BackgroundDiabetic macular edema (DME) can be treated with different alternatives, among them Dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.7 mg (DEX 0.7) has demonstrated that may improve both central macular thickness (CMT) and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA). This study aimed to evaluate the effect of the intravitreal dexamethasone implant Ozurdex® in patients with different subtypes of diabetic macular edema over a 6-month follow-up period.MethodsEighty-four (29 naïve and 55 previously treated) eyes were included in this retrospective study. For each patient, the BCVA [Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) charts] and macular thickness on optical coherence tomography (OCT) at baseline visit and within the 2nd, 4th, and 6th months of follow-up were obtained. The main outcomes measurements were the mean change in BCVA and in CMT with respect to the baseline value. The percentage of patients gaining ≥5 letters and ≥ 10 letters in BCVA was also analyzed. Results: A total of 84 eyes, 29 (34.5%) naïve and 55 (65.5%) non-naïve, from 69 patients were included in the study. BCVA at baseline was 58.8 (16.4) and 61.8 (11.6) in naïve and refractory patients, respectively, p = 0.4513. At every visit, BCVA significantly improved from baseline in naïve and non-naïve eyes (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0003, respectively; Friedman rank sum test). At baseline, the mean CMT was 466.2 (189.7) μm and 448.1 (110.7) μm in the naïve and non-naïve patients, respectively (p = 0.5830); and decreased to 339.3 (92.5) μm and 357.5 (79.1) μm, respectively (p = 0.0004 and p < 0.0001, respectively, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). The proportion of patients gaining ≥10 letters was significantly greater in the naïve group, p = 0.0199.ConclusionThe intravitreal dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex) is effective for the treatment of diabetic macular edema, even in refractory cases that have failed to respond to previous therapies.

Objective: The aim of this paper is to compare intravitreous aflibercept versus dexamethasone implant followed by aflibercept (sequential treatment group) in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). Methods: We conducted an observational retrospective study in naïve DME patients, 15 treated only with aflibercept (a monthly injection for the first 5 consecutive doses, followed by an injection every 2 months), and 15 treated with a single dexamethasone implant followed by bimonthly aflibercept. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and qualitative features as well as adverse events were assessed at baseline and at 2, 6, and 12 months. Results: BCVA increased from 70.8 ± 4.1 to 83.5 ± 2.7 letters with aflibercept and from 75.6 ± 2.7 to 86.5 ± 2.5 with sequential treatment (p = 0.551). CMT decreased from 411 ± 26.1 to 288.1 ± 10.5 with aflibercept and from 411.4 ± 24.3 to 260.8 ± 17.9 in the sequential treatment group. The differences between the 2 groups, in terms of visual gain and decreased MT, were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Nine and 6 injections and 9 and 7 monitoring visits were performed. Conclusion: Sequential treatment in DME, starting with dexamethasone and followed by aflibercept, is a promising alternative that can reduce the treatment burden in the first year without statistically significant differences in terms of visual gain and decreased MT compared to aflibercept only.

Significance Susac’s syndrome is a rare retinocochleocerebral immune-mediated endotheliopathy and clinically manifests as a pathognomonic triad of encephalopathy, hearing loss, and branch retinal artery occlusion. This triad is rarely present at symptom onset, thus, it is often initially misdiagnosed. To date, Susac’s syndrome has persisted as an elusive entity and there are numerous treatment regimens proposed with varying effectiveness mainly based on case series. Purpose To report our 12-month follow-up experience in the treatment of Susac’s syndrome with rituximab. Case report A 25-year-old female presenting with headache, paresthesias, tinnitus, peripheral vertigo, and a branch retinal artery occlusion. The patient had a personal history of anxiety-depressive disorder. After discarding other infectious/autoimmune conditions and magnetic resonance imaging suggestive findings of Susac’s syndrome, we observed a prompt response to the combination of intravenous immunoglobulin, corticosteroids, and rituximab. Conclusion A standard treatment paradigm is lacking in Susac’s syndrome as randomized controlled trials do not exist. There are no definitive scores to predict its outcome, and early diagnosis is important as the organs involved can easily become irreversibly damaged. Thus, patients with Susac’s syndrome must be treated promptly and aggressively. Our report highlights the possibility of positive long-term prognosis with an early use of rituximab. However, a systematic therapeutic approach on the basis of controlled trials is mandatory to develop a consensus.

No abstract

Autoimmunity against collapsin response-mediator protein-5 (anti-CRMP-5) has been associated with ocular inflammation in paraneoplastic syndrome. We present a 59-year-old Caucasian man with optic neuritis and vitreous cells in both eyes (OU), at different stages. Despite the fact that the patient did not have any systemic disease, we suspected a paraneoplastic syndrome and requested CRMP-5-IgG and a mediastinoscopy. After performing the tests, a small cell lung carcinoma was diagnosed. Autoantibody CRMP-5-IgG positivity and optic neuritis combined with vitreous inflammation was defined as a paraneoplastic entity, avoiding vitreous biopsy and allowing us to suspect malignancy before systemic symptoms appeared.