Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a significant condition linked to diabetes that can result in visual loss. In recent times, there has been a notable change in the desire for treatment, with a shift toward anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy and intravitreal steroids while moving away from conventional laser therapies. This comprehensive meta-analysis explicitly compares the efficacy of two therapies for DME: anti-VEGF therapy and corticosteroid. We conducted a thorough search using PubMed and Google Scholar to identify publications that compare the effects of anti-VEGF therapy and corticosteroid implants on DME. Using Review Manager 5.0 (RevMan), we incorporated data from nine research studies, which involved a total of 877 people. The group was split into two factions: 453 patients were administered corticosteroids, while 466 patients underwent treatment with anti-VEGF therapy. Our investigation demonstrated that both corticosteroid and anti-VEGF therapy positively improved the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and reduced the central macular thickness (CMT). Nevertheless, comparing the mean BCVA on the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) scale revealed no statistically significant changes between the two treatments. This indicates considerable inconsistency, as evidenced by the weighted mean difference (WMD) of -0.13 (-0.41, 0.16) with a P-value of 0.39 and an I2 value of 99%. In addition, both treatments improved BCVA compared to the initial measurement. However, there was no statistically significant benefit for corticosteroid over anti-VEGF therapy, as indicated by the WMD of 0.03 (-0.07, 0.13) with a P-value of 0.55 and an I2 value of 80%. The examination of the average CMT also yielded findings that lacked statistical significance, displaying a significant amount of variation (WMD -36.37, 95% confidence interval [-127.52, 54.78], P = 0.43, I2 = 98%). Remarkably, there were no significant alterations among the anti-VEGF therapy group despite a rise in CMT from the initial measurement. The main conclusion drawn from our research is that corticosteroid demonstrates encouraging immediate enhancements in BCVA and CMT. However, anti-VEGF therapy seems to provide more significant long-term advantages. Nevertheless, it is crucial to acknowledge that the corticosteroid group had a greater susceptibility to acquiring elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) and the possibility of glaucoma.

Diabetic macular edema (DME)\'s therapeutic approach can frequently be challenging. The purpose of the review is to propose evidence-based recommendations on the employment of intravitreal dexamethasone implants (DEX) when approaching patients suffering from DME. Seven national consensuses redacted by different groups of retina specialists from Europe and Asia were examined and confronted. Each consensus was redacted utilizing a Delphi approach, in person meetings, or by reviewing the literature. DEX can be studied as a first-line strategy in individuals suffering from DME with inflammatory OCT biomarkers, in vitrectomized eyes, in patients with recent cardiovascular events, in pregnant women, in patients scheduled to undergo cataract surgery or with poor compliance. The other parameters considered were the indications to the DME treatment, when to switch to DEX, the definition of non-responder to anti-VEGFs agents and to the DEX implant, whether to combine DEX with laser photocoagulation, the association between glaucoma and DEX, and the management of DEX and the cataract. Although several years have passed since the introduction of DEX implants in the DME treatment, there is still not a unified agreement among retina specialists. This paper compares the approach in the DME treatment between countries from different continents and provides a broader and worldwide perspective of the topic.

The aim of the study was to determine the efficacy and safety of combined anti-VEGF and steroid therapy in treatment refractory DME patients. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of peer-reviewed articles reporting on visual, anatomical and adverse outcomes to compare the efficacy and safety of combined intravitreal anti-VEGF/steroids versus anti-VEGF monotherapy for refractory DME. Seven studies (4 RCTs and 3 observational studies) reporting on 452 eyes were included. Our systematic review showed that combination therapy is significantly more effective for anatomical outcomes in the treatment of resistant DME compared to anti-VEGF monotherapy in six studies. Two studies found that addition of intravitreal steroids promoted faster visual improvement, but not significantly better final visual outcomes compared to anti-VEGF monotherapy. Combination therapy was associated with a higher incidence of IOP-related adverse events (RR = 0.10, 95% CI = [0.02, 0.42], p = 0.002) and cataract-related adverse events (RR = 0.10, 95% CI = [0.01, 0.71], p = 0.02). Our systematic review and meta-analysis of seven studies and 452 eyes revealed that combination therapy of anti-VEGF and steroid intravitreal drugs in the management of treatment refractory DME resulted in superior anatomical outcomes in all but one study. Combination therapy led to superior short-term visual outcomes in two studies, while others reported no difference between treatment groups. Meta-analysis revealed that combination therapy was associated with more adverse events. Future research should provide guidance on the standard definitions for treatment resistance and therapeutic alternatives for DME patients with sub-optimal response to anti-VEGF treatment.

UNASSIGNED: To evaluate the visual outcomes and safety profile of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy in the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) in real-world studies in Asian countries.
UNASSIGNED: A systematic review of electronic literature databases (Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Library from January 1, 2010, to March 16, 2021) was conducted to identify observational studies that reported clinical and safety outcomes of anti-VEGF treatments for DME in Asia. We analyzed baseline patient characteristics, treatment patterns, mean number of injections, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), retinal thickness, and safety outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: Seventy-one studies were included in this review. Most studies reported treatment of DME with ranibizumab (n = 33), followed by aflibercept (n = 13), bevacizumab (n = 28), and conbercept (n = 9). At 12 months, the cumulative mean number of injections for ranibizumab, aflibercept, and conbercept was 5.2, 4.6, and 6, respectively. At the 12-month follow-up, the cumulative mean BCVA gain was 6.8 letters (ranibizumab), 4.6 letters (aflibercept), 4.9 letters (bevacizumab), and 8.3 letters (conbercept). The cumulative mean reduction in retinal thickness at 12 months was 116.9 μm (ranibizumab), 105.9 μm (aflibercept), 81.7 μm (bevacizumab), and 135.2 μm (conbercept). A strong positive correlation (r = 0.78) was observed between mean number of injections and change in BCVA at 12 months. A moderate positive correlation (r = 0.54) was observed between mean number of injections and mean reduction in retinal thickness at 12 months. A weak positive correlation was observed between baseline retinal thickness and visual acuity at 12 months. Baseline BCVA and mean number of injections were predictors of BCVA at 12 months.
UNASSIGNED: All anti-VEGFs were effective in the treatment of DME in Asia. The data suggest that a greater number of anti-VEGF injections was associated with better improvement in BCVA and moderate reduction in retinal thickness at the 1-year follow-up.

Diabetic macular edema (DME) and neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) are common retinal vascular diseases responsible for most blindness in the working-age and older population in developed countries. Currently, anti-VEGF agents that block VEGF family ligands, including ranibizumab, bevacizumab (off-label use), brolucizumab, and aflibercept, are the first-line treatment for nAMD and DME. However, due to the complex pathophysiological background of nAMD and DME, non-response, resistance during anti-VEGF therapy, and relapses of the disease are still observed. Moreover, frequent injections are a psychological and economic burden for patients, leading to inadequate adhesion to therapy and a higher risk of complications. Therefore, therapeutic methods are strongly needed to develop and improve, allowing for more satisfactory disease management and lower treatment burden. Currently, the Ang/Tie-2 pathway is a promising therapeutic target for retinal vascular diseases. Faricimab is the first bispecific monoclonal antibody for intravitreal use that can neutralize VEGF and Ang-2. Due to the prolonged activity, faricimab allows extending the interval between successive injections up to three or four months in nAMD and DME patients, which can be a significant benefit for patients and an alternative to implanted drug delivery systems.

Refractory diabetic macular edema (DME) to monthly intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) monotherapy has a prevalence of approximately 40% in landmark clinical trials. Options for these patients include use of intravitreal steroids, focal laser, or switching to an alternative anti-VEGF agent. We summarize the key conclusions from studies analyzing the efficacy of switching anti-VEGF agents for refractory DME. Twenty-four studies were included in analysis. The most common definitions of refractory in the included studies were a central retinal thickness (CRT) greater than 300μm or a reduction in CRT less than 10% after at least 3-6 prior anti-VEGF injections. Switching to intravitreal aflibercept (IVA) from either intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) or bevacizumab (IVB) is associated with moderate to significant improvement in central subfield thickness and may be an appropriate choice for patients with refractory DME. The improvement in retinal thickness and edema is typically seen after the first 3 injections of IVA post-switch. Switching to IVR has also demonstrated improvement in CRT at 3-6 months post switch in large sample population studies. Future studies are required to elucidate the ideal time point for a switch in anti-VEGF agent or which patients would benefit from this change.

To assess real-world outcomes of fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant in treating diabetic macular edema (DME), a systematic literature review was conducted on PubMed in order to identify publications assessing the efficacy and safety of the FAc implant in DME in daily practice. Case reports and randomized controlled trials were excluded. Twenty-two observational real-world studies analyzing a total of 1880 eyes were included. Mean peak visual gain was +8.7 letters (11.3 months post-FAc injection) and was greater for lower baseline best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and for more recent DME. Mean central retinal thickness (CRT) decreased 34.3% from baseline. 77.0% of the analyzed studies reported both BCVA improvement of at least five letters and a CRT decrease by 20% or more. Rescue therapy was needed more frequently when FAc was administered for chronic DME. FAc-induced ocular hypertension was reported in 20.1% of patients but only 0.6% needed surgery. Cataract extraction was performed in 43.2% of phakic patients. Adequate patient selection is essential for optimal FAc response and better safety profile. Currently positioned as second- or third-line treatment in the management algorithm, FAc implant decreases treatment burden and provides better letter gain when administered for more recent DME.

OBJECTIVE: Intravitreal injection of VEGF inhibitors has become the standard of care for different macular diseases within the last years resulting in improved visual outcomes. Under real-life conditions, however, the necessity for frequent retreatments and reexaminations poses a burden for patients and treatment centers. Non-adherence and non-persistence to intravitreal treatment may lead to inferior clinical outcomes, and knowledge of contributing factors is crucial to improve adherence. This systematic review analyzes current literature for potential factors involved in non-adherence and non-persistence.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and Embase including three different aspects of intravitreal injection therapy: (1) diseases with intravitreal injections as treatment, (2) intravitreal injection, and (3) aspects of therapy adherence or therapy persistence. Data from identified quantitative studies were further extracted and grouped according to WHO criteria (condition, socio-economy, therapy, patient, and health system). The methodological quality of identified studies was graded. Identified qualitative studies (i.e., interviews) were descriptively analyzed and their findings narratively reported.
RESULTS: Twenty-four publications were included. In 16 of those publications, a quantitative data analysis was conducted, analyzing factors associated with non-adherence. Worse visual acuity at baseline and unfavorable development of visual acuity, higher age, and greater distance to the treatment center were associated with non-adherence, while there was inconsistent evidence for an association of comorbidity. In qualitative studies, high follow-up/treatment burden, fear and anxiety, disappointed patient expectations, and lack of motivation to continue treatment were reported as reasons for non-persistence.
CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of potential barriers in IVT treatment may improve adherence and potentially clinical results. Improvements can be achieved particularly in the healthcare complex (organizational improvements) and the \"patient\" complex by establishing realistic expectations. Recurrent education of the patient may be necessary.

This review provides a perspective on published and ongoing clinical trials of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (anti-VEGF agents) combined with laser therapy for diabetic macular oedema (DMO). Although there was little short-term benefit in combining prompt macular laser with anti-VEGF therapy for centre-involving DMO in the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network (DRCRnet) Protocol I study, deferred macular laser was still required in over 40% of study eyes in DRCRnet Protocol T. Macular laser was applied in more than 30% of eyes with centre-involving DMO receiving ranibizumab in the RISE and RIDE studies. For non centre-involving DMO the evidence-base still supports use of focal macular laser alone, although clinicians should be cautious about applying laser too close to the foveal avascular zone with the availability of pharmacotherapy. Ongoing clinical trials are assessing whether selectively targeting areas of peripheral retinal ischaemia with laser reduces the number of anti-VEGF injections to stabilise DMO and whether combining macular micropulse laser with anti-VEGF therapy is beneficial in DMO.