No abstract

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the real-world use, efficacy, and safety of one or more dexamethasone intravitreal implant(s) 0.7 mg (DEX implant) in patients with macular edema (ME).MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of patients with ME secondary to retinal disease treated at ten Canadian retina practices, including one uveitis center. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), intraocular pressure (IOP), glaucoma and cataract surgery, and safety data were collected from the medical charts of patients with ≥3 months of follow-up after the initial DEX implant.ResultsOne hundred and one patient charts yielded data on 120 study eyes, including diagnoses of diabetic ME (DME) (n=34), retinal vein occlusion (RVO, n=30; branch in 19 and central in 11), and uveitis (n=23). Patients had a mean age of 60.9 years, and 73.3% of the study eyes had ME for a duration of ≥12 months prior to DEX implant injection(s). Baseline mean (± standard error) BCVA was 0.63±0.03 logMAR (20/86 Snellen equivalents) and mean CRT was 474.4±18.2 μm. The mean number of DEX implant injections was 1.7±0.1 in all study eyes; 44.2% of eyes had repeat DEX implant injections (reinjection interval 2.3–4.9 months). The greatest mean peak changes in BCVA lines of vision occurred in study eyes with uveitis (3.3±0.6, P<0.0001), followed by RVO (1.3±0.5, P<0.01) and DME (0.7±0.5, P>0.05). Significant decreases in CRT were observed: −255.6±43.6 μm for uveitis, −190.9±23.5 μm for DME, and −160.7±39.6 μm for RVO (P<0.0001 for all cohorts). IOP increases of ≥10 mmHg occurred in 20.6%, 24.1%, and 22.7% of DME, RVO, and uveitis study eyes, respectively. IOP-lowering medication was initiated in 29.4%, 16.7%, and 8.7% of DME, RVO, and uveitis study eyes, respectively. Glaucoma surgery was performed in 1.7% of all study eyes and cataract surgery in 29.8% of all phakic study eyes receiving DEX implant(s).ConclusionDEX implant(s) alone or combined with other treatments and/or procedures resulted in functional and anatomic improvements in long-standing ME associated with retinal disease.

Vitrectomy for macular detachment due to optic disk pit has good long-term success and results in an improvement in visual acuity. However, adjuvant techniques such as internal limiting membrane peel and temporal endolaser may not improve outcomes, nor does there seem to be a difference between short- and long-acting gases. Patients should be made aware that it can take more than a year and multiple surgeries to achieve foveal reattachment and that increased baseline central retinal thickness is a poor prognostic sign.

Background: The availability of new therapeutic approaches, particularly intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapies, has prompted significant changes to the established treatment paradigms for retinal vein occlusion (RVO). Better visual outcomes and significantly lower rates of adverse events have been noted in multiple large randomized clinical trials and have led to a new standard of care for this sight-threatening condition. Objective: To develop an expert consensus for the management of RVO and associated complications in the context of recent clinical evidence. Methods: The development of a Canadian expert consensus for optimal treatment began with a review of clinical evidence, daily practice, and existing treatment guidelines and algorithms. The expert clinicians (11 Canadian retina specialists) met on February 1, 2014, in Toronto to discuss their findings and to propose strategies for consensus. Results: The result of this expert panel is a consensus proposal for Canadian ophthalmologists and retina specialists treating patients presenting with RVO. Treatment algorithms specific to branch and central RVO (BRVO and CRVO) were also developed. Conclusions: The consensus provides guidelines to aid clinicians in managing RVO and associated complications in their daily practice. In summary, laser remains the therapy of choice when neovascularization secondary to RVO is detected. Adjunctive anti-VEGF could be considered in managing neovascularization secondary to RVO in cases of vitreous hemorrhage. Intravitreal anti-VEGF should be considered for symptomatic visual loss associated with center-involving macular edema on optical coherence tomography. Patients with BRVO and a suboptimal response to anti-VEGF could be treated with grid laser, and those with CRVO and an inadequate response to anti-VEGF may be candidates for intravitreal steroids.