<b><i>Background:</i></b> First-line treatment for diabetic macular edema (DME) is usually with antivascular endothelial growth factor agents, followed by intravitreal corticosteroids as a second-line treatment option. Long-term corticosteroids may offer quality of life and effectiveness benefits over short-term implants. <b><i>Objectives:</i></b> To evaluate outcomes of patients with persistent or recurrent DME who switched from a short-term (dexamethasone) to a long-term (fluocinolone acetonide, FAc) corticosteroid intravitreal implant in a real-world setting. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> This is a retrospective study in 9 Portuguese centers. An FAc intravitreal implant was administered according to product labeling. Effectiveness outcomes were mean change in visual acuity (VA; ETDRS letters), central retinal thickness (CRT; µm), and macular volume (MV; mm³). The safety outcome was mean change in intraocular pressure (IOP; mm Hg). All were analyzed at months 1 and 3, and then quarterly until month 24 after implantation. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Forty-four eyes from 36 patients were analyzed. Mean duration of DME was 3.3 ± 1.9 years, and mean follow-up was 8 months. From baseline following FAc implantation, VA increased significantly at months 1 and 6 (mean +6.82 and +13.02 letters, respectively; <i>p</i> = 0.005), and last observation carried forward (LOCF; mean +8.3 letters; <i>p</i> = 0.002). CRT improved significantly at months 1 and 6 (mean –71.81 and –170.77 µm, respectively; <i>p</i> = 0.001), and LOCF (mean –121.46 µm; <i>p</i> = 0.001). MV was consistently, but not significantly, decreased from baseline to LOCF (mean –0.69 mm³; <i>p</i> = 0.062). The mean change in IOP was –0.25 and +0.88 mm Hg at months 1 and 6, respectively (<i>p</i> = 0.268), and +1.86 mm Hg at LOCF (<i>p</i> = 0.036). Increases were controlled with topical medication in most cases. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The FAc intravitreal implant is effective in patients previously treated with short-term corticosteroid implants. Thus, after a suboptimal response to antiangiogenics or a short-term corticosteroid, a single FAc implant may be considered an effective and tolerable treatment that can improve long-term outcomes for patients with sight-threatening DME.

AIM: To investigate the safety and efficacy of intravitreal dexamethasone implants (Ozurdex®/DEX) in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) either naïve or non-naïve to anti-VEGF therapies who switched to DEX implant independent of response to anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (anti-VEGFs). METHODS: This was an audit retrospective review of medical records of patients with DME who switched to the DEX intravitreal implant. Patients were divided into 2 groups: patients naïve to antiangiogenic therapy and patients who were previously treated with anti-VEGFs. Data regarding demographics, changes in mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and intraocular pressure (IOP) was collected over 6mo. The demographic data mean changes in BCVA, CMT, and IOP were compared. Six-month follow-up data of 47 patients (57 eyes), who either switched to DEX implant irrespective of response to previous treatments or were treatment naïve before receiving DEX implant, was collected. RESULTS: Improvement in mean BCVA was observed from 1-4mo after injection with a decreased effect at month 6 as expected, with better outcomes in naïve compared to non-naïve patients. A statistically relevant decrease in mean CMT was observed during the follow-up period. An increase in mean IOP was observed in the first 2mo after DEX therapy. The mean number of injections of the overall population during the 6mo was 1.3. A subgroup analysis showed no relevant difference between phakic versus pseudophakic patients relative to measured outcomes. There was no cataract progression during the follow-up period and no adverse events reported. CONCLUSION: This real-life setting study shows that intravitreal DEX implant is effective and safe. The timings of greater therapeutic impact are concordant with previous studies and suggest that earlier treatment with corticosteroids may have an additional benefit in naïve patients.

Aim: Evaluate the real-life experience with ocriplasmin on vitreomacular traction (VMT) release and full-thickness macular hole (FTMH) closure in Portugal. Methods: Multicentric, retrospective study of 83 eyes of 78 patients who were treated with intravitreal ocriplasmin for VMT with and without FTMH. Primary outcomes were VMT release and FTMH closure. Secondary outcomes included visual acuity changes and structural features on spectral-domain ocular coherence tomography. Results: VMT resolved in 47 of the 83 eyes (56.6%) and 6 of the 12 FTMH were closed (50.0%). Mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improved from 65.1 at baseline to 70.8 ETDRS letters at the end of follow-up (p < 0.0001) with a mean follow-up of 138.8 days. Improvement in BCVA was significantly better in eyes with VMT release (p = 0.021). Approximately 73% of patients had normal ellipsoid zone integrity at the end of follow-up, 87% had no neurosensorial detachment and 40% had no intra- or subretinal fluid. Conclusion: VMT release and FTMH closure were achieved in more than half of the treated eyes and were correlated with significant BCVA improvements and favorable baseline characteristics. In fact, if a careful patient selection is carried out, VMT resolution with ocriplasmin can be optimized, tailoring the best approach to each patient.

The ideal surgical approach for epiretinal membranes should attempt to reduce mechanical trauma, light exposure, and dye toxicity.

No abstract