José Cunha-Vaz1, Paul Ashton2, Raymond Iezzi3, Peter Campochiaro4, Pravin U Dugel5, Frank G Holz6, Michel Weber7, Ronald P Danis8, Baruch D Kuppermann9, Clare Bailey10, Kathleen Billman11, Barry Kapik11, Frances Kane12, Ken Green11. 1. Association for Innovation and Biomedical Research on Light and Image, Coimbra, Portugal. Electronic address: cunhavaz@aibili.pt. 2. pSivida Corp., Watertown, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 4. Departments of Ophthalmology and Neuroscience, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 5. Retinal Consultants of Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona. 6. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany. 7. Service d'ophtalmologie, CHU Hôtel-Dieu, Nantes, France. 8. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin. 9. Gavin Herbert Eye Institute, University of California, Irvine, California. 10. Bristol Eye Hospital, Bristol, United Kingdom. 11. Alimera Sciences, Inc, Alpharetta, Georgia. 12. Apropos Pharmaceutical Consulting LLC, Suwanee, Georgia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To present the safety and efficacy of intravitreal implants releasing 0.2 μg/day fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) in patients with chronic versus nonchronic diabetic macular edema (DME). To assess ocular characteristics, anatomic changes, and re-treatment and ancillary therapies that may explain the differential treatment effect seen with intravitreal implants releasing FAc 0.2 μg/day in patients with chronic and nonchronic DME. An overall benefit-to-risk assessment for the FAc 0.2-μg/day and FAc 0.5-μg/day doses has been reported previously. DESIGN: Preplanned subgroup analysis of chronic (duration of diagnosis, ≥3 years) and nonchronic (duration of diagnosis, <3 years) DME in patients from 2 randomized, sham injection-controlled, double-masked, multicenter clinical trials. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with persistent DME despite 1 or more macular laser treatment were randomized 1:2:2 to sham injection (n = 185), FAc 0.2 μg/day (n = 375), or FAc 0.5 μg/day (n = 393). METHODS: Patients received study drug or sham injection and after 6 weeks were eligible for rescue laser. Based on re-treatment criteria, additional masked study drug could be given after 1 year. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage of patients with improvement of 15 letters or more from baseline. Secondary outcomes included other parameters of visual function and foveal thickness. RESULTS: At month 36, the difference between FAc 0.2 μg/day and sham control in the percentage of patients who gained 15 letters or more was significantly greater in chronic DME patients (FAc 0.2 μg/day, 34.0% vs. sham, 13.4%; P<0.001), compared with patients with nonchronic DME (FAc 0.2 μg/day, 22.3% vs. sham, 27.8%; P = 0.275). The greater response in patients with chronic DME was not associated with baseline ocular characteristics, changes in anatomic features, or differences in re-treatment or ancillary therapies. The ocular adverse event profile for FAc 0.2 μg/day was similar regardless of DME duration. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first published analysis correlating duration of diagnosis of DME with treatment effect. In patients with chronic DME, FAc 0.2 μg/day provides substantial visual benefit for up to 3 years and would provide an option for patients who do not respond to other therapy.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To present the safety and efficacy of intravitreal implants releasing 0.2 μg/day fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) in patients with chronic versus nonchronic diabetic macular edema (DME). To assess ocular characteristics, anatomic changes, and re-treatment and ancillary therapies that may explain the differential treatment effect seen with intravitreal implants releasing FAc 0.2 μg/day in patients with chronic and nonchronic DME. An overall benefit-to-risk assessment for the FAc 0.2-μg/day and FAc 0.5-μg/day doses has been reported previously. DESIGN: Preplanned subgroup analysis of chronic (duration of diagnosis, ≥3 years) and nonchronic (duration of diagnosis, <3 years) DME in patients from 2 randomized, sham injection-controlled, double-masked, multicenter clinical trials. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with persistent DME despite 1 or more macular laser treatment were randomized 1:2:2 to sham injection (n = 185), FAc 0.2 μg/day (n = 375), or FAc 0.5 μg/day (n = 393). METHODS:Patients received study drug or sham injection and after 6 weeks were eligible for rescue laser. Based on re-treatment criteria, additional masked study drug could be given after 1 year. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage of patients with improvement of 15 letters or more from baseline. Secondary outcomes included other parameters of visual function and foveal thickness. RESULTS: At month 36, the difference between FAc 0.2 μg/day and sham control in the percentage of patients who gained 15 letters or more was significantly greater in chronic DMEpatients (FAc 0.2 μg/day, 34.0% vs. sham, 13.4%; P<0.001), compared with patients with nonchronic DME (FAc 0.2 μg/day, 22.3% vs. sham, 27.8%; P = 0.275). The greater response in patients with chronic DME was not associated with baseline ocular characteristics, changes in anatomic features, or differences in re-treatment or ancillary therapies. The ocular adverse event profile for FAc 0.2 μg/day was similar regardless of DME duration. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first published analysis correlating duration of diagnosis of DME with treatment effect. In patients with chronic DME, FAc 0.2 μg/day provides substantial visual benefit for up to 3 years and would provide an option for patients who do not respond to other therapy.
Authors: Eric J Kim; Weijie V Lin; Sean M Rodriguez; Ariel Chen; Asad Loya; Christina Y Weng Journal: Curr Diab Rep Date: 2019-07-29 Impact factor: 4.810