Published in:
Open Access
01-04-2022 | Dexamethasone | Original Research
Dexamethasone Implant for Diabetic Macular Oedema: 1-Year Treatment Outcomes from the Fight Retinal Blindness! Registry
Authors:
Sanjeeb Bhandari, Pierre-Henry Gabrielle, Vuong Nguyen, Vincent Daien, Francesco Viola, Walid Bougamha, Stephanie Young, Barbara Romero-Nuñez, Marc Figueras-Roca, Javier Zarranz-Ventura, Daniel Barthelmes, Laura Sararols, Mark Gillies, Catherine Creuzot-Garcher
Published in:
Ophthalmology and Therapy
|
Issue 2/2022
Login to get access
Abstract
Introduction
Phase III clinical trials of dexamethasone intravitreal implant for diabetic macular oedema (DMO) have reported significant improvements in visual acuity (VA). Studies evaluating the treatment of DMO in routine clinical practice provide data to identify areas that need improvement. This study evaluated 12-month treatment outcomes of dexamethasone implant for DMO in routine clinical practice.
Methods
Retrospective data analysis of eyes that started dexamethasone implant for DMO from 1 June 2013 to 30 April 2019 in routine clinical practice tracked in the Fight Retinal Blindness! Registry.
Results
Of the 4282 eyes (2518 patients) that started DMO treatment in the specified period, 267 (6%) eyes (204 patients) received 454 dexamethasone implant injections. Two-fifths (106 eyes) had received prior treatment for DMO. The mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) VA change at 12 months was 1.8 (− 0.5, 4.2) letters from the mean (standard deviation [SD]) VA of 56.5 (19.8) letters at baseline, with 41% eyes achieving at least 20/40. The mean (95% CI) change in central subfield thickness over 1 year was − 79 (− 104, − 54) µm from a mean (SD) of 459 (120) µm at baseline. Eyes that completed 1 year of follow-up received a median (Q1, Q3) of 2 (1, 2) dexamethasone implants. One-tenth of phakic eyes received cataract surgery while 2% had a pressure response requiring anti-glaucoma medications.
Conclusions
One-year treatment outcomes of dexamethasone intravitreal implant for DMO in routine clinical practice were inferior to those in the clinical trials perhaps because of fewer treatments in clinical practice.