UNASSIGNED: There is minimal information about the availability of treatment for Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). The principal aim of this survey was to determine the \'real world\' management of DMO amongst ophthalmologists working in SSA.
UNASSIGNED: Questionnaires were distributed to members of retinal and ophthalmological societies in SSA.
UNASSIGNED: Ninety-Three ophthalmologists from 24 countries participated with the majority working in Nigeria (51, 55%). Most were retina specialists (50, 54%) and consultants (67, 62%). Clinically significant macular oedema prompted treatment for 62 (67%) ophthalmologists, whilst visual acuity (81, 87%) and OCT changes (76, 82%) were more common reasons to treat DMO. Treatment included intravitreal anti-VEGF (91, 98%), laser (70, 75%), intravitreal steroid (57, 61%), topical drops (52, 56%), oral tablets (32, 34%) and surgery (20, 22%). The commonest intravitreal anti-VEGF agents used were bevacizumab (89, 96%) and ranibizumab (71, 76%). Intravitreal triamcinolone was used by 69 (74%), topical NSAIDs by 51 (55%), and acetazolamide tablets by 22 (24%) ophthalmologists as a treatment for DMO.
UNASSIGNED: Sub-Saharan African ophthalmologists commonly use intravitreal anti-VEGF, laser, intravitreal steroid, and topical NSAIDs to treat DMO. Economic constraints and/or the inability to maintain the intensive regimen required for successful intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy probably influence some treatment choices.

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is the most common microvascular complication of diabetes mellitus, leading to visual impairment if left untreated. This review discusses the use of optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) as a diagnostic tool for the early detection and management of DR. OCTA is a fast, non-invasive, non-contact test that enables the detailed visualisation of the macular microvasculature in different plexuses. OCTA offers several advantages over fundus fluorescein angiography (FFA), notably offering quantitative data. OCTA is not without limitations, including the requirement for careful interpretation of artefacts and the limited region of interest that can be captured currently. We explore how OCTA has been instrumental in detecting early microvascular changes that precede clinical signs of DR. We also discuss the application of OCTA in the diagnosis and management of various stages of DR, including non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR), proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR), diabetic macular oedema (DMO), diabetic macular ischaemia (DMI), and pre-diabetes. Finally, we discuss the future role of OCTA and how it may be used to enhance the clinical outcomes of DR.

Different network meta-analyses (NMAs) on the same topic result in differences in findings. In this review, we investigated NMAs comparing aflibercept with ranibizumab for diabetic macular oedema (DME) in the hope of illuminating why the differences in findings occurred.
Studies were searched for in English and Chinese electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP; see detailed search strategy in the main body). Two independent reviewers systematically screened to identify target NMAs that included a comparison of aflibercept and ranibizumab in patients with DME. The key outcome of interest in this review is the change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), including various ways of reporting (such as the proportion of participants who gain ≥ 10 ETDRS letters at 12 months; average change in BCVA at 12 months).
For the binary outcome of BCVA, different NMAs all agreed that there is no clear difference between the two treatments, while continuous outcomes all favour aflibercept over ranibizumab. We discussed four points of particular concern that are illustrated by five similar NMAs, including network differences, PICO (participants, interventions, comparators, outcomes) differences, different data from the same measures of effect, and differences in what is truly significant.
A closer inspection of each of these trials shows how the methods, including the searches and analyses, all differ, but the findings, although presented differently and sometimes interpreted differently, were similar.

A systematic literature review (SLR) and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted to evaluate the comparative efficacy, durability and safety of faricimab, used in a Treat & Extend (T&E) regime with intervals up to every 16 weeks (Q16W), relative to other therapies currently in use for treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DME). Of particular interest were anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapies applied in flexible dosing regimens such as Pro re nata (PRN) and T&E, which are the mainstay in clinical practice.
An SLR identifying randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published before August 2021 was conducted, followed by a Bayesian NMA comparing faricimab T&E treatment to aflibercept, ranibizumab, bevacizumab, dexamethasone and laser therapy. Outcomes included in the analysis were change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), change in central subfield thickness (CST), injection frequency, ocular adverse events (AE) and all-cause discontinuation, all of which were evaluated at 12 months. Subgroup analyses including patients\' naïve to anti-VEGF were conducted where feasible.
Twenty-six studies identified in the SLR were included in the NMA. Most importantly for decision making in clinical practise, faricimab T&E was associated with a statistically greater (95% credible intervals exclude zero) and clinically meaningful decrease in retinal thickness compared to all other flexible dosing regimens (greater retinal drying by 55-125 microns). Anatomical outcomes determine treatment efficacy and retreatment of patients. The NMA also showed a statistically greater increase in mean change in BCVA for faricimab T&E vs. flexible regimens using ranibizumab and bevacizumab (increase of 4.4-4.8 letters) as well as a numerical improvement vs. aflibercept PRN (two letters, 95% credible intervals including zero). Accordingly, the injection frequency was numerically lower versus other treatments using flexible dosing regimens (decrease by 0.92-1.43 injections). The analyses also indicated that the safety profile of faricimab T&E was comparable to those of ranibizumab and aflibercept, which have well-established safety profiles, with similar results for the number of all-cause discontinuations.
Faricimab provides a new treatment option in DME with dual-pathway inhibition of VEGF and angiopoeitin-2 (Ang-2). To the authors\' knowledge, this is the first indirect comparison of faricimab T&E in DME. The analyses indicate that faricimab T&E is associated with superior retinal drying along with numerically fewer injections compared to all other treatments given in flexible dosing regimens. It also showed superior visual acuity outcomes compared to ranibizumab and bevacizumab.

Degenerative eye conditions such as age-related macular degeneration (AMD), diabetic retinopathy, and retinal vein occlusion are major contributors to significant vision loss in developed nations. The primary therapeutic approach for managing complications linked to these diseases involves the intravitreal delivery of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatments. Faricimab is a novel, humanised, bispecific antibody that simultaneously binds all VEGF-A isoforms and Angiopoietin-2, which has been approved by regulatory agencies, such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), for the treatment of neovascular AMD and diabetic macular oedema (DMO). Intravitreal faricimab holds the promise of reducing the treatment burden for patients with these conditions by achieving comparable or superior therapeutic outcomes with fewer clinic visits. The scope of faricimab\'s application includes addressing complex macular conditions such as DMO. This review intends to elucidate the distinctive pharmacological characteristics of faricimab and provide an overview of the key clinical trials and real-world studies that assess its effectiveness and safety in treating degenerative macular diseases.

BACKGROUND: This review aims to assess the efficacy, durability and safety of faricimab-a dual vascular endothelial growth factor and angiopoietin 2 inhibitor-in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) and diabetic macula oedema (DMO). It summarises the findings of current studies on faricimab and discusses whether this new drug may fill a gap in current treatment options.
METHODS: We performed a search of the PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science and EMBASE databases for publications on faricimab between 29 November 2022 and 10 May 2023, and a search of ClinicalTrials.gov for the protocols on clinical trials for this review. We included clinical trials, case-control studies and observational studies.
RESULTS: In phase 3 trials of nAMD, the efficacy of faricimab was non-inferior to aflibercept (+ 5.8-6.6 vs. + 5.1-6.6 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] letters). At study end, 80% of faricimab-treated patients were on ≥ 12-week dosing intervals, and 44.9-45.7% of faricimab-treated patients were on 16-week dosing intervals. Total adverse events, as well as serious ocular adverse events, were comparable between groups. In phase 3 trials of DMO, efficacy of faricimab was non-inferior to aflibercept (+ 10.7-11.8 vs. + 10.3-10.9 ETDRS letters). At study end, > 70% of patients in the personalised treatment interval faricimab group were on ≥ 12-week dosing intervals, and 51-53% were on 16-week dosing intervals. Total adverse events were comparable between groups, although the rate of serious ocular adverse events was higher in the faricimab groups than in the aflibercept groups (1.9-3.1% vs. 0.6-1.9%, respectively). In real-world studies of treatment-resistant nAMD or DMO, faricimab demonstrated superior efficacy compared to aflibercept. In a real-world study of mostly previously treated nAMD, faricimab demonstrated some efficacy.
CONCLUSIONS: Faricimab demonstrated non-inferior to superior efficacy, strong durability and acceptable safety in treatment-naïve nAMD and mostly treatment-naïve DMO, as well as superior efficacy in treatment-resistant nAMD and DMO. However, further research is needed on faricimab in real-world settings.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of fluocinolone acetonide implant (FAci) injected 1 month after the last dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEXi) in chronic diabetic macular oedema (DME) patients.
METHODS: Retrospective multicentric study conducted in pseudophakic patients with chronic DME frequently treated with dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEXi; time to DME recurrence ≤ 6 months), receiving FAci 1 month after the last DEXi, with at least a 6-month follow-up. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT) on optical coherence tomography, intraocular pressure (IOP) and additional treatments were assessed on the day of FAci injection (M0), 1 (M1) and 3 months (M3) later and then every 3 months.
RESULTS: A total of 41 eyes from 34 patients were included. At M0, patients\' mean age was 68.7 ± 9.8 years, the mean DME duration was 63.9 ± 22.9 months, the mean interval between two DEXi was 14.2 ± 3.3 weeks. M12 data were available for 71% of patients. At baseline, the mean BCVA, CMT and IOP were 63.2 ± 16.6 letters, 299.4 ± 103.3 µm, and 16.2 ± 4.5 mmHg, respectively, and remained stable during the follow-up. At M12, 14% of patients required additional intravitreal treatments.
CONCLUSIONS: In pseudophakic patients with chronic DME showing good response to DEXi but requiring repeated injections every < 6 months, switching to FAci 1 month after the last DEXi was effective and safe. Further prospective randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings, and to determine the best interval between the last DEXi and the first FAci.

UNASSIGNED: Ocular vascular diseases are common causes of visual impairment and blindness, for which anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) is the first-line therapy. Current study describes the profile of patients receiving intravitreal anti-VEGF injections (IVI), and gender variation in Bhutan. The study was designed to inform national health policy.
UNASSIGNED: Retrospective cross-sectional study.
UNASSIGNED: We reviewed the surgical registers of the vitreoretinal (VR) units across Bhutan over three years. Patient demography, clinical findings, diagnostic tests performed, and diagnoses or indications for IVI were logged. A descriptive analysis was performed.
UNASSIGNED: Despite limited availability of anti-VEGF, a total of 381 patients received IVI in operating theatres as mandated by the national guidelines. The majority of patients were males (230, 60.4%, p = 0.004). The mean age was 65.2 ± 13.5 years (range 13 years to 90 years), and a median of 69 years. The majority of the treated eyes (117, 30.7%) had BCVA <3/60 to light perception (PL), and another 51 eyes (13.4%) had < 6/60 to 3/60. The most common indication for IVI was neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) (168 cases, 42.2%), followed by retinal vein occlusion (RVO) (132 cases, 34.6%), diabetic macular oedema (DMO) and retinopathy (DR) (50 cases, 13.1%), and myopic choroidal neovascular membrane (11 cases, 0.03%).
UNASSIGNED: Limited human resources for managing VR diseases in Bhutan are compounded by economic and geographic challenges. With increasing VR diseases such as nAMD and myopia and complications of systemic diseases such as DR, DMO and RVO, there is a need to improve VR services. Currently, anti-VEGF is procured only for a pooled patients requiring IVI, and patients are lost due to longer waiting periods. Bhutan needs to assess if females are reporting less or are not receiving treatment due to cultural barriers and social stigma.

BACKGROUND: Key clinical guidelines recommend anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy as first-line treatment for visual impairment due to diabetic macular oedema (DMO). A systematic literature review (SLR) and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted comparing the relative efficacy of the anti-VEGF brolucizumab with a focused network of the most relevant comparator dosing regimens approved in countries other than the USA (aflibercept, ranibizumab). The safety and tolerability of brolucizumab were also assessed.
METHODS: A broad SLR was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials to ensure all relevant potential comparators were captured. Identified studies were refined to those appropriate for inclusion in the NMA. A Bayesian NMA was conducted comparing brolucizumab 6 mg (every 12 [Q12W]/every 8 weeks [Q8W]) with relevant aflibercept 2 mg and ranibizumab 0.5 mg regimens.
RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included in the NMA. At 1-year follow-up, the various aflibercept 2 mg and ranibizumab 0.5 mg regimens were mostly comparable with brolucizumab 6 mg Q12W/Q8W across key visual and anatomical outcomes, except brolucizumab 6 mg was favoured over ranibizumab 0.5 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) for the change from baseline (CFB) in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and BCVA loss/gain of pre-specified numbers of letters, and over ranibizumab 0.5 mg pro re nata for CFB in diabetic retinopathy severity scale, and retinal thickness. At year 2, where data were available, brolucizumab 6 mg showed similar results across efficacy outcomes versus all other anti-VEGFs. In most cases, discontinuation rates (all cause, and due to adverse events [AE]) and serious and overall rates of AEs excluding ocular inflammatory events were similar (in unpooled and pooled-treatment analyses) versus comparators.
CONCLUSIONS: Brolucizumab 6 mg Q12W/Q8W was comparable or superior to aflibercept 2 mg and ranibizumab 0.5 mg regimens for various visual and anatomical efficacy outcomes and discontinuation rates.

Fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) intravitreal implant (Iluvien®) is a corticosteroid implant indicated for the treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DMO) in patients who have previously received conventional treatment without good response, non-infectious posterior uveitis, and as an off-label treatment of the macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion. FAc is a non-biodegradable 0.19 mg intravitreal implant which is designed to release FAc over 3 years at a rate of approximately 0.2 mcg per day. The aim of this review is to describe the special pharmacological properties of Iluvien and display the outcomes of the most important clinical trials and real-world studies regarding its efficacy and safety for the management of the above retinal disorders.