +6.8 units (P = 0.043), a change in EuroQol-EQ5D health utility of +0.02 and -0.02 (P = 0.060), and residual active uveitis in 12% and 29% (P=0.001), respectively. Over the 24 month period, implant-assigned eyes had a higher risk of cataract surgery (80%, hazard ratio [HR] = 3.3, P < 0.0001), treatment for elevated intraocular pressure (61%, HR=4.2, P < 0.0001), and glaucoma (17%, HR=4.2, P = 0.0008). Patients assigned to systemic therapy had more prescription-requiring infections than patients assigned to implant therapy (0.60 vs 0.36/person-year, P=0.034), without notable long-term consequences; systemic adverse outcomes otherwise were unusual in both groups, with minimal differences between groups.ConclusionsIn each treatment group, mean visual acuity improved over 24 months, with neither approach superior to a degree detectable with the study's power. Therefore, the specific advantages and disadvantages identified should dictate selection between the alternative treatments in consideration of individual patients' particular circumstances. Systemic therapy with aggressive use of corticosteroid-sparing immunosuppression was well tolerated, suggesting that this approach is reasonably safe for local and systemic inflammatory disorders.Financial disclosure(s)Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

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:Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of vitrectomy combined with intravitreal dexamethasone implant vs. vitrectomy without the implant in patients with epiretinal membrane (ERM) by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: Studies that compared ERM vitrectomy with and without intraoperative dexamethasone implant with a follow-up ≥3 months were included. The primary outcome was mean best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) change between eyes undergoing ERM vitrectomy combined with dexamethasone implant (DEX group) and eyes undergoing ERM vitrectomy alone (control group) at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included mean BCVA change at 6 months and mean optical coherence tomography central macular thickness (CMT) change at both 3-months and 6-months follow-up. Mean differences (MDs) with their 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were calculated. Meta-analyses were based either on random effect model or fixed effect model according to heterogeneity. Results: Four studies were included. At 3 months, ERM vitrectomy combined with dexamethasone implant yielded a greater visual gain compared to vitrectomy alone (MD = 9.7; 95%CI = 2.6-16.8; p = 0.01). However, significant heterogeneity was found. A sensitivity analysis excluding the only retrospective non-randomized study confirmed a greater visual gain in the DEX group (MD = 7.1; 95%CI = 2.7-11.6; p < 0.01), with no heterogeneity. At 6 months, a non-significant but borderline difference in visual gain was shown between in the two groups (MD = 5.1; 95%CI = -0.3-10.5; p = 0.06), with no heterogeneity. Three-month analysis of CMT revealed a greater reduction in the DEX group (MD = -80.2; 95%CI =-149.1-11.2; p = 0.02), but with significant heterogeneity. A sensitivity analysis excluding the only retrospective non-randomized study allowed to reduce heterogeneity, but no difference in 3-months CMT change was found between the two groups (MD = -50.0; 95%CI = -106.2-6.2; p = 0.08). At 6 months, no difference in CMT change was shown between the two groups (MD = -48.5; 95%CI = -120.5-23.5; p = 0.19), with significant heterogeneity. Conclusions: Intraoperative dexamethasone implant in eyes undergoing vitrectomy for ERM provided a better visual outcome at 3 months compared to ERM vitrectomy without the implant, with limited evidence of better anatomic outcome as well. Further studies are needed to ascertain whether dexamethasone implant would ensure a significant long-term visual benefit as a result of a faster reduction of macular thickening.

Dataset Information

Ozurdex (dexamethasone intravitreal implant) for the treatment of intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis: a systematic review of the current evidence.

Publications

Ozurdex (dexamethasone intravitreal implant) for the treatment of intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis: a systematic review of the current evidence.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets