Jennifer E Thorne1, Elizabeth A Sugar2, Janet T Holbrook3, Alyce E Burke3, Michael M Altaweel4, Albert T Vitale5, Nisha R Acharya6, John H Kempen7, Douglas A Jabs8. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, The Wilmer Eye Institute, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; Center for Clinical Trials and Data Synthesis, Department of Epidemiology, The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland. Electronic address: jthorne@jhmi.edu. 2. Center for Clinical Trials and Data Synthesis, Department of Epidemiology, The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland; Center for Clinical Trials and Data Synthesis, Department of Biostatistics, The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Center for Clinical Trials and Data Synthesis, Department of Epidemiology, The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland. 4. The Fundus Photograph Reading Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin. 5. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. 6. Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Department of Epidemiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 7. Department of Ophthalmology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Eye Unit, MyungSung Christian Medical Center and MyungSung Medical School, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 8. Center for Clinical Trials and Data Synthesis, Department of Epidemiology, The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland; Department of Ophthalmology, The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York; Department of Medicine, The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of 3 regional corticosteroid injections for uveitic macular edema (ME): periocular triamcinolone acetonide (PTA), intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (ITA), and the intravitreal dexamethasone implant (IDI). DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with uveitic ME. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 1 of the 3 therapies. Patients with bilateral ME were assigned the same treatment for both eyes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of baseline (PropBL) central subfield thickness (CST) at 8 weeks (CST at 8 weeks/CST at baseline) assessed with OCT by masked readers. Secondary outcomes included ≥20% improvement and resolution of ME, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and intraocular pressure (IOP) events over 24 weeks. RESULTS: All treatment groups demonstrated improved CST during follow-up. At 8 weeks, each group had clinically meaningful reductions in CST relative to baseline (PropBL: 0.77, 0.61, and 0.54, respectively, which translates to reductions of 23%, 39%, and 46% for PTA, ITA, and IDI, respectively). Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (PropBL ITA/PropBL PTA, hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; 99.87% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-0.96) and IDI (PropBL IDI/PropBL PTA, HR, 0.69; 99.87% CI, 0.56-0.86) had larger reductions in CST than PTA (P < 0.0001). Intravitreal dexamethasone implant was noninferior to ITA at 8 weeks (PropBL IDI/PropBL ITA, HR, 0.88; 99.87% CI, 0.71-1.08). Both ITA and IDI treatments also were superior to PTA treatment in improving and resolving uveitic ME. All treatment groups demonstrated BCVA improvement throughout follow-up. Both ITA and IDI groups had improvements in BCVA that was 5 letters greater than in the PTA group at 8 weeks (P < 0.004). The risk of having IOP ≥24 mmHg was higher in the intravitreal treatment groups compared with the periocular group (HR, 1.83; 95% CI, 0.91-3.65 and HR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.29-4.91 for ITA and IDI, respectively); however, there was no significant difference between the 2 intravitreal treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide and the IDI were superior to PTA for treating uveitic ME with modest increases in the risk of IOP elevation. This risk did not differ significantly between intravitreal treatments.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of 3 regional corticosteroid injections for uveitic macular edema (ME): periocular triamcinolone acetonide (PTA), intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (ITA), and the intravitreal dexamethasone implant (IDI). DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with uveitic ME. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 1 of the 3 therapies. Patients with bilateral ME were assigned the same treatment for both eyes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of baseline (PropBL) central subfield thickness (CST) at 8 weeks (CST at 8 weeks/CST at baseline) assessed with OCT by masked readers. Secondary outcomes included ≥20% improvement and resolution of ME, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and intraocular pressure (IOP) events over 24 weeks. RESULTS: All treatment groups demonstrated improved CST during follow-up. At 8 weeks, each group had clinically meaningful reductions in CST relative to baseline (PropBL: 0.77, 0.61, and 0.54, respectively, which translates to reductions of 23%, 39%, and 46% for PTA, ITA, and IDI, respectively). Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (PropBL ITA/PropBL PTA, hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; 99.87% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-0.96) and IDI (PropBL IDI/PropBL PTA, HR, 0.69; 99.87% CI, 0.56-0.86) had larger reductions in CST than PTA (P < 0.0001). Intravitreal dexamethasone implant was noninferior to ITA at 8 weeks (PropBL IDI/PropBL ITA, HR, 0.88; 99.87% CI, 0.71-1.08). Both ITA and IDI treatments also were superior to PTA treatment in improving and resolving uveitic ME. All treatment groups demonstrated BCVA improvement throughout follow-up. Both ITA and IDI groups had improvements in BCVA that was 5 letters greater than in the PTA group at 8 weeks (P < 0.004). The risk of having IOP ≥24 mmHg was higher in the intravitreal treatment groups compared with the periocular group (HR, 1.83; 95% CI, 0.91-3.65 and HR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.29-4.91 for ITA and IDI, respectively); however, there was no significant difference between the 2 intravitreal treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide and the IDI were superior to PTA for treating uveitic ME with modest increases in the risk of IOP elevation. This risk did not differ significantly between intravitreal treatments.
Authors: Ahmed Sallam; Simon R J Taylor; Zohar Habot-Wilner; Mostafa Elgohary; Helen H Do; Peter McCluskey; Sue Lightman Journal: Acta Ophthalmol Date: 2011-09-13 Impact factor: 3.761
Authors: Oren Tomkins-Netzer; Susan Lightman; Lea Drye; John Kempen; Gary N Holland; Narsing A Rao; Richard J Stawell; Albert Vitale; Douglas A Jabs Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2015-09-07 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Joan-En Chang-Lin; Mayssa Attar; Andrew A Acheampong; Michael R Robinson; Scott M Whitcup; Baruch D Kuppermann; Devin Welty Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-01-05 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Baruch D Kuppermann; Mark S Blumenkranz; Julia A Haller; George A Williams; David V Weinberg; Connie Chou; Scott M Whitcup Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2007-03
Authors: John H Kempen; Michael M Altaweel; Janet T Holbrook; Douglas A Jabs; Elizabeth A Sugar Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2010-01-25 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: John A Belperio; Faisal Shaikh; Fereidoun Abtin; Michael C Fishbein; Rajan Saggar; Edmund Tsui; Joseph P Lynch Journal: EClinicalMedicine Date: 2021-06-27