Search

Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of the timing of the steroid switch on both visual and anatomical outcomes in diabetic macular edema (DME) eyes that have shown an inadequate response to multiple intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections. In the treatment of DME, anti-VEGF injections are typically the initial course of action. However, in cases where DME persists despite anti-VEGF treatment, intravitreal dexamethasone implants (Ozurdex ® , Allergan Inc., Irvine, CA) are often utilized. Despite this, there remains a lack of consensus regarding the optimal timing for transitioning to steroid treatment. This study aims to shed light on the potential benefits of adjusting the timing of the steroid switch in cases of recalcitrant DME.  Methods The eyes (n = 105) of 77 patients with recalcitrant DME were included in this retrospective, interventional, comparative study comprising three groups: participants switched to steroid implants after three anti-VEGF injections (Group I), four to six anti-VEGF injections (Group II), and more than six anti-VEGF injections (Group III). Anti-VEGF treatment failure was defined as a central retinal thickness (CRT) of ≥300 microns and/or a lack of visual improvement (≤1 line of visual gain according to Snellen acuity). The last follow-up took place after 10-12 weeks of Ozurdex ® injections. Results Improvement was observed in 19 eyes (46%), 17 eyes (50%), and 10 eyes (33%) in Groups I, II, and III, respectively, after switching to dexamethasone implants. The best overall results (an improvement in vision and stabilization) were seen in Group II (32 eyes, 94%). The decrease in CRT was statistically significant in all three groups.  Conclusion Intravitreal dexamethasone implants improved functional and morphological outcomes in anti-VEGF-resistant DME eyes. After four to six anti-VEGF injections, switching to a steroid implant resulted in the best functional results., Competing Interests: Human subjects: Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. Al Bahar Institutional Review Board issued approval (AIRB/021/2021). Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Raizada et al.)

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) and removal of the internal limiting membrane (ILM) with three, monthly, intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) injections for refractory diabetic macular edema., Materials and Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, comparative, interventional study. Forty-four patients were enrolled and randomized in two groups. Twenty-two eyes enrolled in Group I received three IVB injections at monthly interval. Twenty-two eyes were enrolled in Group II which underwent PPV with ILM removal. The primary outcomes measured were: (1) Best corrected logMAR visual acuity (BCVA) using Snellen's visual acuity chart. (2) Central macular thickness (CMT) on optical coherence tomography. The secondary outcome measures were: Complication rates like (1) progression of lens opacities, (2) high intraocular pressure needing further treatment/procedure, (3) development of vitreous hemorrhage related to the procedure employed, (4) retinal detachment and (5) severe inflammation/endophthalmitis., Results: In Group I (IVB): 3 (13.6%) eyes showed no change in BCVA; 3 (13.6%) eyes reported decrease in BCVA and 16 (72.8%) eyes showed improvement in BCVA; (P = 0.0181). In Group II (PPV): 4 (18.2%) eyes showed no change in BCVA; 5 (22.7%) eyes showed decrease and 13 (59.1%) eyes showed improvement in BCVA (P = 0.0281). Mean decrease in CMT in IVB group was 108.45 μ, whereas mean decrease in CMT in PPV group was 161.36 μ. No major complications were seen in either group., Conclusion: Posttreatment decrease in CMT was more in PPV group and vision improvement more in IVB group. However, no statistically significant difference between the two methods was found.