Daniel F Martin1. 1. Cole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. Electronic address: martind5@ccf.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To present the evolution of intravitreal therapy for retinal diseases and its impact on clinical practice. DESIGN: Retrospective literature review and personal perspective. METHODS: Retrospective literature review and personal perspective. RESULTS: Pharmacotherapeutic advances in retinal disease have been remarkable over the last 25 years. Almost all of the new drugs developed have required intravitreal administration to be highly effective, leading to an exponential increase in the annual number of intravitreal injections given. The use of intravitreal antibiotic injections to treat endophthalmitis, usually on a one-time basis, first familiarized ophthalmologists with this method of drug delivery. Ganciclovir was the first widely available, relatively inexpensive compounded drug that was used for repeat intravitreal injection to treat a chronic retinal disease, followed by triamcinolone for diabetic macular edema and bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Ganciclovir was formulated for sustained-release drug delivery to avoid frequent intravitreal injections, a goal that has been more elusive for anti-VEGF drugs. Political obstacles encountered while conducting some of the trials to evaluate these treatments were substantial. Addressing the issues they raised led to important national policy changes that will impact the conduct of future clinical trials. The first comparative efficacy trial of intravitreal therapies was the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT). The primary results from CATT and the many publications that followed continue to shape the use of intravitreal therapy today. CONCLUSION: Intravitreal therapy has proven highly effective for the treatment of many retinal diseases. The treatment burden for patients from numerous injections, the cost to health care systems, and the impact on workflows in clinical practice have been substantial. Efforts to develop effective intravitreal therapies with reduced treatment burden and cost are ongoing.
PURPOSE: To present the evolution of intravitreal therapy for retinal diseases and its impact on clinical practice. DESIGN: Retrospective literature review and personal perspective. METHODS: Retrospective literature review and personal perspective. RESULTS: Pharmacotherapeutic advances in retinal disease have been remarkable over the last 25 years. Almost all of the new drugs developed have required intravitreal administration to be highly effective, leading to an exponential increase in the annual number of intravitreal injections given. The use of intravitreal antibiotic injections to treat endophthalmitis, usually on a one-time basis, first familiarized ophthalmologists with this method of drug delivery. Ganciclovir was the first widely available, relatively inexpensive compounded drug that was used for repeat intravitreal injection to treat a chronic retinal disease, followed by triamcinolone for diabetic macular edema and bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Ganciclovir was formulated for sustained-release drug delivery to avoid frequent intravitreal injections, a goal that has been more elusive for anti-VEGF drugs. Political obstacles encountered while conducting some of the trials to evaluate these treatments were substantial. Addressing the issues they raised led to important national policy changes that will impact the conduct of future clinical trials. The first comparative efficacy trial of intravitreal therapies was the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT). The primary results from CATT and the many publications that followed continue to shape the use of intravitreal therapy today. CONCLUSION: Intravitreal therapy has proven highly effective for the treatment of many retinal diseases. The treatment burden for patients from numerous injections, the cost to health care systems, and the impact on workflows in clinical practice have been substantial. Efforts to develop effective intravitreal therapies with reduced treatment burden and cost are ongoing.
Authors: D F Martin; J P Dunn; J L Davis; J S Duker; R E Engstrom; D N Friedberg; G J Jaffe; B D Kuppermann; M A Polis; R J Whitley; R A Wolitz; C A Benson Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Julia A Haller; Francesco Bandello; Rubens Belfort; Mark S Blumenkranz; Mark Gillies; Jeffrey Heier; Anat Loewenstein; Young-Hee Yoon; Marie-Louise Jacques; Jenny Jiao; Xiao-Yan Li; Scott M Whitcup Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2010-04-24 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: B D Kuppermann; J G Petty; D D Richman; W C Mathews; S C Fullerton; L S Rickman; W R Freeman Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 1993-05-15 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: A C Collier; R W Coombs; D A Schoenfeld; R L Bassett; J Timpone; A Baruch; M Jones; K Facey; C Whitacre; V J McAuliffe; H M Friedman; T C Merigan; R C Reichman; C Hooper; L Corey Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1996-04-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Juan E Grunwald; Ebenezer Daniel; Jiayan Huang; Gui-Shuang Ying; Maureen G Maguire; Cynthia A Toth; Glenn J Jaffe; Stuart L Fine; Barbara Blodi; Michael L Klein; Alison A Martin; Stephanie A Hagstrom; Daniel F Martin Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2013-09-29 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Jeffrey S Heier; David M Brown; Victor Chong; Jean-Francois Korobelnik; Peter K Kaiser; Quan Dong Nguyen; Bernd Kirchhof; Allen Ho; Yuichiro Ogura; George D Yancopoulos; Neil Stahl; Robert Vitti; Alyson J Berliner; Yuhwen Soo; Majid Anderesi; Georg Groetzbach; Bernd Sommerauer; Rupert Sandbrink; Christian Simader; Ursula Schmidt-Erfurth Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-10-17 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Usha Chakravarthy; Simon P Harding; Chris A Rogers; Susan M Downes; Andrew J Lotery; Sarah Wordsworth; Barnaby C Reeves Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-05-11 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Rebecca E H Whiting; Jacqueline W Pearce; Daniella P Vansteenkiste; Katherine Bibi; Stefanie Lim; Grace Robinson Kick; Leilani J Castaner; John Sinclair; Sundeep Chandra; Annalisa Nguyen; Charles A O'Neill; Martin L Katz Journal: Exp Eye Res Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 3.467
Authors: Zhenxi Song; Liangyu Xu; Jiang Wang; Reza Rasti; Ananth Sastry; Jianwei D Li; William Raynor; Joseph A Izatt; Cynthia A Toth; Lejla Vajzovic; Bin Deng; Sina Farsiu Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2020-07-21 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Aaron B Simmons; Colin A Bretz; Haibo Wang; Eric Kunz; Kassem Hajj; Carson Kennedy; Zhihong Yang; Thipparat Suwanmanee; Tal Kafri; M Elizabeth Hartnett Journal: Angiogenesis Date: 2018-05-05 Impact factor: 9.596
Authors: Cynthia K McClard; Rui Wang; Victoria Windham; Jose Munoz; Samuel Gomez; Sagit Fried; Namrata Saroj; Carl Regillo; Charles Clifton Wykoff; Adriana M Strutt Journal: BMJ Open Ophthalmol Date: 2021-04-07
Authors: Lindsay Y Chun; Laura Dolle-Molle; Cindy Bethel; Rose C Dimitroyannis; Blake L Williams; Sidney A Schechet; Seenu M Hariprasad; Dominique Missiakas; Olaf Schneewind; Kathleen G Beavis; Dimitra Skondra Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-12-30 Impact factor: 3.240