Search

Purpose: To review the evidence on the effectiveness of dietary supplementation for retinitis pigmentosa (RP)., Methods: A literature search of the PubMed database was last conducted in January 2024 to identify published English-language original research on dietary supplementation for RP. Eligible compounds included products ingested orally containing nutrients intended to supplement the diet. Studies meeting eligibility criteria were assigned a level of evidence rating by the panel methodologist., Results: The search identified 283 citations, 15 of which met the assessment criteria. Two studies were rated level I, 11 studies were rated level II, and 2 studies were rated level III. All were single-center studies and were published between 1993 and 2022. The products evaluated included vitamin A, docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), lutein, vitamin E, goji berry (Lycium barbarum fruit) extract, and chlorogenic acid. Primary outcome measures were most commonly based on electroretinography (n = 7) or perimetry (n = 2) testing. Numerous studies highlighted data suggestive of possible efficacy for vitamin A, DHA, and lutein, yet these findings typically derived from secondary outcomes, evaluations of participant subsets, post hoc analyses, problematic interpretations of the data, or a combination thereof. Additionally, it was often unclear if the study findings represented clinically meaningful outcomes. No prominent safety concerns were reported in any study., Conclusions: No high-quality evidence was found to support the effectiveness of any form of dietary supplementation for RP. The findings underscore the challenges of studying this rare and slowly progressive retinal disease. Future studies should leverage the enhanced recruitment abilities from collaborative research networks to refine eligibility criteria while using novel, clinically meaningful endpoints., Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article., (Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To assess the safety and efficacy of the multiple therapeutic modalities for the treatment of central serous chorioretinopathy (CSCR)., Methods: A literature search of English-language studies in the PubMed database with no date restrictions was last conducted in May 2024. The combined searches yielded 612 citations, 31 of which were selected for full-text review and for inclusion in this assessment. The panel methodologist assigned a level of evidence rating to each study. Six were assigned a level I rating, 23 were assigned a level II rating, and 2 were assigned a level III rating. Studies were categorized based on treatment modalities: laser-based therapy, intravitreal therapy, laser-based therapy versus intravitreal therapy, and systemic therapies. Within those categories, they were separated based on treatments for acute versus chronic CSCR., Results: One level I study showed that photodynamic therapy (PDT) using half-dose verteporfin for acute CSCR led to a significant decrease in subretinal fluid (SRF) with 95% of treated patients having no SRF at 12 months compared with 58% of untreated eyes with acute CSCR (P = 0.001). Anatomically, the mean CFT at 1 year was significantly lower in the treated group (161 ± 65 μm) versus the observation group (278 ± 92 μm) (P = 0.001). A second level I study compared half-dose verteporfin PDT versus 30%-dose verteporfin PDT and found that 94.6% in the half-dose PDT group had no SRF at 12 months compared with 75.4% in the 30%-dose PDT group (P = 0.004). The noninferiority of the 30%-dose PDT compared with half-dose PDT was not demonstrated. The VICI trial was a level I study that found no benefit with the use of mineralocorticoid antagonism with eplerenone for the treatment of chronic CSCR. With respect to the primary outcome of visual acuity (VA), the VICI trial found no significant difference at 12 months: 79.5 letters in the placebo group and 80.4 letters in the eplerenone group (P = 0.24). In general, the results from the other evaluated studies were inconsistent and thus inconclusive. There were no level I studies that supported the role of intravitreal anti-VEGF injections or systemic beta-blockers for patients with CSCR. A small level I study showed potential efficacy of Helicobacter pylori therapy for CSCR., Conclusions: There is evidence to support half-dose PDT for the treatment of acute CSCR regarding anatomic improvement, but less robust evidence supports improvement in VA or sustained anatomic benefit beyond 12 months. Intravitreal anti-VEGF injections and oral beta-blockers demonstrate inconsistent anatomic and visual benefits in patients with CSCR. The mineralocorticoid antagonist eplerenone has not been demonstrated as efficacious for treatment of chronic CSCR. The treatment of H. pylori infection may have some anatomic and visual benefit in the treatment of either acute or chronic CSCR. Acute CSCR resolves spontaneously without treatment in most eyes., Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references., (Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To review the evidence on the effectiveness and complications of periocular and intraocular corticosteroid therapies for noninfectious uveitic macular edema., Methods: A literature search of the PubMed database was conducted last in December 2021 and a post-assessment search was conducted in March 2023. The searches were limited to articles published in English and no date restrictions were imposed. The combined searches yielded 739 citations; 53 articles were selected for inclusion because the studies (1) evaluated periocular corticosteroid injection, intraocular corticosteroid injection or implant, suprachoroidal corticosteroid injection, or a combination thereof for uveitic macular edema; (2) had outcomes that included visual acuity (VA) or macular edema assessed clinically or imaged by OCT or fluorescein angiography; and (3) included more than 20 patients., Results: This assessment reviewed 23 articles that provided level I or level II evidence from 18 studies on the use of periocular, suprachoroidal, and intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injections and intravitreal dexamethasone and fluocinolone acetonide implants or inserts in noninfectious uveitic macular edema. These reports consistently demonstrated that all investigated periocular and intraocular corticosteroid therapies improved VA, macular structure, or both. One comparative study showed that intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection and the dexamethasone intravitreal implant had effectiveness superior to that of periocular triamcinolone acetonide injection for these outcomes. As a group, the studies highlighted the potential for these therapies to elevate intraocular pressure and to accelerate cataract formation., Conclusions: The published literature provides high-quality evidence that periocular and intraocular corticosteroid therapies are effective and safe for the treatment of noninfectious uveitic macular edema. However, information on the relative effectiveness and complication rates across the different therapies is limited., Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article., (Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: This American Academy of Ophthalmology Ophthalmic Technology Assessment aims to assess the effectiveness of conventional teleretinal screening (TS) in detecting diabetic retinopathy (DR) and diabetic macular edema (DME)., Methods: A literature search of the PubMed database was conducted most recently in July 2023 to identify data published between 2006 and 2023 on any of the following elements related to TS effectiveness: (1) the accuracy of TS in detecting DR or DME compared with traditional ophthalmic screening with dilated fundus examination or 7-standard field Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study photography, (2) the impact of TS on DR screening compliance rates or other patient behaviors, and (3) cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction of TS compared with traditional DR screening. Identified studies then were rated based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine grading system., Results: Eight level I studies, 14 level II studies, and 2 level III studies were identified in total. Although cross-study comparison is challenging because of differences in reference standards and grading methods, TS demonstrated acceptable sensitivity and good specificity in detecting DR; moderate to good agreement between TS and reference-standard DR grading was observed. Performance of TS was not as robust in detecting DME, although the number of studies evaluating DME specifically was limited. Two level I studies, 5 level II studies, and 1 level III study supported that TS had a positive impact on overall DR screening compliance, even increasing it by more than 2-fold in one study. Studies assessing cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction were not graded formally, but they generally showed that TS was cost-effective and preferred by patients over traditional surveillance., Conclusions: Conventional TS is an effective approach to DR screening not only for its accuracy in detecting referable-level disease, but also for improving screening compliance in a cost-effective manner that may be preferred by patients. Further research is needed to elucidate the ideal approach of TS that may involve integration of artificial intelligence or other imaging technologies in the future., Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article., (Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Complications associated with intravitreal anti-VEGF therapies are reported inconsistently in the literature, thus limiting an accurate evaluation and comparison of safety between studies. This study aimed to develop a standardized classification system for anti-VEGF ocular complications using the Delphi consensus process., Design: Systematic review and Delphi consensus process., Participants: Twenty-five international retinal specialists participated in the Delphi consensus survey., Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify complications of intravitreal anti-VEGF agent administration based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of anti-VEGF therapy. A comprehensive list of complications was derived from these studies, and this list was subjected to iterative Delphi consensus surveys involving international retinal specialists who voted on inclusion, exclusion, rephrasing, and addition of complications. Furthermore, surveys determined specifiers for the selected complications. This iterative process helped to refine the final classification system., Main Outcome Measures: The proportion of retinal specialists who choose to include or exclude complications associated with anti-VEGF administration., Results: After screening 18 229 articles, 130 complications were categorized from 145 included RCTs. Participant consensus via the Delphi method resulted in the inclusion of 91 complications (70%) after 3 rounds. After incorporating further modifications made based on participant suggestions, such as rewording certain phrases and combining similar terms, 24 redundant complications were removed, leaving a total of 67 complications (52%) in the final list. A total of 14 complications (11%) met exclusion thresholds and were eliminated by participants across both rounds. All other remaining complications not meeting inclusion or exclusion thresholds also were excluded from the final classification system after the Delphi process terminated. In addition, 47 of 75 proposed complication specifiers (63%) were included based on participant agreement., Conclusions: Using the Delphi consensus process, a comprehensive, standardized classification system consisting of 67 ocular complications and 47 unique specifiers was established for intravitreal anti-VEGF agents in clinical trials. The adoption of this system in future trials could improve consistency and quality of adverse event reporting, potentially facilitating more accurate risk-benefit analyses., Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article., (Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To review the evidence on the safety and efficacy of current anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and intravitreal corticosteroid pharmacotherapies for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME)., Methods: Literature searches were last conducted on May 13, 2020, in the PubMed database with no date restrictions and limited to articles published in English. The combined searches yielded 230 citations, of which 108 were reviewed in full text. Of these, 31 were deemed appropriate for inclusion in this assessment and were assigned a level of evidence rating by the panel methodologist., Results: Only the 21 articles with level I evidence were included in this assessment. Seventeen articles provided level I evidence for 1 or more anti-VEGF pharmacotherapies, including ranibizumab (14), aflibercept (5), and bevacizumab (2) alone or in combination with other treatments for DME. Level I evidence was identified in 7 articles on intravitreal corticosteroid therapy for treatment of DME: triamcinolone (1), dexamethasone (4), and fluocinolone acetonide (2)., Conclusions: Review of the available literature indicates that intravitreal injections of anti-VEGF agents and corticosteroids are efficacious treatments for DME. Elevated intraocular pressure and cataract progression are important potential complications of corticosteroid therapy. Further evidence is required to assess the comparative efficacy of these therapies. Given the limited high-quality comparative efficacy data, choice of therapy must be individualized for each patient and broad therapeutic access for patients is critical to maximize outcomes., (Copyright © 2021 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)