-
1.
Optical Coherence Tomography (Angiography) Biomarkers in the Assessment and Monitoring of Diabetic Macular Edema.
Suciu, CI, Suciu, VI, Nicoara, SD
Journal of diabetes research. 2020;:6655021
Abstract
Retinopathy is one of the most severe diabetes-related complications, and macular edema is the major cause of central vision loss in patients with diabetes mellitus. Significant progress has been made in recent years in optical coherence tomography and angiography technology. At the same time, various parameters have been attributed the role of biomarkers creating the frame for new monitoring and treatment strategies and offering new insights into the pathogenesis of diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema. In this review, we gathered the results of studies that investigated various specific OCT (angiography) parameters in diabetic macular edema, such as central subfoveal thickness (CST), cube average thickness (CAT), cube volume (CV), choroidal thickness (CT), retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL), retinal thickness at the fovea (RTF), subfoveal choroidal thickness (SFCT), central macular thickness (CMT), choroidal vascularity index (CVI), total macular volume (TMV), central choroid thickness (CCT), photoreceptor outer segment (PROS), perfused capillary density (PCD), foveal avascular zone (FAZ), subfoveal neuroretinal detachment (SND), hyperreflective foci (HF), disorganization of the inner retinal layers (DRIL), ellipsoid zone (EZ), inner segment/outer segment (IS/OS) junctions, vascular density (VD), deep capillary plexus (DCP), and superficial capillary plexus (SCP), in order to provide a synthesis of biomarkers that are currently used for the early diagnosis, assessment, monitoring, and outlining of prognosis.
-
2.
Combination of Intravitreal Bevacizumab and Topical Dorzolamide versus Intravitreal Bevacizumab Alone for Diabetic Macular Edema: A Randomized Contralateral Clinical Trial.
Fazel, F, Nikpour, H, Pourazizi, M
BioMed research international. 2020;:6794391
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate the efficacy of three intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) injections versus the same combined with 2% of topical dorzolamide in the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME). METHODS In this randomized double-masked clinical trial, 32 eyes of 16 treatment-naive patients with bilateral DME were enrolled. The eyes were randomly assigned to receive three monthly injections of IVB (1.25 mg) plus topical dorzolamide 2% twice daily or IVB (1.25 mg) plus topical artificial tear twice daily. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was the primary outcome of the study followed by the central macular thickness (CMT) and central macular volume (CMV) as the secondary outcomes. RESULTS Mean BCVA changes were insignificant in both groups. It changed from 0.21 ± 0.08 logMAR at baseline to 0.23 ± 0.09 (P=0.24) in the combination group and from 0.18 ± 0.09 logMAR to 0.21 ± 0.09 (P=0.11) in the IVB alone group, at 3 months, respectively. Changes in mean CMT and CMV were significant in both groups. However, the difference between the groups was not significant at all the visits. In the study, no major ocular complication or systemic side effects were noted regarding IVB or topical dorzolamide. CONCLUSION This randomized contralateral clinical trial demonstrated that adjuvant topical dorzolamide with IVB injection had no additional effects on IVB in the treatment of DME over a three-month course. This trial is registered with the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials under the registration code IRCT20131229015975N5.
-
3.
Randomized Safety and Feasibility Trial of Ultra-Rapid Cooling Anesthesia for Intravitreal Injections.
Besirli, CG, Smith, SJ, Zacks, DN, Gardner, TW, Pipe, KP, Musch, DC, Shah, AR
Ophthalmology. Retina. 2020;(10):979-986
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
PURPOSE To test the safety and preliminary efficacy of rapid, nonpharmacologic anesthesia via cooling for intravitreal injections. DESIGN Single-center, randomized phase 1 dose-ranging safety study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02872012). PARTICIPANTS Adults 18 years of age or older with a diagnosis of exudative macular degeneration or diabetic macular edema requiring bilateral anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy were included. METHODS A handheld device was developed to provide anesthesia via cooling to a focal area on the surface of the eye before intravitreal treatment (IVT). In 22 patients undergoing bilateral IVT, 1 eye was randomized to receive standard of care (SOC) lidocaine-based anesthesia and the other eye received cooling-anesthesia at 1 of 5 different temperatures and cooling times. Subjective pain was assessed via the visual analog scale (VAS; range, 1-10) at 2 time points: (1) immediately after IVT and (2) 4 hours after IVT. Treated eyes were assessed for ocular safety 24 hours after IVT. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES We determined the occurrence of adverse events in eyes treated with cooling anesthesia. Mean VAS pain scores immediately after IVT and 4 hours after IVT in eyes receiving cooling anesthesia were compared with eyes receiving SOC. RESULTS A total of 44 eyes were treated, 22 with cooling anesthesia and 22 with SOC. No dose-related toxicity was found with cooling anesthesia. Mild, transient adverse events were recorded in 32% of patients treated with cooling anesthesia versus 44% of patients receiving SOC. The mean±standard error of the mean (SEM) VAS pain scores immediately after intravitreal injection were 2.3 ± 0.4 for patients receiving SOC and 2.2 ± 0.6 in patients receiving -10° C cooling anesthesia (P = 0.8). Mean±SEM pain scores 4 hours after injection were 1.6 ± 0.4 for SOC and 1.2 ± 0.5 in the combined -10° C arms (P = 0.56). Total mean±SEM procedure time was 124 ± 5 seconds for patients treated with cooling anesthesia versus 395 ± 40 seconds for SOC (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS Ultra-rapid cooling of the eye for anesthesia was well tolerated, with -10° C treatment resulting in comparable levels of anesthesia to SOC with a reduction in procedure time.
-
4.
NOD-like Receptors in the Eye: Uncovering Its Role in Diabetic Retinopathy.
Lim, RR, Wieser, ME, Ganga, RR, Barathi, VA, Lakshminarayanan, R, Mohan, RR, Hainsworth, DP, Chaurasia, SS
International journal of molecular sciences. 2020;(3)
Abstract
Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is an ocular complication of diabetes mellitus (DM). International Diabetic Federations (IDF) estimates up to 629 million people with DM by the year 2045 worldwide. Nearly 50% of DM patients will show evidence of diabetic-related eye problems. Therapeutic interventions for DR are limited and mostly involve surgical intervention at the late-stages of the disease. The lack of early-stage diagnostic tools and therapies, especially in DR, demands a better understanding of the biological processes involved in the etiology of disease progression. The recent surge in literature associated with NOD-like receptors (NLRs) has gained massive attraction due to their involvement in mediating the innate immune response and perpetuating inflammatory pathways, a central phenomenon found in the pathogenesis of ocular diseases including DR. The NLR family of receptors are expressed in different eye tissues during pathological conditions suggesting their potential roles in dry eye, ocular infection, retinal ischemia, cataract, glaucoma, age-related macular degeneration (AMD), diabetic macular edema (DME) and DR. Our group is interested in studying the critical early components involved in the immune cell infiltration and inflammatory pathways involved in the progression of DR. Recently, we reported that NLRP3 inflammasome might play a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of DR. This comprehensive review summarizes the findings of NLRs expression in the ocular tissues with special emphasis on its presence in the retinal microglia and DR pathogenesis.
-
5.
Risk of Death Associated With Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Reibaldi, M, Fallico, M, Avitabile, T, Bonfiglio, V, Russo, A, Castellino, N, Parisi, G, Longo, A, Pulvirenti, A, Boscia, F, et al
JAMA ophthalmology. 2020;(1):50-57
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Although intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment represents the first-line therapy for many retinal diseases, the issue of their systemic safety is debatable. OBJECTIVES To assess whether intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy might be associated with increased risk of mortality and which variables are associated with the increase. DATA SOURCES PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched from inception to May 6, 2019. STUDY SELECTION Randomized clinical trials comparing intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment with control groups and with follow-up of at least 6 months were selected. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Data were independently collected by 2 investigators. Meta-analyses were conducted using the frequentist and Bayesian methods. For the frequentist approach, random- and fixed-effects models were used, with random-effects models considered the primary technique. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs were computed. For the bayesian approach, uninformative and informative priors were used. Odds ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were computed. Meta-regression analyses were based on random-effects models. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome measure was the all-cause death rate. Secondary outcomes included meta-regression analyses on the following variables: type of drug, number of injections, follow-up time, diagnosis, and cardiovascular risk. RESULTS Of 2336 studies identified, 34 unique studies with 8887 unique participants were included in the present meta-analysis. For the frequentist analysis, fixed- and random-effects models yielded similar estimates (ORs, 1.34 [95% CI, 0.95-2.07; P = .09] and 1.34 [95% CI, 0.89-2.01; P = .17], respectively). For the Bayesian approach, noninformative and informative priors yielded similar results (ORs, 1.34 [95% CrI, 0.79-2.34; 0.13 probability of OR≤1.00] and 1.40 [95% CrI, 0.82-2.32; 0.11 probability of OR≤1.00], respectively). Meta-regression analyses showed the following risk for 1 injection more: frequentist OR of 1.12 (95% CI, 1.04-1.22; P = .005) and Bayesian OR of 1.06 (95% CrI, 0.98-1.15; 0.06 probability of OR≤1.00). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this study, no difference was found in the mortality rate between intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment and control groups. Additional data seem warranted to determine whether the mortality rate is increased in patients receiving a greater number of injections.
-
6.
Cytokines and Growth Factors as Predictors of Response to Medical Treatment in Diabetic Macular Edema.
Torres-Costa, S, Alves Valente, MC, Falcão-Reis, F, Falcão, M
The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics. 2020;(3):445-452
Abstract
Diabetic macular edema (DME) is the most common cause of visual loss in patients with diabetes. Antivascular endothelial growth factors (anti-VEGF) agents are first-line therapy for DME. Nevertheless, up to 60% of patients (depending on the anti-VEGF drug used) have an inadequate response to anti-VEGF treatment. Several cytokines are increased in aqueous humor of patients with DME. Differences in response to treatment may be related to baseline cytokine levels. Intravitreal corticosteroids may be used as an alternative to anti-VEGF agents. Steroids have a different pharmacological profile and act on different pathophysiologic mechanisms. Their effect on aqueous humor cytokines is different from the effect of anti-VEGF therapy. This review highlights the major cytokines involved in DME and evaluates whether baseline cytokine levels could be predictors of response to treatment in DME. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents are efficient as diabetic macular edema (DME) treatment. However, in some cases, DME fails to respond to anti-VEGF intravitreal injections. Changes in cytokine levels after treatment supported the idea that other cytokines than VEGF are implicated in DME pathogenesis and could be predictors of response to anti-VEGF treatment or corticosteroids allowing targeted and individualized therapy guided by cytokine levels.
-
7.
Diabetic retinopathy, diabetic macular edema, and cardiovascular risk: the importance of a long-term perspective and a multidisciplinary approach to optimal intravitreal therapy.
Bandello, F, Toni, D, Porta, M, Varano, M
Acta diabetologica. 2020;(5):513-526
Abstract
Diabetic retinopathy (DR), diabetic macular edema (DME), and cardiovascular disease (CVD) resulting from vascular damage from persistently elevated blood glucose levels are among the serious secondary pathologies associated with long-standing diabetes mellitus. The established link between DR and CVD suggests the need for appropriate and early management of patients with diabetes to minimize CV risk. This is of particular importance in patients with recent, or a history of, major CV events. Early management of DR is a complex task that requires comprehensive evaluation and a multidisciplinary approach to manage complications, risk factors, and interactions between different aspects of the disease. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents have become an important therapeutic modality in ophthalmology. However, their use is contraindicated in patients with DR and/or DME with a CV event in the previous 3 months. In patients with DME, corticosteroids target the multifaceted inflammatory pathways involved in the pathogenesis of DR, with a broader spectrum of action than anti-VEGF agents. In this context, recent guidelines suggest the use of corticosteroids, and in particular dexamethasone intravitreal implant, as a well-tolerated and efficacious first-line treatment in patients with high CV risk, such as a history of or recent major CV events. This review focuses on the subset of diabetic patients with a prior CV event, DR, and DME and discusses the need for a holistic approach in evaluating the optimal therapeutic choice for the care of the individual patient, supported by real-world clinical experience on long-term dexamethasone intravitreal implant therapy.
-
8.
A Randomized, Double-Masked, Multicenter, Phase III Study Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Brolucizumab versus Aflibercept in Patients with Visual Impairment due to Diabetic Macular Edema (KITE).
Garweg, JG
Klinische Monatsblatter fur Augenheilkunde. 2020;(4):450-453
Abstract
BACKGROUND Brolucizumab is a single-chain variable antibody fragment (scVF) that specifically binds to VEGF-A. The results of two large phase III, multicentre, randomized clinical trials comparing intravitreal treatment with Brolucizumab and Aflibercept in neovascular age-related degeneration demonstrated its potency in the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). METHODS The currently tested injected dose of 6 mg Brolucizumab results in a 11.2 - 13.3 times higher equivalent molar dose compared to Aflibercept 2 mg. Thus, it is conceivable that the effect of Brolucizumab in DME exceeds that of other currently used anti-VEGF agents with regards to effect durability; this was confirmed for nAMD in a phase I/II study. RESULTS Approved anti-VEGF drugs have shown unprecedented success compared to laser treatment with regards to restoration of visual acuity and improvement of diabetic retinopathy severity scores for up to 5 years. The visual gains were sustained after the loading phase and a reduced number of injections were required after the first year independent of the treatment strategy. Compared to pan-retinal laser photocoagulation, the time to progression of DRP was markedly extended and was proven by better preservation of the visual field, prevention of severe vision loss, hemorrhagic complications, and the need for intraocular surgery. CONCLUSIONS The ongoing prospective, randomized, phase III clinical studies in DME, KITE, and KESTREL aim to confirm the non-inferiority of Brolucizumab 6 mg compared to Aflibercept 2 mg on a functional and morphological level as well as durability effect over 2 years.
-
9.
Prevalence, incidence and future projection of diabetic eye disease in Europe: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Li, JQ, Welchowski, T, Schmid, M, Letow, J, Wolpers, C, Pascual-Camps, I, Holz, FG, Finger, RP
European journal of epidemiology. 2020;(1):11-23
Abstract
To examine the prevalence and incidence of diabetic eye disease (DED) among individuals with diabetes in Europe, a systematic review to identify all published European prevalence and incidence studies of DED in individuals with diabetes managed in primary health care was performed according to the MOOSE and PRISMA guidelines. The databases Medline, Embase and Web of Science were searched to 2 September 2017. Meta-analyses and meta-regressions were performed. The pooled prevalence estimates were applied to diabetes prevalence rates provided by the International Diabetes Foundation atlas and Eurostat population data, and extrapolated to the year 2050. Data of 35 prevalence and four incidence studies were meta-analyzed. Any diabetic retinopathy (DR) and diabetic macular edema (DME) were prevalent in 25.7% (95% CI 22.8-28.8%) and 3.7% (95% CI 2.2-6.2%), respectively. In meta-regression, the prevalence of DR in persons with type 1 diabetes was significantly higher compared to persons with type 2 diabetes (54.4% vs. 25.0%). The pooled mean annual incidence of any DR and DME in in persons with type 2 diabetes was 4.6% (95% CI 2.3-8.8%) and 0.4% (95% CI 0.5-1.4%), respectively. We estimated that persons with diabetes affected by any DED in Europe will increase from 6.4 million today to 8.6 million in 2050, of whom 30% require close monitoring and/or treatment. DED is estimated to be present in more than a quarter of persons with type 2 diabetes and half of persons with type 1 diabetes underlining the importance of regular monitoring. Future health services need to be planned accordingly.
-
10.
Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab and aflibercept to treat diabetic macular edema from a US perspective: analysis of 2-year Protocol T data.
Holekamp, N, Duff, SB, Rajput, Y, Garmo, V
Journal of medical economics. 2020;(3):287-296
Abstract
Aims: Protocol T (NCT01627249) was a head-to-head study conducted by the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network that compared intravitreal aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME). A cost-effectiveness analysis accompanying the 1-year data of Protocol T revealed that aflibercept was not cost-effective vs ranibizumab for all patients, but could have been cost-effective in certain patient sub-groups if the 1-year results were extrapolated out to 10 years. The present study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of US Food and Drug Administration-approved anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents (ranibizumab, aflibercept) for treatment of DME using the 2-year data from Protocol T.Methods: Costs of aflibercept 2.0 mg or ranibizumab 0.3 mg, visual acuity (VA)-related medical costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were simulated for eight VA health states. Treatment, adverse event management, and VA-related healthcare resource costs (2016 US dollars) were based on Medicare reimbursement and published literature. VA-related health utilities were determined using a published algorithm. Patients were stratified by baseline VA: 20/40 or better; 20/50 or worse.Results: Total 2-year costs were higher, and QALYs similar, for aflibercept vs ranibizumab in the full cohort ($44,423 vs $34,529; 1.476 vs 1.466), 20/40 or better VA sub-group ($40,854 vs $31,897; 1.517 vs 1.519), and 20/50 or worse VA sub-group ($48,214 vs $37,246; 1.433 vs 1.412), respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in the full cohort and 20/50 or worse VA sub-group were $986,159/QALY and $523,377/QALY, respectively. These decreased to $711,301 and $246,978 when analyses were extrapolated to 10 years.Limitations: Key potential limitations include the fact that VA was the only QALY parameter analyzed and the uncertainty surrounding the role of better- and worse-seeing eye VA in overall functional impairment.Conclusions: This analysis suggests that aflibercept is not cost-effective vs ranibizumab for patients with DME, regardless of baseline vision.