Ophthalmic Surgery, Lasers and Imaging Retina

Clinical Science Open Access

Real-World Assessment of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant in DME: Findings of the Prospective, Multicenter REINFORCE Study

Michael A. Singer, MD; Pravin U. Dugel, MD; Howard F. Fine, MD, MHSc; Antonio Capone, MD; John Maltman, PhD

  • Ophthalmic Surgery, Lasers and Imaging Retina. 2018;49(6):425-435
  • https://doi.org/10.3928/23258160-20180601-07
  • Posted June 21, 2018

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:

Dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX) (Ozurdex; Allergan plc, Dublin, Ireland) is approved for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME). This study assessed the real-world effectiveness, safety, and reinjection interval of DEX in adult patients with DME.

PATIENTS AND METHODS:

This was a phase 4, prospective, multicenter (18 U.S. sites), observational study.

RESULTS:

The study population comprised 177 patients (180 eyes; 93.8% previously treated). Baseline mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) were 54.4 letters and 424.6 μm, respectively. DEX was administered as monotherapy or with other DME therapy (55%/45%). The mean reinjection interval was 5.0 months. Mean maximum BCVA change from baseline after the first three DEX injections was +9.1 letters, +7.7 letters, and +7.0 letters, respectively (P < .001); 36.0% of eyes achieved 15-letter or greater BCVA improvement. Mean maximum CRT change from baseline was −137.7 μm (P < .001).

CONCLUSION:

DEX used alone or with other DME therapy improved visual and anatomic outcomes in DME patients in clinical practice, with no new safety concerns.

[Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2018;49:425–435.]

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:

Dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX) (Ozurdex; Allergan plc, Dublin, Ireland) is approved for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME). This study assessed the real-world effectiveness, safety, and reinjection interval of DEX in adult patients with DME.

PATIENTS AND METHODS:

This was a phase 4, prospective, multicenter (18 U.S. sites), observational study.

RESULTS:

The study population comprised 177 patients (180 eyes; 93.8% previously treated). Baseline mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) were 54.4 letters and 424.6 μm, respectively. DEX was administered as monotherapy or with other DME therapy (55%/45%). The mean reinjection interval was 5.0 months. Mean maximum BCVA change from baseline after the first three DEX injections was +9.1 letters, +7.7 letters, and +7.0 letters, respectively (P < .001); 36.0% of eyes achieved 15-letter or greater BCVA improvement. Mean maximum CRT change from baseline was −137.7 μm (P < .001).

CONCLUSION:

DEX used alone or with other DME therapy improved visual and anatomic outcomes in DME patients in clinical practice, with no new safety concerns.

[Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2018;49:425–435.]

Introduction

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is an increasingly frequent cause of visual impairment throughout the world because of the rising global prevalence of diabetes.1 In the U.S., it has been estimated that 3.8% of adults ages 40 years and older with diabetes mellitus have DME.2 A critical challenge is to address the refractory nature of the disease. Since the 1980s, standard of care for DME had been focal and/or grid laser photocoagulation of leaking microaneurysms and areas of retinal thickening to reduce the rate of further loss in vision.3 However, within the past few years, treatment options have expanded with the increasing use of intravitreal vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors and corticosteroids to reduce retinal thickening and improve vision in patients with DME.4

DME exhibits features of a chronic, localized, inflammatory response, including expression of a complex array of cytokine growth factors and proinflammatory mediators, recruitment and activation of leukocytes, and expression of transcription factors essential for cellular proliferation and apoptosis.5,6 Corticosteroids are a rational approach to DME treatment because they have anti-inflammatory effects and inhibit multiple pathways involved in the pathophysiology of DME.7 Effective intravitreal corticosteroid treatment of posterior segment disease requires use of a sustained-release delivery system to offset the short intravitreal half-life of corticosteroids.8 Dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX) (Ozurdex; Allergan plc, Dublin, Ireland) provides sustained release of dexamethasone to the retina, thereby reducing the need for frequent injections.9 In two large, multicenter, phase 3 trials (the MEAD study), a mean of four to five intravitreal injections of DEX 0.7 mg or 0.35 mg across a period of 3 years produced clinically significant visual and anatomic improvements in patients with DME.10 These findings provided the basis for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of DEX 0.7 mg in 2014 for the treatment of DME.

Currently, there is limited information relating to injection intervals and treatment outcomes with DEX as used in clinical practice in patients with DME. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to assess the real-world effectiveness and safety of DEX 0.7 mg, used either as monotherapy or with other DME treatments, in treatment-naïve and previously treated patients with DME.

Patients and Methods

Study Design

REINFORCE was a phase 4, prospective, multicenter, observational study conducted between August 13, 2014, and May 19, 2016, at 18 sites in the United States. The study protocol did not provide criteria for patient selection or give guidance on when or how to use DEX. All decisions regarding treatment and procedures were made at the discretion of the treating physicians in accordance with their usual clinical practice. No specific treatment beyond the initial DEX injection was mandated. The study protocol was approved by an institutional review board at each site, and the study was conducted in accordance with the International Council for Harmonization Good Clinical Practice Guideline. All participating patients provided written informed consent. The study is registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier NCT02188173.

Patients

Patients enrolled in the study were 18 years of age or older with DME in the study eye that was treated with DEX following its regulatory approval. Both eyes of a patient could be included in the study if both eyes had DME that was treated with DEX. Patients were excluded for concurrent participation in a clinical trial that required treatment or use of an investigational agent.

Procedures and Study Endpoints

Data recorded per the investigator's standard practice were collected at participating sites from the visit at the time of the patient's first DEX injection and all subsequent visits up to 1 year after the first DEX injection. Data collected included medical and ophthalmic history and demographics (at the first injection visit only), intravitreal injections and other procedures for treatment of DME, Snellen best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), optical coherence tomography (OCT), fluorescein angiography, intraocular pressure (IOP), use of concomitant IOP-lowering medications, ocular surgeries, and adverse events (AEs).

The primary effectiveness endpoints were the mean maximum BCVA change (best improvement) from baseline after each DEX injection, the percentage of eyes with improvement in BCVA of 15 or more Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters, and the mean average improvement in BCVA from baseline during the study using an area-under-the-curve (AUC) approach. Key secondary endpoints included the mean number of DEX injections received by patients, the mean time between DEX injections, the mean maximum improvement in BCVA from baseline across all injections, the percentage of eyes with a 10-letter or greater improvement in BCVA from baseline, the time to BCVA improvement of 10 or more, 15 or more letters from baseline, and the mean change in central subfield retinal thickness (CRT) from baseline by OCT after each DEX injection. Exploratory outcomes included the percentage of study eyes that achieved 20/40 or better BCVA, the percentage of study eyes that achieved CRT of 300 μm or less, and the percentage of study eyes that achieved both 20/40 or better BCVA and CRT of 300 μm or less at the same visit. Safety outcomes included increases in IOP and the incidence of AEs.

Analysis

The intent-to-treat data set of all study eyes that were administered a DEX injection was used for the analysis of effectiveness outcomes, ocular surgeries and procedures, and IOP. AEs and use of IOP-lowering medications were analyzed in the safety population of all patients who were administered a DEX injection in one or both eyes.

Statistical analyses were performed using Statistical Analysis Software version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Effectiveness data were summarized by DEX injection number and across all injection numbers, as well as by month and across all monthly post-baseline visits. In all CRT analyses and all BCVA analyses except the time to event analyses and the AUC analysis, if measurements were available from more than one visit after an injection or within a visit window, the measurement demonstrating the best outcome (greatest improvement from baseline) was used in the analysis. Snellen visual acuity measurements were converted to approximate ETDRS letters using the method described by Gregori et al.11 Changes from baseline were analyzed with paired t-tests. Calculations of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of study eyes used the exact binomial distribution. Time to BCVA and CRT improvement was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods. Preplanned subgroup analysis of key efficacy parameters was performed for variables including baseline lens status, duration of DME, prior laser treatment for DME, prior vitrectomy, and pattern of DEX use. AEs were categorized by preferred term using Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) version 19.0.

No formal sample size calculation was performed. The planned enrollment was approximately 200 patients.

Results

Patient Characteristics and Disposition

A total of 177 patients (180 study eyes; both eyes qualified in three patients) were enrolled at 18 U.S. sites. Patient demographics are summarized in Table 1. Most patients (84.2%) were white, 52.5% were male, and 59.3% were older than 65 years of age. Almost all patients (93.8%) had been treated previously for DME with intraocular pharmacotherapy and/or laser photocoagulation, and 29.4% had undergone vitrectomy. Table 2 lists baseline characteristics of the study eyes. DME had persisted for 1 year or longer in 65.6% of the study eyes. Two-thirds of the study eyes with documented lens status were pseudophakic. At baseline before DEX treatment, the mean BCVA in the study eyes was 54.4 letters (approximately 20/80 Snellen), and the mean CRT was 424.6 μm.

Baseline Characteristics of Patients

Table 1:

Baseline Characteristics of Patients

Baseline Study Eye Characteristics

Table 2:

Baseline Study Eye Characteristics

The study was completed by 172 (97.2%) patients. Of the five patients who exited the study early, two (1.1%) died before the study was completed, two (1.1%) were lost to follow-up, and one (0.6%) moved away from the area. Although the study protocol called for data to be collected through month 12 (360 ± 15 days) after the initial DEX injection, some physicians continued to collect and report data for a longer period of time (up to 16 months). All available data were used in the analysis.

Treatment Patterns

The mean (± standard deviation [SD]) number of DEX injections administered to study eyes was 2.0 ± 1.1 (range: one to five injections). During the study period, 77 study eyes (42.8%) received a single DEX injection, whereas 45 (25.0%), 35 (19.4%), 20 (11.1%), and three (1.7%) study eyes received two, three, four, and five DEX injections, respectively. The mean (± SD) interval between successive DEX injections was 21.8 ± 9.2 weeks (range: 7 weeks to 51 weeks). Effectiveness results are presented for the first three DEX injections, because the number of patients who received a fourth or fifth injection was too small for meaningful analysis.

In 99 study eyes (55.0%), DEX was the only treatment administered by intravitreal injection during the study. Eighty-one study eyes (45.0%) received other intravitreal injections in addition to DEX injections, most commonly intravitreal injections of aflibercept (Eylea; Regeneron, Tarrytown, NY) (21.1%), ranibizumab (Lucentis; Genentech, South San Francisco, CA) (13.9%), and bevacizumab (Avastin; Genentech, South San Francisco, CA) (9.4%). The mean number of non-DEX intravitreal injections administered during the study in these 81 study eyes was 2.8 (range: one to nine injections). Twelve study eyes (6.7%) were treated with a corticosteroid other than DEX (intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide or fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant) and nine study eyes (5.0%) received adjunctive retinal focal laser treatment during the study.

Visual Outcomes

Mean changes in BCVA from baseline during the study are shown in Figure 1. After the first three DEX injections, mean maximum improvement in BCVA from baseline in study eyes ranged from +7.0 approximate ETDRS letters to +9.1 letters and was statistically significant (P < .001). Across all DEX injections, the mean (± SD) maximum BCVA change from baseline was +11.7 letters ± 11.55 letters (95% CI, 9.97–13.46; P < .001, n = 172). The mean (± SD) average change in BCVA from baseline across all study visits in the AUC analysis was +3.6 letters ± 9.0 letters (95% CI, 2.27–4.97).

Mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline after each dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX) injection. When BCVA measurements were available from more than one visit after an injection, the value from the visit showing best improvement in BCVA was used for analysis. Numbers within bars indicate the number of patients with available data. Error bars indicate 95% confidence interval of the mean. *P < .001.

Figure 1.

Mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline after each dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX) injection. When BCVA measurements were available from more than one visit after an injection, the value from the visit showing best improvement in BCVA was used for analysis. Numbers within bars indicate the number of patients with available data. Error bars indicate 95% confidence interval of the mean. *P < .001.

Among the 172 study eyes with baseline BCVA data, 99 (57.6%) and 62 (36.0%) achieved an improvement in BCVA from baseline of 10 or more and 15 or more approximate ETDRS letters, respectively. The time to initial gain of 10 or more and 15 or more letters was typically 2 to 3 months for study eyes that achieved this magnitude of BCVA improvement (Figure 2A). The time to improvement in BCVA to 20/40 or better also was typically 2 to 3 months (Figure 2B). BCVA improved to 20/40 or better in 50 (42.7%) of the 117 study eyes with baseline BCVA worse than 20/40.

Kaplan-Meier analysis of time to improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). (A) Time to improvement in BCVA from baseline of 10 or more, or 15 or more, approximate ETDRS letters. (B) Time to improvement in BCVA to 20/40 or better (for eyes with baseline BCVA worse than 20/40).

Figure 2.

Kaplan-Meier analysis of time to improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). (A) Time to improvement in BCVA from baseline of 10 or more, or 15 or more, approximate ETDRS letters. (B) Time to improvement in BCVA to 20/40 or better (for eyes with baseline BCVA worse than 20/40).

Subgroup Analysis

DEX treatment was associated with beneficial effects on BCVA and CRT in subgroups defined by baseline lens status, duration of DME, prior laser treatment for DME, prior vitrectomy, and pattern of DEX use during the study (Table 3). The mean (SD) maximum change in BCVA from baseline across all DEX injections was 12.2 (13.5) letters in baseline phakic eyes versus 11.5 (11.2) letters in baseline pseudophakic eyes. In eyes that received intravitreal injections of DEX only, the mean (SD) maximum change in BCVA from baseline across all DEX injections was 11.5 (11.7), compared with 11.8 (11.5) in eyes that received DEX and other intravitreal injections.

Subgroup Analysis of Key Efficacy Parameters

Table 3:

Subgroup Analysis of Key Efficacy Parameters

Anatomic Outcomes

For the 134 study eyes with both baseline and post-baseline CRT data, the mean (SD) maximum change in CRT during the study was −137.7 (119.6) μm (95% CI, −158.15 to −117.29; P < .001). Mean change in CRT from baseline ranged from −121.2 μm to −140.3 μm after the first three DEX injections and was statistically significant at all months through month 12 (P ≤ .012) (Figure 3). CRT improved to 300 μm or less in 50 (45.0%) of the 111 study eyes with baseline CRT greater than 300 μm. Among the 98 study eyes with baseline BCVA worse than 20/40 and baseline CRT greater than 300 μm, 19 (19.4%) achieved both BCVA of 20/40 or better and CRT of 300 μm or less at the same visit during the study.

Mean maximum change in central retinal thickness (CRT) from baseline (A) after each dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX) injection and (B) by month after the initial DEX injection. Numbers within bars or by data points indicate the number of patients with available data. Error bars indicate 95% confidence interval of the mean. *P < .001.

Figure 3.

Mean maximum change in central retinal thickness (CRT) from baseline (A) after each dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX) injection and (B) by month after the initial DEX injection. Numbers within bars or by data points indicate the number of patients with available data. Error bars indicate 95% confidence interval of the mean. *P < .001.

Safety Findings

AEs were reported in 69 of 177 patients (39.0%) treated with DEX in this study. The most common AEs were ocular and included increased IOP, conjunctival hemorrhage, vitreous floaters, dry eye, ocular hypertension, and posterior capsule opacification (Table 4). Fourteen serious AEs occurred in 10 patients; the only serious AEs considered by the investigator to be related to DEX injection were endophthalmitis in two patients (1.1%). Two (1.1%) patients died during the study for reasons considered by the investigator to be unrelated to DEX (a cardiac disorder and a diabetic complication).

Adverse Events Reported in Three or More Patients

Table 4:

Adverse Events Reported in Three or More Patients

A similar increase in mean IOP was seen after each of the first three DEX injections (Figure 4). Among all 180 study eyes, 22 (12.2%) had an IOP measurement of 25 mm Hg or greater, five (2.8%) had an IOP measurement of 35 mm Hg or greater, and 23 (12.8%) had an increase in IOP from baseline of 10 mm Hg or greater during the study. One or more IOP-lowering medications were used in 22.8% of study eyes (41 of 180). One study eye that had a prior history of trabeculoplasty underwent a repeat trabeculoplasty during the study. No glaucoma incisional surgeries during the study were reported.

Mean intraocular pressure (IOP) after each dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX) injection. Numbers within bars indicate the number of patients with available data. Error bars indicate the standard deviation.

Figure 4.

Mean intraocular pressure (IOP) after each dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX) injection. Numbers within bars indicate the number of patients with available data. Error bars indicate the standard deviation.

Fifteen (8.3%) study eyes underwent cataract surgery during the study. Other common ocular surgeries and procedures were pars plana vitrectomy in eight (4.4%) study eyes and panretinal photocoagulation in eight (4.4%) study eyes.

Discussion

The treatment of DME has evolved during the past decade, with a progressive reduction in the use of focal laser therapy and a concomitant increase in utilization of intravitreal injections. The accompanying improvements in visual and anatomic outcomes have come at the cost of an increased frequency of annual clinic visits, with one center reporting a tripling in the number of patient visits from three to nine per year.12 Compared with anti-VEGF inhibitors, which currently dominate the treatment landscape, the use of sustained-release corticosteroids has the potential to reduce the injection burden for patients with DME while also offering therapeutic benefit.7 In addition, the durable action of intravitreal corticosteroids facilitates combination therapy.

The present study was conducted to better understand the usage and outcomes of DEX treatment in DME patients in a clinical practice setting. Treatment with DEX 0.7 mg alone or in combination with other DME therapy was effective in improving both visual and anatomic outcomes in this real-world population of patients, who typically had chronic, treatment-refractory DME. BCVA improved by a mean of +9.1, +7.7, and +7.0 approximate ETDRS letters after the first, second, and third DEX injection, respectively. The mean peak improvement in CRT was −137.7 μm, and 45% of patients with baseline CRT of greater than 300 μm achieved CRT of 300 μm or less during the study. DEX injections were administered on average at 5-month intervals. No new safety concerns were identified, and DEX injections were well tolerated.

The present study was not the first real-world study to assess DEX in patients with DME. Previously, the CHROME study evaluated DEX 0.7 mg in 120 study eyes with macular edema, including 34 eyes with DME, during a period of 6 months.13 In the subpopulation of patients with DME, the mean peak improvement in CRT was consistent with the present findings at −190.9 μm, and the mean peak improvement in BCVA in pseudophakic study eyes (1.5 Snellen lines equivalent, n = 23) was also consistent with the present findings. In the CHROME study, there was no significant improvement in the 11 phakic study eyes with DME. Possible reasons contributing to the lack of BCVA improvement seen in phakic study eyes might include the small sample size, the presence of long-standing DME with associated photoreceptor damage, or cataract development. Another real-world study conducted in Korea found that in patients with DME, DEX improved mean BCVA from 0.60 logMAR at baseline to 0.49 logMAR at 3 months and 0.55 logMAR at 6 months (mean improvement of 6 and 3 approximate ETDRS letters, respectively), and the mean CRT improved from 491.6 μm at baseline to 357.7 μm at 3 months and 412.5 μm at 6 months.14 Consistent with the present study, 48.9% of patients received additional treatment with intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy or a second DEX injection within 6 months, and the mean treatment-free interval was 4.4 months after the first DEX injection. Finally, in a real-world study of the dosing regimens of DEX used for DME treatment in France, the mean DEX injection interval was 4.9 months, with an average of 2.4 injections administered per year for patients with DME.15

Cataract progression and increases in IOP are side effects associated with intravitreal corticosteroids, and when they occur, prompt treatment is required for optimal outcomes.10 No cataract or glaucoma surgeries were required in a previously reported retrospective real-world study of 78 patients with DME who were treated with DEX, but in that study, patients received a single DEX treatment, and the follow-up was only 6 months.16 In the present study, cataract was reported as an AE in three patients (1.7%), and 15 study eyes (8.3%) underwent cataract surgery. Glaucoma was reported as an AE in five patients (2.8%). IOP increased to 25 mm Hg or higher in 12.2% of study eyes, but there was no evidence for a cumulative effect of sequential implants on IOP, and increases in IOP were generally managed with topical IOP-lowering medication. No patient required glaucoma incisional surgery. In the 3-year MEAD study, a similar percentage of DME patients with and without an IOP increase of 10 mm Hg or more achieved a 15-letter or greater BCVA improvement with DEX 0.7 mg, suggesting that the benefits of DEX treatment are not affected by IOP increases, which are typically well-managed with topical IOP-lowering medications.17

One limitation of this study, common to observational studies, is that there was no standardization of the type and timing of assessments, and many patients had missing data. For example, baseline BCVA data were missing for 4.4% of study eyes (eight of 180), and only 74% of study eyes (134 of 180) had any change from baseline CRT data available. Secondly, although data were collected for 12 months for most patients, the period of follow-up was variable, and some patients had data collected and analyzed beyond 12 months. Finally, use of treatments in addition to DEX implant was allowed and could have influenced the efficacy and safety outcomes. However, the majority of patients (55%) received no intravitreal therapy other than DEX implant during the study period, and improvements in BCVA and CRT were observed in the subgroup of patients treated with intravitreal DEX implant only, as well as in the subgroup of patients who received other intravitreal therapy.

In conclusion, the findings of this prospective, multicenter, observational study show that treatment of DME with DEX, either as monotherapy or in combination with other modalities of DME therapy, improves BCVA and CRT in real-world clinical practice. DEX injection frequency was consistent with previous reports, and no new safety concerns were identified.

References

  1. Sabanayagam C, Yip W, Ting DS, Tan G, Wong TY. Ten emerging trends in the epidemiology of diabetic retinopathy. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2016;23(4):209–222. doi:10.1080/09286586.2016.1193618 [CrossRef]
  2. Varma R, Bressler NM, Doan QV, et al. Prevalence of and risk factors for diabetic macular edema in the United States. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014;132(11):1334–1340. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.2854 [CrossRef]
  3. Arevalo JF. Diabetic macular edema: Current management 2013. World J Diabetes. 2013;4(6):231–233. doi:10.4239/wjd.v4.i6.231 [CrossRef]
  4. Stewart MW. Treatment of diabetic retinopathy: Recent advances and unresolved challenges. World J Diabetes. 2016;7(16):333–341. doi:10.4239/wjd.v7.i16.333 [CrossRef]
  5. Tang J, Kern TS. Inflammation in diabetic retinopathy. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2011;30(5):343–358. doi:10.1016/j.preteyeres.2011.05.002 [CrossRef]
  6. Zhang W, Liu H, Rojas M, et al. Anti-inflammatory therapy for diabetic retinopathy. Immunotherapy. 2011;3(5):609–628. doi:10.2217/imt.11.24 [CrossRef]
  7. Ciulla TA, Harris A, McIntyre N, Jonescu-Cuypers C. Treatment of diabetic macular edema with sustained-release glucocorticoids: intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide, dexamethasone implant, and fluocinolone acetonide implant. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2014;15(7):953–959. doi:10.1517/14656566.2014.896899 [CrossRef]
  8. Whitcup SM, Robinson MR. Development of a dexamethasone intravitreal implant for the treatment of noninfectious posterior segment uveitis. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2015;1358:1–12. doi:10.1111/nyas.12824 [CrossRef]
  9. Dugel PU, Bandello F, Loewenstein A. Dexamethasone intravitreal implant in the treatment of diabetic macular edema. Clin Ophthalmol. 2015;9:1321–1335. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S79948 [CrossRef]
  10. Boyer DS, Yoon YH, Belfort R Jr., et al. Three-year, randomized, sham-controlled trial of dexamethasone intravitreal implant in patients with diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(10):1904–1914. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.04.024 [CrossRef]
  11. Gregori NZ, Feuer W, Rosenfeld PJ. Novel method for analyzing Snellen visual acuity measurements. Retina. 2010;30(7):1046–1050. doi:10.1097/IAE.0b013e3181d87e04 [CrossRef]
  12. Jusufbegovic D, Mugavin MO, Schaal S. Evolution of controlling diabetic retinopathy: Changing trends in the management of diabetic macular edema at a single institution over the past decade. Retina. 2015;35(5):929–934. doi:10.1097/IAE.0000000000000438 [CrossRef]
  13. Lam WC, Albiani DA, Yoganathan P, et al. Real-world assessment of intravitreal dexamethasone implant (0.7 mg) in patients with macular edema: the CHROME study. Clin Ophthalmol. 2015;9:1255–1268.
  14. Moon BG, Lee JY, Yu HG, et al. Efficacy and safety of a dexamethasone implant in patients with diabetic macular edema at tertiary centers in Korea. J Ophthalmol. 2016;2016:9810270. doi:10.1155/2016/9810270 [CrossRef]
  15. Querques G, Darvizeh F, Querques L, Capuano V, Bandello F, Souied EH. Assessment of the real-life usage of intravitreal dexamethasone implant in the treatment of chronic diabetic macular edema in France. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2016;32(6):383–389. doi:10.1089/jop.2016.0010 [CrossRef]
  16. Guigou S, Pommier S, Meyer F, et al. Efficacy and safety of intravitreal dexamethasone implant in patients with diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmologica. 2015;233(3–4):169–175. doi:10.1159/000381356 [CrossRef]
  17. Maturi RK, Pollack A, Uy HS, et al. Ozurdex MEAD Study Group. Intraocular pressure in patients with diabetic macular edema treated with dexamethasone intravitreal implant in the 3-year MEAD study. Retina. 2016;36(6):1143–1152. doi:10.1097/IAE.0000000000001004 [CrossRef]

Baseline Characteristics of Patients

Characteristic Patient Population (n = 177)
Mean Age (SD), Years 67.0 (9.9)
  Range 38–90
Gender, n (%)
  Male 93 (52.5)
  Female 84 (47.5)
Race, n (%)
  White 149 (84.2)
  African-American 9 (5.1)
  Asian 9 (5.1)
  Other 10 (5.6)
Duration of Diabetes, Years
  ≤15 84 (47.5)
  >15 92 (52.0)
  Not recorded 1 (0.6)
HbA1c, n (%)
  ≤ 8% 30 (16.9)
  >8% 6 (3.4)
  Not recorded 141 (79.7)
History of Previous DME Treatment, n (%)
  Yes 166 (93.8)
    Laser 63 (35.6)
  No 11 (6.2)
History of Vitrectomy, n (%) 52 (29.4)
DME Perfusion Status, n (%)
  Nonischemic 113 (63.8)
  Ischemic 8 (4.5)
  Not applicable 53 (29.9)
  Not recorded 3 (1.7)

Baseline Study Eye Characteristics

Characteristic Study Eyes (n = 180)
Lens Status, n (%)
  Phakic 53 (29.4)
  Pseudophakic 109 (60.6)
  Aphakic 3 (1.7)
  Not recorded 15 (8.3)
DME Duration, n (%)
  <1 year 62 (34.4)
  ≥1 year to ≤2 years 40 (22.2)
  >2 years 78 (43.3)
Diabetic Retinopathy Severity, n (%)
  Mild 36 (20.0)
  Moderate 39 (21.7)
  Severe 38 (21.1)
  Not recorded 67 (37.2)
Mean BCVA (SD), Approximate ETDRS Letters (n = 172) 54.4 (20.2)
  Range 0–85
  Snellen equivalent (range) ∼20/80 (CF–20/20)
Mean CRT (SD), μm (n = 140) 424.6 (138.2)
  Range 179–920

Subgroup Analysis of Key Efficacy Parameters

Mean ± SD Maximum Improvement in BCVA After Each Injection, Letters Mean ± SD Maximum Improvement in CRT Across All Months, μm
Subgroup Injection 1 Injection 2 Injection 3
Baseline Lens Status
  Phakic 8.6 ± 11.5 (n = 52) 8.5 ± 14.8 (n = 29) 5.2 ± 17.8 (n = 13) −120.8 ± 113.5 (n = 42)
  Pseudophakic 9.4 ± 11.6 (n = 100) 7.4 ± 11.1 (n = 60) 7.6 ± 12.4 (n = 37) −142.4 ± 123.9 (n = 85)
Duration of DME
  <1 year 9.7 ± 8.9 (n = 62) 7.8 ± 11.0 (n = 36) 0.5 ± 9.2 (n = 15) −145.0 ± 121.4 (n = 48)
  1–2 years 8.9 ± 12.5 (n = 36) 10.1 ± 10.5 (n = 19) 9.4 ± 10.8 (n = 14) −118.7 ± 110.0 (n = 31)
  >2 years 8.6 ± 12.3 (n = 70) 6.5 ± 13.9 (n = 45) 9.3 ± 15.6 (n = 27) −142.1 (124.1) (n = 55)
Prior Laser Treatment for DME
  Yes 10.1 ± 13.6 (n = 56) 10.3 ± 13.0 (n = 34) 10.7 ± 14.7 (n = 21) −134.9 ± 115.6 (n = 35)
  No 8.5 ± 9.7 (n = 112) 6.3 ± 11.7 (n = 66) 4.8 ± 12.3 (n = 35) −138.7 ± 121.5 (n = 99)
Intravitreal Treatment During the Study
  DEX only 9.4 ± 11.7 (n = 92) 7.3 ± 12.7 (n = 51) 7.9 ± 14.0 (n = 31) −134.7 ± 122.8 (n = 74)
  DEX and other treatment 8.6 ± 10.5 (n = 76) 8.0 ± 12.0 (n = 49) 5.9 ± 12.8 (n = 25) −141.5 ± 116.4 (n = 60)
History of Vitrectomy
  Yes 12.5 ± 13.3 (n = 48) 12.6 ± 13.7 (n = 27) 13.1 ± 14.7 (n = 11) −159.0 ± 132.5 (n = 37)
  No 7.7 ± (9.9) (n = 120) 5.8 ± 11.3 (n = 73) 5.5 ± 12.8 (n = 45) −129.6 ± 113.9 (n = 97)

Adverse Events Reported in Three or More Patients

Adverse Event, n (%) Patient Population (n = 177)
Any adverse event 69 (39.0)
IOP increased 11 (6.2)
Conjunctival hemorrhage 8 (4.5)
Vitreous floaters 7 (4.0)
Dry eye 6 (3.4)
Ocular hypertension 6 (3.4)
Posterior capsule opacification 6 (3.4)
Glaucoma 5 (2.8)
Macular fibrosis 4 (2.3)
Vision blurred 4 (2.3)
Cataract 3 (1.7)
Eye pain 3 (1.7)
Photopsia 3 (1.7)
Vitreous detachment 3 (1.7)
Vitreous hemorrhage 3 (1.7)
Authors

From the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX (MAS); Retinal Consultants of Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, and Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles (PUD); Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, and New Jersey Retina, New Brunswick, NJ (HFF); Associated Retinal Consultants, Royal Oak, MI (AC); and Allergan plc, Irvine, CA (JM).

This study was presented in part at the 1st Retina World Congress on February 26, 2017, in Fort Lauderdale, FL.

This study was sponsored by Allergan plc, Dublin, Ireland. The study sponsor was involved in the study design, provided funding for medical writing and editorial assistance in the manuscript development, and approved the manuscript submission. A contract research organization, PRA Health Sciences (Lenexa, KS), was responsible for data management and performed the statistical analysis of the data. Howard Christian, PhD (Mediscinz Communications Limited, Mount Pisa, New Zealand), and Kate Ivins, PhD (Evidence Scientific Solutions, Philadelphia, PA), provided medical writing and editorial assistance with the manuscript preparation.

Dr. Singer is a consultant for Aerpio, Alimera, Allergan, Ampio, Genentech, and Santen and has received research grant support from Acucela, Aerpio, Alcon, Alimera, Allergan, Ampio, Genentech, Ophthotech, and Regeneron. Dr. Dugel is a consultant for Abbott/AMO, Acucela, Aerpio, Alcon, Alimera, Allergan, Annidis, ArcticAx, Avalanche, Clearside, Digisight, DOSE Medical, Genentech, Lutronic, Lux BioScience, Novartis, OD-OS, Omeros, Ophthotech, Opthea, Optovue, ORA, Regeneron, Roche, Pentavision, Stealth, Thrombogenics, and TopCon and is a minor stockholder of Aerpio, Alimera, Annidis, Neurotech, Ophthotech, and TrueVision. Dr. Fine is a consultant for Alimera, Allergan, Genentech, and Regeneron and has received research grant support from Alcon, Alimera, Allergan, Genentech, GSK, and Regeneron. Dr. Capone is a consultant for and/or has received research funding from Acucela, Allergan, Novartis, Spark, and Synergetics; has a patent with Retinal Solutions; and owns stock in FocusROP and Retinal Solutions. Dr. Maltman is an employee of Allergan.

The authors would like to acknowledge the REINFORCE Study Group principal investigators and sites: David G. Callanan, MD (Arlington, TX); Richard Chace, MD (Portsmouth, NH); Sanford Chen, MD (Santa Ana, CA); Pravin U. Dugel, MD (Phoenix, AZ); Lisa J. Faia, MD (Royal Oak, MI); Philip Ferrone, MD (Great Neck, NY); Howard F. Fine, MD (New Brunswick, NJ); Victor H. Gonzalez, MD (McAllen, TX); Nancy M. Holekamp, MD (Chesterfield, MO); J. Michael Jumper, MD (San Francisco, CA); Mathew W. MacCumber, MD, PhD (Oak Park, IL); Raj K. Maturi, MD (Indianapolis, IN); Sonia Mehta, MD (Philadelphia, PA); Mark E. Patron, MD (Denver, CO); Tushar M. Ranchod, MD (Walnut Creek, CA); Michael A. Singer, MD (San Antonio, TX); and Scott R. Sneed, MD (Traverse City, MI).

Address correspondence to Michael Singer, MD, 9157 Huebner Road, San Antonio, TX 78240; email: msinger11@me.com.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0). This license allows users to copy and distribute, to remix, transform, and build upon the article, for any purpose, even commercially, provided the author is attributed and is not represented as endorsing the use made of the work.
Received: August 16, 2017
Accepted: December 04, 2017

10.3928/23258160-20180601-07

Sign up to receive

Journal E-contents