OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of an intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant for the treatment of macular edema (ME) following pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) and removal of the primary epiretinal membrane (ERM) and to assess the impact of the integrity of the ellipsoid zone (EZ) and disorganization of the retinal inner layer (DRIL) grade on visual and anatomical outcomes.
METHODS: Forty-two pseudophakic patients who developed ME following PPV and removal of the primary stage 2-3 ERM were included. Patients were divided into two groups when ME was diagnosed via spectral domain optic coherence tomography (SD-OCT). In the DEX group (n = 22), DEX was implanted for the treatment of ME. In the control group (n = 20), only observation was conducted, without any treatment. The best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and macular thickness (MT) of the two groups were compared at baseline and 1, 6, and 12 months after DEX implantation. The effects of OCT parameters such as EZ integrity and DRIL grade were also evaluated in terms of decreases in MT and increases in VA in the treatment of ME with DEX implantation. Intraocular pressure (IOP), number of DEX implantations and adverse effects were also recorded.
RESULTS: While a statistically significant increase in the mean BCVA was observed in the DEX group (p < 0.001 at months 1, 6, and 12, respectively), no such increase was detected in the control group (p = 0.169, p = 0.065, and p = 0.058 at months 1, 6 and 12, respectively) compared with the baseline. A statistically significant decrease in the mean MT was observed in the DEX group (p  < 0.001 at months 1, 6, and 12); however, no significant difference was observed in the control group (p  = 0.081, p  = 0.065, and p  = 0.054 at months 1, 6 and 12, respectively) compared with the baseline. Significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of the increase in BCVA (p  < 0.01) and decrease in MT (p  < 0.01) at all visits, with the outcomes being more favorable in the DEX group. A statistically significant relationship was found between the increase in VA and EZ integrity and DRIL grade in both groups. Ten patients (45.4%) received two injections of DEX during the follow-up. An increase in IOP was observed in five patients (22.7%) who were treated with topical antiglaucomatous drops. No significant side effects were observed.
CONCLUSIONS: DEX implantation was found to be effective and safe for the treatment of ME following PPV and primary ERM removal, although some eyes may require repeated injections to achieve visual and anatomical success. Additionally, a relationship was found between EZ integrity, DRIL grade and visual-anatomical outcomes.

Among working-age people, diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema are currently considered the main causes of blindness. Nowadays, intravitreal injections are widely acknowledged as a significant milestone in ophthalmology, especially for the treatment of several retinal diseases, including diabetic macular edema. In particular, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents are typically the first line of treatment; however, monthly injections are required, at least, during the loading dosage. Notably, an intravitreal 0.7 mg dexamethasone (DEX) implant (Ozurdex®, AbbVie Inc., North Chicago, IL, USA) is considered a legitimate substitute treatment for diabetic eyes that have not responded to anti-VEGF treatment. In fact, clinical trials and real-life studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and safety of an intravitreal DEX implant in treating such conditions over a period of three to six months. For this reason, wisely selecting diabetic patients might be crucial to decreasing the load of injections in clinics and hospitals. The purpose of this review is to analyze the available scientific literature to highlight the benefits, efficacy, and clinical criteria for choosing whether to switch from intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy to an intravitreal DEX implant in diabetic macular edema.

The management of choroidal neovascularization (CNVM) in pregnant young females has been a lacuna due to the rarity of the condition as well as the non-availability of comprehensive data to showcase the efficacy of currently available treatment regimes in order to achieve a positive outcome for both the growing fetus as well the patient herself. In a review of available literature, the condition has been treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (anti-VEGF), laser photocoagulation, and intravitreal dexamethasone implants (IDI), with varied results ranging from the successful outcome in terms of pregnancy to abortions. When faced with such circumstances, healthcare professionals usually proceed cautiously, balancing the possible advantages against the hazards to the mother and the fetus. Here we present a case report of a young 30-year-old pregnant lady who developed idiopathic CNVM during her third month of gestation. Being a rare entity, CNVM in young pregnant women raises severe concerns due to potential consequences on the mother\'s and fetus\'s health. In certain previously documented cases, pregnant ladies with CNVM have been successfully treated with IDI. Hence, after much deliberation, we chose to go with IDI rather than anti-VEGF, which resulted in the successful management of her CNVM as well as achieving full-term normal delivery without any fetal anomalies. In this particular case, the pregnancy and the visual rehabilitation have both had favorable outcomes. There was no associated increased intraocular pressure (IOP) or changes to the lenticular structure. The literature review also suggests that IDI may still be as effective in managing CNVM during pregnancy, but at a lower risk than anti-VEGF drug. Even with the favorable outcomes revealed in case reports, larger-scale studies to properly examine IDI\'s safety profile would be required for regulatory clearance of its safety in pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE: To describe a case of peripapillary pachychoroid syndrome (PPS) in a diabetic patient with cystoid macular edema (CME), treated with intravitreal dexamethasone implant (IDI) injection. This report also illustrates the history of the disease after repeated IDI and dexamethasone topical treatment.
METHODS: A case report.
RESULTS: A 77-year old male patient with PPS and good diabetic control was treated with dexamethasone implant for CME. After an initial morphofunctional improvement associated with a first IDI, the disease relapsed after the second dexamethasone implant injection. This was associated with a significant increase in both intraretinal fluid and choroidal thickness, with subsequent visual acuity (VA) decrease. At this point, a topical dexamethasone treatment was performed and, despite a morphological improvement, VA worsened compared with baseline, likely because of anatomical damage.
CONCLUSIONS: In this report, the importance of the recognition of PPS is underlined and the possible occurrence of a \"rebound\" effect due to repeated IDI is described.

BACKGROUND: Intraocular dexamethasone implant (DEXi) is an efficient treatment for diabetic macular edema (DME). However, it may be unavailable or contraindicated. Triamcinolone acetonide is another corticosteroid that has proved to be safe and effective in treating macular edema complicating various diseases including diabetes. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of a switch from DEXi to subtenon triamcinolone acetonide (STTA) and back, in eyes with DME.
METHODS: Retrospective study. DME eyes that had been treated with DEXi and switched to STTA between October 2018 and February 2019 (stock shortage of DEXi) were included. The functional and anatomical outcomes of the switch and switch-back were studied.
RESULTS: 26 eyes of 17 patients (mean age 67.1 ± 8.2 years) were considered. The mean baseline visual acuity (VA) was 0.35 ± 0.17 decimals remaining stable after DEXi, STTA and switch-back to DEXi. The mean central macular thickness (CMT) was 492.7 ± 32.8 µm initially, decreasing to 294.3 ± 133.4 µm after DEXi, 369.9 ± 182.3 µm after STTA and 297.6 ± 72.0 µm after switching back to DEXi (all p < 0.05 versus baseline). Compared to baseline, the CMT reduction was numerically better after DEXi and switching back to DEXi than after STTA (mean reduction: -200.4 µm, -167.7 µm, and -95.08 µm respectively, p = 0.13). Intraocular pressure was comparable after DEXi and STTA.
CONCLUSIONS: DEXi is the steroid of choice in DME. However, STTA can be a cost-effective alternative when DEXi is unavailable or contraindicated. This study suggests that STTA may be used in the context of a step therapy in DME.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of switching intravitreal dexamethasone implants (DEX-implant) from pro re nata (PRN) treatment regimen to a proactive regimen in patients with macular edema of diverse etiologies.
METHODS: An observational, retrospective, uncontrolled, multicenter, national case series.
METHODS: Eighty-one eyes from 68 patients treated between October 2015 and June 2023 were included.
METHODS: This study included consecutive eyes treated with DEX-implant who were switched from a PRN regimen to a proactive regimen for diabetic macular edema (DME), retinal vein occlusion (RVO), noninfectious uveitis macular edema (UME; including postsurgical macular edema), and radiation maculopathy (RM).
METHODS: The main outcome measures were change in the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and intraocular pressure (IOP) at each visit.
RESULTS: According to the etiology, DME represented 49.4% of eyes, UME 24.3%, RVO 21.0%, and RM 6.2%. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) duration of follow-up under the PRN and proactive regimens was 20.6 (13.3) and 14.2 (10.3) months, respectively. Switching from a PRN to a proactive regimen significantly improved mean (SD) BCVA by 3.7 (12.9) ETDRS letters (P = 0.01) with a mean (SD) decrease in CMT of 108.0 (151.4) μm (P < 0.001). The proportion of visits with significant anatomic recurrence (> 50 μm) also decreased from 40.1% to 6.0% after switching to a proactive regimen (P < 0.001). The number of DEX-implant injections significantly increased during the proactive treatment period (P < 0.001), but the change in the number of visits was not significantly different (P = 0.2). The proactive treatment period was not associated with a significant increase in IOP (P = 0.6).
CONCLUSIONS: Switching to a proactive regimen in patients already treated with DEX-implant seems to significantly improve BCVA and CMT while maintaining stable IOP.
BACKGROUND: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Purpose: To describe an immunocompetent patient with cytomegalovirus (CMV) retinitis after dexamethasone implant injection and review previously documented cases. Methods: A review of case reports and literature was performed. Results: A 75-year-old man presented with acute decreased vision in the left eye. He had a vitrectomy and membrane peeling for an epiretinal membrane with recurrent cystoid macular edema and was receiving intravitreal dexamethasone implant injections at an outside hospital. The visual acuity in the left eye was hand motions, and an examination found patchy retinal whitening with hemorrhages. Aqueous polymerase chain reaction was positive for CMV. The laboratory evaluation was negative for immunodeficiencies. He was treated successfully with intravitreal and oral antivirals; however, his vision remained poor at most recent follow-up. A literature review found 8 previous cases of CMV retinitis after dexamethasone implant injection, although most had underlying immune dysregulation. Conclusions: CMV retinitis after intravitreal dexamethasone implant injection is rare. Awareness of this complication is essential because of the risk for devastating blindness.

OBJECTIVE: Aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of dexamethasone (DEX) 0.7 mg intravitreal implant in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) and serous retinal detachment (SRD), and to study the prognostic factors on a follow up of 12 months.
METHODS: Forty eyes of twenty- six patients with centre involving DME and SRD, who underwent DEX implant, were enrolled. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), Swept source OCT imaging and intraocular pressure were evaluated. Central macular thickness (CMT), vitreomacular adhesion (VMA), disorganization of retinal inner layers (DRILs), hyperreflective dots (HRD), SRD and ellipsoid zone (EZ) disruption were included in the analysis at baseline and 12 months after implant.
RESULTS: According to our parametric analysis, at 12 months, BVCA improvement from 48.6 ± 23.4 letters to 53.3 ± 24.5 letters was statistically significant (p = 0.04), CMT decreased from 460 ± 99.52 μm to 322.9 ± 117 μm. The presence at baseline of VMA (p = 0.01), EZ disruption (p = 0.03) and DRILs (p = 0.04), were associated with poor BCVA improvement at the end of follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, OCT biomarkers can be considered significant prognostic factors for treatment outcome in patients with DME undergoing DEX intravitreal implant.

UNASSIGNED: Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a significant cause of vision impairment, posing challenges in its management due to variable responses and patient diversity. While anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents have revolutionized DME treatment, some patients are not suitable candidates for this therapy. Intravitreal corticosteroid therapy, such as the dexamethasone implant (DEX), has emerged as an alternative. This study aimed to comprehensively investigate the role of intravitreal DEX in treatment-naive DME patients with systemic contraindications to anti-VEGF therapy, administered one month before cataract surgery.
UNASSIGNED: A single-center retrospective study included 20 eyes with controlled diabetes, visually significant cataracts, untreated DME, and systemic contraindications for anti-VEGF therapy. Patients underwent DEX treatment followed by cataract surgery after one month. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and intraocular pressure (IOP) were assessed at multiple time points.
UNASSIGNED: BCVA significantly improved on days 30, 90, and 180 post-DEX (P<0.00001). CMT showed a significant decrease at day 30 (P<0.00001), which was sustained through days 90 and 180 (P<0.00001). Recurrent DME was observed in 25% of eyes on day 90. IOP increased significantly at days 30 (P<0.00001) and 90 (P=0.0006), returning to baseline by day 180. However, only two eyes needed topical anti-glaucoma treatment. No other ocular or systemic adverse events were noted.
UNASSIGNED: Intravitreal DEX administered one month before cataract surgery offers a promising treatment strategy for treatment-naive DME patients with systemic contraindications to anti-VEGF therapy. The study\'s findings provide insights into improving visual acuity and reducing macular thickness, along with manageable IOP changes. This personalized approach is a valuable addition to DME management, especially for complex medical cases, warranting further research and consideration for clinical practice.

We presented our observation with dexamethasone (DEX) implant in six eyes of three patients with Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada (VKH) disease who experienced hepatic dysfunction due to the systemic immunosuppressive therapy during their follow-up. Three cases who could not continue with the azathioprine (AZA) or adalimumab (ADA) treatment due to elevated liver enzymes were given consecutive bilateral DEX implant injections during the follow-up. In the first case, oral AZA was discontinued due to an elevation of the liver enzymes at the 2nd month of AZA treatment, and then she received five bilateral DEX implant administrations during the follow-up of 61 months without any intraocular pressure rise or disease recurrence. The remaining two patients had an elevation of the liver enzymes when ADA treatment was added to the prophylactic isoniazid therapy and they each received three bilateral DEX implant administrations within a year again without any complications and disease recurrence. DEX implant can be a safe and effective alternative for individuals with VKH disease whose systemic treatment is ceased due to adverse effects of the systemic treatment and intravitreal therapy with DEX implant can be beneficial to achieve a recurrence-free follow-up.