Challenging Clinical Cases – A Walk Through Supplemental Therapy with Intravitreal Ranibizumab Therapy Following Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema with the 0.19 mg Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant (ILUVIEN®)

• Autor(a) principal: Pessoa, Bernardete
• Data de Publicação: 2020
• Outros Autores: Beirão, João, Meireles, Angelina, Menéres, Pedro
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
• Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.16/2653
• topic: anti-VEGF; diabetic macular edema; fluocinolone acetonide implant; ranibizumab; supplemental therapy

Purpose: There are limited published data regarding the use of supplemental intravitreal therapies in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) following treatment with the 0.19 mg fluocinolone acetonide (FAc; ILUVIEN®) intravitreal implant. The aim of this report was to analyze five challenging eyes that required supplemental therapies after treatment with the FAc implant. Methods: This is a retrospective case series conducted at the Centro Hospitalar Universitário do Porto in Porto, Portugal, between 2015 and 2019. It aimed to assess the patient background, treatment history and patient outcomes in challenging clinical cases in which intravitreal injections (IVI) of ranibizumab had been given pro re nata following treatment with the FAc implant (with a minimum follow-up of 33 months). Parameters measured included best-corrected visual acuity in early treatment diabetic retinopathy scale, central macular thickness and intraocular pressure. Patients: Five eyes (three patients) diagnosed with persistent or recurrent DME and suitable for treatment with the FAc implant according to its licensed indication in Europe. Results: In the first 2 patients, one bilateral, DME was refractory to IVI of short-acting corticosteroids and anti-VEGF. Following FAc therapy, there was a favorable evolution and a clear regression of diabetic retinopathy (DR) severity. Supplemental treatments were adopted, but a reduced number of treatments were needed beyond three years in these cases. The third case had bilateral DME. One eye had been vitrectomized and FAc therapy led to resolution of DME within 6 months. In the contralateral eye, the control of DME was dependent on anti-VEGF supplemental treatments until a pars plana vitrectomy was performed. Conclusion: The multifactorial nature of DME means there is a need for an individualized treatment approach to the management of DME. It also explains why some patients need a combined or a more aggressive approach to therapy in order to achieve successful outcomes for the patient.