Search

Purpose: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex, DEX implant) 0.7 and 0.35 mg in the treatment of patients with diabetic macular edema (DME).Design: Two randomized, multicenter, masked, sham-controlled, phase III clinical trials with identical protocols were conducted. Data were pooled for analysis.Participants: Patients (n = 1048) with DME, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 20/50 to 20/200 Snellen equivalent, and central retinal thickness (CRT) of ≥300 μm by optical coherence tomography.Methods: Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to study treatment with DEX implant 0.7 mg, DEX implant 0.35 mg, or sham procedure and followed for 3 years (or 39 months for patients treated at month 36) at ≤40 scheduled visits. Patients who met retreatment eligibility criteria could be retreated no more often than every 6 months.Main Outcome Measures: The predefined primary efficacy endpoint for the United States Food and Drug Administration was achievement of ≥15-letter improvement in BCVA from baseline at study end. Safety measures included adverse events and intraocular pressure (IOP).Results: Mean number of treatments received over 3 years was 4.1, 4.4, and 3.3 with DEX implant 0.7 mg, DEX implant 0.35 mg, and sham, respectively. The percentage of patients with ≥15-letter improvement in BCVA from baseline at study end was greater with DEX implant 0.7 mg (22.2%) and DEX implant 0.35 mg (18.4%) than sham (12.0%; P ≤ 0.018). Mean average reduction in CRT from baseline was greater with DEX implant 0.7 mg (−111.6 μm) and DEX implant 0.35 mg (−107.9 μm) than sham (−41.9 μm; P < 0.001). Rates of cataract-related adverse events in phakic eyes were 67.9%, 64.1%, and 20.4% in the DEX implant 0.7 mg, DEX implant 0.35 mg, and sham groups, respectively. Increases in IOP were usually controlled with medication or no therapy; only 2 patients (0.6%) in the DEX implant 0.7 mg group and 1 (0.3%) in the DEX implant 0.35 mg group required trabeculectomy.Conclusions: The DEX implant 0.7 mg and 0.35 mg met the primary efficacy endpoint for improvement in BCVA. The safety profile was acceptable and consistent with previous reports.

Objectives: Coagulopathy of coronavirus disease 2019 is largely described as hypercoagulability, yet both thrombotic and hemorrhagic complications occur. Although therapeutic and prophylactic anticoagulant interventions have been recommended, empiric use of antifactor medications (heparin/enoxaparin) may result in hemorrhagic complications, including death. Furthermore, traditional (antifactor) anticoagulation does not address the impact of overactive platelets in coronavirus disease 2019. The primary aim was to evaluate if algorithm-guided thromboelastography with platelet mapping could better characterize an individual’s coronavirus disease 2019-relatedcoagulopathic state and, secondarily, improve outcomes. Design, Setting, and Patients: Coronavirus disease 2019 patients (n = 100), receiving thromboelastography with platelet mapping assay upon admission to an 800-bed tertiary-care hospital, were followed prospectively by a hospital-based thromboelastography team. Treating clinicians were provided with the option of using a pre-established algorithm for anticoagulation, including follow-up thromboelastography with platelet mapping assays. Two groups evolved: 1) patients managed by thromboelastography with platelet mapping algorithm (algorithm-guided-thromboelastography); 2) those treated without thromboelastography with platelet mapping protocols (non-algorithm-guided). Outcomes included thrombotic/hemorrhagic complications, pulmonary failure, need for mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, dialysis requirement, and nonsurvival. Interventions: Standard-of-care therapy with or without algorithm-guided-thromboelastography support. Measurements and Main Results: Although d-dimer, C-reactive protein, and ferritin were elevated significantly in critically ill (nonsurvivors, acute kidney injury, pulmonary failure), they did not distinguish between coagulopathic and noncoagulopathic patients. Platelet hyperactivity (maximum amplitude-arachidonic acid/adenosine diphosphate > 50 min), with or without thrombocytosis, was associated with thrombotic/ischemic complications, whereas severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count < 100,000/μL) was uniformly fatal. Hemorrhagic complications were observed with decreased factor activity (reaction time > 8 min). Non-algorithm-guided patients had increased risk for subsequent mechanical ventilation (relative risk = 10.9; p < 0.0001), acute kidney injury (relative risk = 2.3; p = 0.0017), dialysis (relative risk = 7.8; p < 0.0001), and death (relative risk = 7.7; p < 0.0001), with 17 of 28 non-algorithm-guided patients (60.7%) dying versus four algorithm-guided-thromboelastography patients (5.6%) (p < 0.0001). Thromboelastography with platelet mapping–guided antiplatelet treatment decreased mortality 82% (p = 0.0002), whereas non-algorithm-guided (compared with algorithm-guided-thromboelastography) use of antifactor therapy (heparin/enoxaparin) resulted in 10.3-fold increased mortality risk (p = 0.0001). Conclusions: Thromboelastography with platelet mapping better characterizes the spectrum of coronavirus disease 2019 coagulation-related abnormalities and may guide more tailored, patient-specific therapies in those infected with coronavirus disease 2019.

A 74-year-old woman was referred by her ophthalmologist for evaluation of blurred vision in both eyes over the course of several months, presenting with a best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 20/150 in the right eye and 20/50 in the left eye. Optical coherence tomography showed vitreomacular traction (VMT) bilaterally with a full-thickness macular hole in the right eye; a single intravitreal injection of 125 μg ocriplasmin was administered in the right eye. One week after the injection, BCVA in the right eye improved to 20/60 with release of VMT, and at 3 weeks bilateral release of VMT was observed. [ Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina . 2014;45:239–242.]

This study was designed to compare the efficacy of cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion 0.05% with an artificial tear solution for the treatment of rosacea-associated eyelid and corneal pathology.Double-masked, randomized, 3-month clinical trial of 37 patients with rosacea-associated eyelid and corneal changes (defined as lid margin telangiectasia, meibomian gland inspissation, and/or fullness of the lid margin). All findings were standardized and compared to photographs for grading.There was a statistically significant increase in Schirmer (with anesthesia) scores of 2.7+/-2.2 mm after 3 months of treatment in the topical cyclosporine group (P0.001), compared with a mean decrease of -1.4+/-4.6 mm (P=0.271) in the artificial tears group. The mean tear break-up time score significantly improved in the topical cyclosporine group (mean increase of 3.56+/-1.5 seconds, P0.001), but worsened in the control group, although this change was not significantly significant (mean decrease of -0.04+/-1.6 seconds, P=0.929). The topical cyclosporine group exhibited a significantly greater mean reduction in corneal staining scores (-1.3+/-0.53) compared with the control group (-0.2+/-0.83; between groups P0.001). The topical cyclosporine group had a greater improvement in Ocular Surface Disease Index scores than those using artificial tears (P=0.022). Limitations of the study included an older, predominantly Caucasian patient population and short trial length.Topical cyclosporine 0.05% is more effective than artificial tears for the treatment of rosacea-associated lid and corneal changes.