Dataset Information

Diabetic macular edema: Safe and effective treatment with intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (Taioftal).

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To suggest the safety and efficacy of preservative-free triamcinolone acetonide intravitreal injectable suspension (Taioftal) for the treatment of diabetic macular edema.

Methods

A prospective clinical study involved 49 patients (49 eyes), that were treated with Taioftal and followed-up for six months. Complete ophthalmic examination, including spectral domain optical coherence tomography, was performed at baseline, and at month 1, 3, 6 after the intravitreal injection. Accurate collection and analysis of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central foveal thickness (CFT), intraocular pressure (IOP), and adverse events (AEs) were carried out in order to evaluate visual function and macular morphology before and after treatment.

Results

Median BCVA value chosen as comparing statistics was significantly improved at every follow-up time points (gain of 6 letters at month 1, 12 at month 3 -improvement up to 24% at month 3 with stabilization until month 6) compared to baseline, as certified by Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test (P<0.05). Median CFT significantly waned at each follow-up times (decrease of about 65 μm at month 1, 155 at month 3 -reduction up to 28% at month 3 keeping good outcome until month 6) compared to baseline (P<0.05). IOP elevation, with no severe increases, was the most common among spotted AEs (median of 23 mmHg at month 1, 20 at month 3).

Conclusion

Intravitreal injection of preservative-free triamcinolone (Taioftal) is an effective, safe and inexpensive drug used to improve visual acuity and reduce central foveal thickness in eyes affected by diabetic macular edema during an average time of 6 months. Temporary, never severe, elevation of IOP is totally manageable with topical medications. No serious vision-threatening complications are related to the use of intravitreal triamcinolone injections.

SUBMITTER: Sorrentino FS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8486126 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe comparative safety and efficacy of different doses of intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA) for diabetic macular edema (DME) and macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is unclear.ObjectivesThis meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of different doses of IVTA in this setting.MethodsA systematic literature search for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) was conducted on Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, and EMBASE from January 2005 to May 2022. Studies that reported on patients with DME or ME secondary to RVO that received treatment with different doses of IVTA were included. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Cochrane's Risk of Bias Tool 2 was used to assess the risk of bias, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines were used to assess certainty of evidence.ResultsFive RCTs reporting on 1,041 eyes at baseline were included in this meta-analysis. In eyes with ME secondary to RVO, high-dose (4 mg) IVTA achieved a significantly better change in best-corrected visual acuity (WMD = -4.75 ETDRS letters, 95% CI = [-7.73, -1.78], p = 0.002) and reduction in retinal thickness (WMD = -93.02 μm, 95% CI = [-153.23, -32.82], p = 0.002) at months 4-6 compared to low-dose (1-2 mg) IVTA. However, high-dose IVTA had a higher risk of intraocular pressure-related adverse events (RR = 2.99, 95% CI = [1.05, 8.50], p = 0.04) and cataract surgery (RR = 5.67, 95% CI = [3.09, 10.41], p < 0.00001) than low-dose IVTA in eyes with ME secondary to RVO. These efficacy and safety differences in high-dose and low-dose IVTA were not observed in DME eyes.ConclusionsThe RCT evidence in this setting is limited. High-dose IVTA achieved greater improvements in visual acuity and reductions in retinal thickness than low-dose IVTA at months 4-6. However, high-dose IVTA had a less favorable safety profile than low-dose IVTA. The significance of these outcomes was based on patients with ME secondary to RVO, but not DME.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of 1-mg and 4-mg doses of preservative-free intravitreal triamcinolone in comparison with focal/grid photocoagulation for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME).DesignMulticenter, randomized clinical trial.ParticipantsEight hundred forty study eyes of 693 subjects with DME involving the fovea and with visual acuity of 20/40 to 20/320.MethodsEyes were randomized to focal/grid photocoagulation (n = 330), 1 mg intravitreal triamcinolone (n = 256), or 4 mg intravitreal triamcinolone (n = 254). Retreatment was given for persistent or new edema at 4-month intervals. The primary outcome was evaluated at 2 years.Main outcome measuresVisual acuity measured with the electronic Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study method (primary), optical coherence tomography-measured retinal thickness (secondary), and safety.ResultsAt 4 months, mean visual acuity was better in the 4-mg triamcinolone group than in either the laser group (P<0.001) or the 1-mg triamcinolone group (P = 0.001). By 1 year, there were no significant differences among groups in mean visual acuity. At the 16-month visit and extending through the primary outcome visit at 2 years, mean visual acuity was better in the laser group than in the other 2 groups (at 2 years, P = 0.02 comparing the laser and 1-mg groups, P = 0.002 comparing the laser and 4-mg groups, and P = 0.49 comparing the 1-mg and 4-mg groups). Treatment group differences in the visual acuity outcome could not be attributed solely to cataract formation. Optical coherence tomography results generally paralleled the visual acuity results. Intraocular pressure increased from baseline by 10 mmHg or more at any visit in 4%, 16%, and 33% of eyes in the 3 treatment groups, respectively, and cataract surgery was performed in 13%, 23%, and 51% of eyes in the 3 treatment groups, respectively.ConclusionsOver a 2-year period, focal/grid photocoagulation is more effective and has fewer side effects than 1-mg or 4-mg doses of preservative-free intravitreal triamcinolone for most patients with DME who have characteristics similar to the cohort in this clinical trial. The results of this study also support that focal/grid photocoagulation currently should be the benchmark against which other treatments are compared in clinical trials of DME.

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: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: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.