37
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Intravitreal Steroids for the Treatment of Retinal Diseases

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Diabetic macular edema (DME), pseudophakic cystoid macular edema (CME), age-related macular degeneration (AMD), retinal vascular occlusion (RVO), and uveitis are ocular conditions related to severe visual impairment worldwide. Corticosteroids have been widely used in the treatment of these retinal diseases, due to their well-known antiangiogenic, antiedematous, and anti-inflammatory properties. Intravitreal steroids have emerged as novel and essential tools in the ophthalmologist's armamentarium, allowing for maximization of drug efficacy and limited risk of systemic side effects. Recent advances in ocular drug delivery methods led to the development of intraocular implants, which help to provide prolonged treatment with controlled drug release. Moreover, they may add some potential advantages over traditional intraocular injections by delivering certain rates of drug directly to the site of action, amplifying the drug's half-life, contributing in the minimization of peak plasma levels of the drug, and avoiding the side effects associated with repeated intravitreal injections. The purpose of this review is to provide an update on the use of intravitreal steroids as a treatment option for a variety of retinal diseases and to review the current literature considering their properties, safety, and adverse events.

          Related collections

          Most cited references123

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Dexamethasone intravitreal implant for noninfectious intermediate or posterior uveitis.

          To evaluate the safety and efficacy of 2 doses of dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX implant) for treatment of noninfectious intermediate or posterior uveitis. In this 26-week trial, eyes with noninfectious intermediate or posterior uveitis were randomized to a single treatment with a 0.7-mg DEX implant (n = 77), 0.35-mg DEX implant (n = 76), or sham procedure (n = 76). The main outcome measure was the proportion of eyes with a vitreous haze score of 0 at week 8. The proportion of eyes with a vitreous haze score of 0 at week 8 was 47% with the 0.7-mg DEX implant, 36% with the 0.35-mg DEX implant, and 12% with the sham (P .05 at any visit). The incidence of cataract reported in the phakic eyes was 9 of 62 (15%) with the 0.7-mg DEX implant, 6 of 51 (12%) with the 0.35-mg DEX implant, and 4 of 55 (7%) with the sham (P > .05). In patients with noninfectious intermediate or posterior uveitis, a single DEX implant significantly improved intraocular inflammation and visual acuity persisting for 6 months. Application to Clinical Practice Dexamethasone intravitreal implant may be used safely and effectively for treatment of intermediate and posterior uveitis. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00333814.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a sustained-release dexamethasone intravitreal implant.

            To determine the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a sustained-release dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implant (Ozurdex; Allergan, Inc.). Thirty-four male monkeys (Macaca fascicularis) received bilateral 0.7-mg DEX implants. Blood, vitreous humor, and retina samples were collected at predetermined intervals up to 270 days after administration. DEX was quantified by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, and cytochrome P450 3A8 (CYP3A8) gene expression was analyzed by real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. DEX was detected in the retina and vitreous humor for 6 months, with peak concentrations during the first 2 months. After 6 months, DEX was below the limit of quantitation. The C(max) (T(max)) and AUC for the retina were 1110 ng/g (day 60) and 47,200 ng · d/g, and for the vitreous humor were 213 ng/mL (day 60) and 11,300 ng · d/mL, respectively. The C(max) (T(max)) of DEX in plasma was 1.11 ng/mL (day 60). Compared with the level in the control eyes (no DEX implant), CYP3A8 expression in the retina was upregulated threefold up to 6 months after injection of the implant (0.969 ± 0.0565 vs. 3.07 ± 0.438; P < 0.05 up to 2-month samples). The in vivo release profile of the DEX implant in an animal eye was similar to the pharmacokinetics achieved with pulse administration of corticosteroids (high initial drug concentration, followed by a prolonged period of low concentration). These results are consistent with those in clinical studies supporting the use of the DEX implant for the extended management of posterior segment diseases.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Expanded 2-year follow-up of ranibizumab plus prompt or deferred laser or triamcinolone plus prompt laser for diabetic macular edema.

              To report expanded 2-year follow-up of a previously reported randomized trial evaluating intravitreal 0.5 mg ranibizumab or 4 mg triamcinolone combined with focal/grid laser compared with focal/grid laser alone for treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME). Multicenter, randomized clinical trial. A total of 854 study eyes of 691 participants with visual acuity of 20/32 to 20/320 (approximate Snellen equivalent) and DME involving the fovea. Continuation of procedures previously reported for the randomized trial. Best-corrected visual acuity and safety at the 2-year visit. At the 2-year visit, compared with the sham + prompt laser group, the mean change in the visual acuity letter score from baseline was 3.7 letters greater in the ranibizumab + prompt laser group (95% confidence interval adjusted for multiple comparisons [aCI], -0.4 to +7.7), 5.8 letters greater in the ranibizumab + deferred laser group (95% aCI, +1.9 to +9.8), and 1.5 letters worse in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group (95% aCI, -5.5 to +2.4). After the 1- to 2-year visit in the ranibizumab + prompt or deferred laser groups, the median numbers of injections were 2 and 3 (potential maximum of 13), respectively. At the 2-year visit, the percentages of eyes with central subfield thickness ≥250 μm were 59% in the sham + prompt laser group, 43% in the ranibizumab + prompt laser group, 42% in the ranibizumab + deferred laser group, and 52% in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group. No systemic events attributable to study treatment were apparent. Three eyes in 3 (0.8%) of 375 participants had injection-related endophthalmitis in the ranibizumab groups, whereas elevated intraocular pressure and cataract surgery were more frequent in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group. The expanded 2-year results reported are similar to results published previously and reinforce the conclusions originally reported: Ranibizumab should be considered for patients with DME and characteristics similar to those of the cohort in this clinical trial, including vision impairment with DME involving the center of the macula. Copyright © 2011 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                ScientificWorldJournal
                ScientificWorldJournal
                TSWJ
                The Scientific World Journal
                Hindawi Publishing Corporation
                1537-744X
                2014
                8 January 2014
                : 2014
                : 989501
                Affiliations
                1Department of Ophthalmology, University of Udine, Piazza Santa Maria della Misericordia, 33100 Udine, Italy
                2Department of Ophthalmology, University of Sassari, Piazza D'Armi, 07100 Sassari, Italy
                Author notes

                Academic Editors: N. Gupta and F. M. Penha

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0041-5073
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3746-141X
                Article
                10.1155/2014/989501
                3910383
                24526927
                8562b726-7dad-42f2-9660-9e2f2e976eba
                Copyright © 2014 Valentina Sarao et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 19 August 2013
                : 10 October 2013
                Categories
                Review Article

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article