52
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Two or more dexamethasone intravitreal implants in treatment-naïve patients with macular edema due to retinal vein occlusion: subgroup analysis of a retrospective chart review study

      research-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

          Background

          Dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX implant) is a biodegradable, sustained-release implant that releases dexamethasone for up to 6 months. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of DEX implant in the treatment of macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) in treatment-naïve patients.

          Methods

          A multicenter, retrospective, open-label chart review study investigated the efficacy and safety of DEX implant treatment in 289 patients with macular edema secondary to branch or central RVO (BRVO, CRVO) who received ≥2 treatments with DEX implant in the study eye. Concomitant adjunctive RVO treatments were permitted. Data collected from the time of the first implant (baseline) to 3–6 months after the last implant included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness measured with optical coherence tomography. In this subgroup analysis, we evaluated outcomes in patients who had received no previous treatment for RVO complications.

          Results

          Thirty-nine patients were treatment-naïve at the time of their first DEX implant (18 BRVO, 21 CRVO). Before the initial DEX implant, the mean duration of macular edema in treatment-naïve patients was 4.9 months, mean central retinal thickness was 550 μm, and mean Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study BCVA was 8.5 lines (20/125 Snellen). Treatment-naïve patients received a mean of 2.9 implants, either as monotherapy ( n = 12) or with adjunctive RVO treatments ( n = 27). The mean interval between implants was 177 days. After the first through sixth implants, mean changes from baseline BCVA ranged from +3.0 − +8.0 lines, and mean decreases from baseline central retinal thickness ranged from 241–459 μm. BCVA improved in both BRVO and CRVO and in both phakic and pseudophakic eyes. Overall, 83.8 % of treatment-naïve patients gained ≥2 lines in BCVA, 70.3 % gained ≥3 lines in BCVA, and 56.4 % achieved central retinal thickness ≤250 μm. The most common adverse event was increased intraocular pressure. Fifteen treatment-naïve patients had intraocular pressure ≥25 mm Hg; none required laser or incisional glaucoma surgery.

          Conclusion

          Treatment with 2 or more DEX implants had a favorable safety profile and improved visual acuity and anatomic outcomes when used, either alone or with adjunctive RVO therapy, as initial treatment for RVO-associated macular edema.

          Trial registration

          ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01411696, registered on August 5, 2011.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

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

          Dexamethasone intravitreal implant in patients with macular edema related to branch or central retinal vein occlusion twelve-month study results.

          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.
            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

              Retinal vein thrombosis: pathogenesis and management.

              Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is the most common retinal vascular disease after diabetic retinopathy. Owing to its multifactorial nature, however, management of this condition remains a challenge. Of the two main types of RVO, branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) is more prevalent than central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO). Most patients develop the disease at an elderly age, and more than half of them have associated systemic disorders (e.g. hypertension, hyperlipidemia and/or diabetes mellitus). There is no evidence to suggest routine testing for heritable thrombophilias in patients with RVO. The main cause of the visual impairment is macular edema, while neovascularization of the retina and optic disc are the most serious complications leading to vitreous hemorrhage, retinal detachment and neovascular glaucoma. Macular grid laser photocoagulation is an effective treatment for macular edema in patients with BRVO and a visual acuity of 20/40 or less. Other treatment options for reducing the edema are intravitreal steroids, anti-VEGF drugs and vitrectomy. The recently introduced intravitreal application of steroids and anti-VEGF drugs may prove to be a better approach for improving visual acuity. Finally, scatter panretinal laserphotocoagulation can effectively treat neovascularization and its secondary complications. © 2010 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (602) 222-2221 , pdugel@gmail.com
                acaponejr@yahoo.com
                msinger11@mac.com
                rdreyer@msn.com
                daviddodwell@comcast.net
                rothretina@gmail.com
                Shi_Rui@Allergan.com
                johnGwalt@gmail.com
                drlcscott@gmail.com
                Hollander_David@Allergan.com
                Journal
                BMC Ophthalmol
                BMC Ophthalmol
                BMC Ophthalmology
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2415
                4 September 2015
                4 September 2015
                2015
                : 15
                : 118
                Affiliations
                [ ]Retinal Consultants of Arizona, 1101 E. Missouri Avenue, P.O. Box 32530, Phoenix, AZ 85014-2709 USA
                [ ]Associated Retinal Consultants, Novi, MI USA
                [ ]Medical Center Ophthalmology Associates, San Antonio, TX USA
                [ ]Retina Northwest PC, Portland, OR USA
                [ ]Illinois Retina Center, Springfield, IL USA
                [ ]Retina-Vitreous Center, Rutgers-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ USA
                [ ]Allergan, Inc., Irvine, CA USA
                Article
                106
                10.1186/s12886-015-0106-z
                4558971
                26337664
                9d81a520-55cd-46ea-929f-906d5b6f1c65
                © Dugel et al. 2015

                Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 12 February 2015
                : 19 August 2015
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2015

                Ophthalmology & Optometry
                Ophthalmology & Optometry

                Comments

                Comment on this article