Dataset Information

Comparison of two techniques used in routine care for the treatment of inflammatory macular oedema, subconjunctival triamcinolone injection and intravitreal dexamethasone implant: medical and economic importance of this randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Whether they are injected peri- or intraocularly, corticosteroids are still essential tools in the therapeutic arsenal for treating inflammatory macular oedema. A few years ago, however, only triamcinolone acetonide was available to ophthalmologists. While this compound was initially developed for rheumatological or dermatological use, it has been increasingly deployed in ophthalmology, despite still being off-label. In 2011, the system for delivery of dexamethasone from a biodegradable, injectable implant into the vitreous cavity obtained approval for use in inflammatory macular oedema. While the efficacy and safety of triamcinolone in macular oedema, including inflammatory oedema, have already been studied, there are currently no publications on subconjunctival triamcinolone injections, which are simple, effective and well tolerated. To date, the dexamethasone 700??g implant has been authorized for the treatment of noninfectious intermediate and posterior uveitis, but there have been no studies to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the different peri- and intraocular strategies, including the treatment of inflammatory macular oedema. METHODS:This protocol is therefore designed to compare the efficacy and safety of peri- and intraocular corticosteroid injections in the treatment of inflammatory macular oedema. In this ongoing study, 142 patients will be included, and the oedematous eye will be randomised to treatment with either subconjunctival triamcinolone injection or an intravitreal implant containing 700??g dexamethasone. Follow-up is planned for 6?months with monthly visits. Each visit will include visual acuity measurement, a slit lamp examination, fundoscopy, intraocular pressure measurement, laser flare measurement (if available) and spectral domain optical coherence tomography. DISCUSSION:The results of this trial will have a real impact on public health if it is shown that a Kenacort retard® (i.e. triamcinolone) injection costing just €2.84 and performed in the physician's office (with no additional overhead costs) is at least as effective as the dexamethasone 700??g implant (Ozurdex®; costing approximately €960 with the injection performed in a dedicated room), with no increased side effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02556424. Registered on 22 September 2015.

SUBMITTER: Couret C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7011383 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of two techniques used in routine care for the treatment of inflammatory macular oedema, subconjunctival triamcinolone injection and intravitreal dexamethasone implant: medical and economic importance of this randomized controlled trial.

Couret Chloé C Poinas Alexandra A Volteau Christelle C Riche Valery-Pierre VP Le Lez Marie-Laure ML Errera Marie-Hélène MH Creuzot-Garcher Catherine C Baillif Stéphanie S Kodjikian Laurent L Ivan Catherine C Le Jumeau de Kergaradec Laurence Mathilde LM Chiffoleau Anne A Jobert Alexandra A Jaulin Julie J Biron Laetitia L Hervouet Elisabeth E Weber Michel M

Trials 20200210 1

<h4>Background</h4>Whether they are injected peri- or intraocularly, corticosteroids are still essential tools in the therapeutic arsenal for treating inflammatory macular oedema. A few years ago, however, only triamcinolone acetonide was available to ophthalmologists. While this compound was initially developed for rheumatological or dermatological use, it has been increasingly deployed in ophthalmology, despite still being off-label. In 2011, the system for delivery of dexamethasone from a bio ...[more]

PMID: 32041669

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo 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).MethodsFourteen 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.ResultsAll 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 μm. After treatment and by week 24 the CST values decreased to 435 ±127 μm.ConclusionsRG 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:PURPOSE:To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of 3 regional corticosteroid injections for uveitic macular edema (ME): periocular triamcinolone acetonide (PTA), intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (ITA), and the intravitreal dexamethasone implant (IDI). DESIGN:Multicenter, randomized clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS:Patients with uveitic ME. METHODS:Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 1 of the 3 therapies. Patients with bilateral ME were assigned the same treatment for both eyes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcome was the proportion of baseline (PropBL) central subfield thickness (CST) at 8 weeks (CST at 8 weeks/CST at baseline) assessed with OCT by masked readers. Secondary outcomes included ?20% improvement and resolution of ME, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and intraocular pressure (IOP) events over 24 weeks. RESULTS:All treatment groups demonstrated improved CST during follow-up. At 8 weeks, each group had clinically meaningful reductions in CST relative to baseline (PropBL: 0.77, 0.61, and 0.54, respectively, which translates to reductions of 23%, 39%, and 46% for PTA, ITA, and IDI, respectively). Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (PropBL ITA/PropBL PTA, hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; 99.87% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-0.96) and IDI (PropBL IDI/PropBL PTA, HR, 0.69; 99.87% CI, 0.56-0.86) had larger reductions in CST than PTA (P < 0.0001). Intravitreal dexamethasone implant was noninferior to ITA at 8 weeks (PropBL IDI/PropBL ITA, HR, 0.88; 99.87% CI, 0.71-1.08). Both ITA and IDI treatments also were superior to PTA treatment in improving and resolving uveitic ME. All treatment groups demonstrated BCVA improvement throughout follow-up. Both ITA and IDI groups had improvements in BCVA that was 5 letters greater than in the PTA group at 8 weeks (P < 0.004). The risk of having IOP ?24 mmHg was higher in the intravitreal treatment groups compared with the periocular group (HR, 1.83; 95% CI, 0.91-3.65 and HR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.29-4.91 for ITA and IDI, respectively); however, there was no significant difference between the 2 intravitreal treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS:Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide and the IDI were superior to PTA for treating uveitic ME with modest increases in the risk of IOP elevation. This risk did not differ significantly between intravitreal treatments.

Project description:Our objective was to investigate the efficacy and safety of dexa methasone (DEX) implant for the treatment of pseudophakic cystoid macular edema (PCME) in diabetic patients.This was a prospective, non-randomized, interventional case series of 43 participants. Eighteen patients were enrolled in the DEX implant group and 25 were enrolled in an intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA) group.The primary efficacy measurement was the percentage of patients who gained improvements of more than ten letters in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) during 6 months of follow-up. Other efficacy measurements included change in BCVA, change in central macular thickness (CMT), and number of retreatments. The primary safety evaluation was the percentage of patients with intraocular hypertension and variation in intraocular pressure (IOP) during 6 months of follow-up. Other adverse events, such as conjunctival hemorrhage, eye pain, secondary infection, endophthalmitis, noninfectious inflammation, retinal detachment, and implant migration, were also recorded during follow-up.At month 1, we observed that the percentage of patients gaining improvement of more than ten letters was similar in both groups (P = 0.625). As patients in the IVTA group were retreated several times, this effect persisted throughout the study (P = 0.941 at month 2, P = 0.553 at month 3, P = 0.856 at month 6). Variations in CMT were noticed at week 1 and reached their maximum at month 1. No significant difference was found between the two groups (P = 0.831 at week 1, P = 0.783 at month 1). At month 1, the variation in IOP reached its maximum in the DEX implant group and then decreased slightly. However, in the IVTA group, it increased continuously throughout the study. Conjunctival hemorrhage and eye pain were found in both groups, but both were rated as mild in severity, and no significant difference was found (P = 0.184, P = 0.766, respectively).Both IVTA and DEX implants could effectively restore visual function and recover morphological change in diabetic patients with PCME for at least 6 months, but repeated intravitreal injection was required in the IVTA group. DEX implant is well tolerated. We suggest that intravitreal injection of DEX implant is a promising new therapeutic option for diabetic patients with PCME.

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:PurposeTo evaluate the efficacy of intravitreal dexamethasone implant (DEX) for the treatment of macular oedema secondary to vitrectomy for epiretinal membrane (ERM) and retinal detachment (RD) by conducting a systematic review with meta-analysis of published studies.MethodsStudies reporting clinical outcomes of DEX use for the treatment of macular oedema secondary to ERM and RD vitrectomy were searched on PubMed and Embase databases. The primary outcome was best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) change between baseline and post-DEX treatment, reported as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Mean central macular thickness (CMT) change was assessed as a secondary outcome. Postimplant adverse events, including intraocular pressure rise and cataract development, were reported as well.ResultsFive uncontrolled studies, 1 nonrandomized controlled study, and 1 randomized controlled study were included, with a total of 5 cohorts and 3 cohorts in the ERM group and RD group, respectively. Considering the last available follow-up, a significant improvement in postimplant BCVA was found in the overall population, irrespective of the indication for vitrectomy (MD = -0.28, 95% CI = -0.37, -0.20; p < 0.001), but with significant heterogeneity. In either group, mean BCVA significantly improved following the implant (in the ERM group, MD = -0.31, 95% CI = -0.40, -0.22; in the RD group, MD = -0.22, 95% CI = -0.41, -0.03), with no difference between the two groups (p=0.41). However, there was significant heterogeneity in both groups. Considering the last available follow-up, a significant CMT reduction was found in the overall population, irrespective of the indication for vitrectomy (MD = -129.75, 95% CI = -157.49, -102.01; p < 0.001). In the ERM group, a significant CMT reduction was shown following DEX (MD = -133.41, 95% CI = -155.37, -111.45; p < 0.001), with no heterogeneity. In the RD group, mean CMT reduction was borderline significant (MD = -128.37, 95% CI = -253.57, -3.18; p=0.040), with significant heterogeneity. No difference in CMT improvement was found between the two groups (p=0.94).ConclusionThis meta-analysis showed that DEX yielded a significant improvement in visual and anatomical outcomes, even if limited by significant heterogeneity. Dexamethasone implant represents an effective treatment for postoperative macular oedema secondary to ERM and RD vitrectomy.

Dataset Information

Comparison of two techniques used in routine care for the treatment of inflammatory macular oedema, subconjunctival triamcinolone injection and intravitreal dexamethasone implant: medical and economic importance of this randomized controlled trial.

Publications

Comparison of two techniques used in routine care for the treatment of inflammatory macular oedema, subconjunctival triamcinolone injection and intravitreal dexamethasone implant: medical and economic importance of this randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets