DEXAMETHASONE INTRAVITREAL IMPLANT VS RANIBIZUMAB IN THE TREATMENT OF MACULAR EDEMA SECONDARY TO BRACHYTHERAPY FOR CHOROIDAL MELANOMA :

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of 1 or 2 treatments with dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX implant) over 12 months in eyes with macular edema owing to branch or central retinal vein occlusion (BRVO or CRVO). Two identical, multicenter, prospective studies included a randomized, 6-month, double-masked, sham-controlled phase followed by a 6-month open-label extension. We included 1256 patients with vision loss owing to macular edema associated with BRVO or CRVO. At baseline, patients received DEX implant 0.7 mg (n = 421), DEX implant 0.35 mg (n = 412), or sham (n = 423) in the study eye. At day 180, patients could receive DEX implant 0.7 mg if best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 250 μm. The primary outcome for the open-label extension was safety; BCVA was also evaluated. At day 180, 997 patients received open-label DEX implant. Except for cataract, the incidence of ocular adverse events was similar in patients who received their first or second DEX implant. Over 12 months, cataract progression occurred in 90 of 302 phakic eyes (29.8%) that received 2 DEX implant 0.7 mg injections versus 5 of 88 sham-treated phakic eyes (5.7%); cataract surgery was performed in 4 of 302 (1.3%) and 1 of 88 (1.1%) eyes, respectively. In the group receiving two 0.7-mg DEX implants (n = 341), a ≥ 10-mmHg intraocular pressure (IOP) increase from baseline was observed in (12.6% after the first treatment, and 15.4% after the second). The IOP increases were usually transient and controlled with medication or observation; an additional 10.3% of patients initiated IOP-lowering medications after the second treatment. A ≥ 15-letter improvement in BCVA from baseline was achieved by 30% and 32% of patients 60 days after the first and second DEX implant, respectively. Among patients with macular edema owing to BRVO or CRVO, single and repeated treatment with DEX implant had a favorable safety profile over 12 months. In patients who qualified for and received 2 DEX implant injections, the efficacy and safety of the 2 implants were similar with the exception of cataract progression. Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references. Copyright © 2011 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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.

To identify the risk factors that lead to the development of radiation retinopathy following plaque radiotherapy for posterior uveal melanoma. Radiation retinopathy is a slowly progressive, occlusive vasculopathy characterized by radiation-induced endothelial damage. Review of the medical records of patients with posterior uveal melanoma treated with plaque radiotherapy. Of 1300 patients with posterior uveal melanoma treated with plaque radiotherapy from July 1, 1976, through June 30, 1992, radiation retinopathy developed in 560 (43.1%). By using Kaplan-Meier survival estimates, we found that 5% of the patients had nonproliferative radiation retinopathy at 1 year (95% confidence interval [CI], 3%-6%) and 42% at 5 years (95% CI, 38%-45%). The proportion of patients with proliferative retinopathy was 1% at 1 year (95% CI, 0.2%-1.5%) and 8% at 5 years (95% CI, 5%-10%). Multivariate analyses showed that the subset of clinical variables best related to the development of nonproliferative radiation retinopathy were tumor margin of less than 4 mm from foveola (P<.001), tumor limited to the choroid (P = .002), and radiation dose rate of greater than 260 cGy/h to the tumor base (P = .02). The best subset of independent variables related to the development of radiation maculopathy were tumor of less than 4 mm to foveola (P<.001) and the use of radioisotope iridium 192 (192Ir) (P = .02) compared with iodine 125 (125I). From a multivariate model, the most important factors for the development of proliferative radiation retinopathy included diabetes mellitus (P = .01), radioisotope 192Ir (P = .01) compared with 125I, and tumor base of greater than 10 mm (P = .02). Radiation retinopathy is a common finding after plaque radiotherapy for choroidal melanoma, occurring in 42% of patients at 5 years. The main predictors of radiation retinopathy are posterior tumor location with margin near the foveola and high radiation dose rate to the tumor base.