The impact of vitrectomy on outcomes achieved with 0.19 mg fluocinolone acetonide implant in patients with diabetic macular edema. Issue 2 (March 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Augustin, Albert J; Bopp, Silvia; Fechner, Martin; Holz, Frank G; Sandner, Dirk; Winkgen, Andrea-M; Khoramnia, Ramin; Neuhann, Thomas; Warscher, Markus; Spitzer, Martin S; Sekundo, Walter; Seitz, Berthold; Duncker, Tobias; Ksinsik, Christian; Höh, Helmut
• Is Part Of: European journal of ophthalmology. Volume 32:Issue 2(2022)
• Page Start: 1101
• Page End: 1108
• Publication Date: 2022-03
• Subjects: Diabetic macular edema -- vitrectomy -- visual acuity -- corticosteroid -- ILUVIEN® -- Retro-IDEAL; Ophthalmology -- Periodicals; Eye -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 617.7005
• DOI: 10.1177/11206721211014728
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1120-6721

Abstract

Background: There is a lack of consensus on the use of intravitreal corticosteroid therapies in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) and prior vitrectomized eyes in clinical practice. Methods: Retro-IDEAL was a 3-year retrospective, multicenter study in patients with chronic DME (i.e. DME that persists or recurs despite treatment) treated with ILUVIEN ® (0.2 µg daily fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant), who had suboptimal outcomes with first-line vascular endothelial growth-factor inhibitors and other DME therapies. Results: A total of 81 eyes (63 patients) were included of which 39 eyes had undergone prior vitrectomy (PV group) while 42 eyes had not undergone prior vitrectomy (NPV). Baseline characteristics were balanced; however, more patients had proliferative diabetic retinopathy in the PV group vs. the NPV group (21.62% vs 9.38%, respectively). Over 36 months, mean visual acuity (VA) increased in both groups with a tendency for more ETDRS letters being gained in the NPV group (+5.33) vs. the PV group (+2.42). By month 36, central retinal thickness was reduced to ⩽300 µm in two-thirds of the eyes in both groups and the mean change from baseline in intraocular pressure was similar in both groups (+0.50 mmHg −0.75 mmHg; NPV and PV group). Conclusions: These long-term data suggest that the 0.2 μg/day FAc implant is effective in both vitrectomized and non-vitrectomized patients, with a manageable safety profile, and improved VA and reduced supplemental therapies for patients with a suboptimal response to first-line DME therapies. Clinicians may consider utilizing the FAc implant earlier in the DME disease process.