Use of flucinolone acetonide for patients with diabetic macular oedema:patient selection criteria and early outcomes in real world setting

Introduction: Fluocinolone acetonide slow release implant (Iluvien®) was approved in December 2013 in UK for treatment of eyes which are pseudophakic with DMO that is unresponsive to other available therapies. This approval was based on evidence from FAME trials which were conducted at a time when ranibizumab was not available. There is a paucity of data on implementation of guidance on selecting patients for this treatment modality and also on the real world outcome of fluocinolone therapy especially in those patients that have been unresponsive to ranibizumab therapy. Method: Retrospective study of consecutive patients treated with fluocinolone between January and August 2014 at three sites were included to evaluate selection criteria used, baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes at 3-month time point. Results: Twenty two pseudophakic eyes of 22 consecutive patients were included. Majority of patients had prior therapy with multiple intravitreal anti-VEGF injections. Four eyes had controlled glaucoma. At baseline mean VA and CRT were 50.7 letters and 631 μm respectively. After 3 months, 18 patients had improved CRT of which 15 of them also had improved VA. No adverse effects were noted. One additional patient required IOP lowering medication. Despite being unresponsive to multiple prior therapies including laser and anti-VEGF injections, switching to fluocinolone achieved treatment benefit. Conclusion: The patient level selection criteria proposed by NICE guidance on fluocinolone appeared to be implemented. This data from this study provides new evidence on early outcomes following fluocinolone therapy in eyes with DMO which had not responded to laser and other intravitreal agents.

Clinical characteristics and selection of treatment modality for patients with vitreomacular traction:real-world implementation of NICE guidance (TA297)

Aim: To investigate the qualitative aspects in patient selection and the quantitative impact of disease burden in real world treatment of vitreomacular traction (VMT) and implementation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance (TA297). Methods: A monocentric, retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging over a 3 month period. Patients with VMT in at least one eye were identified for further data collection on laterality, visual acuity, symptoms, presence of epiretinal membrane, macular hole and treatment selection. Results: A total of 3472 patients underwent OCT imaging with a total of 6878 eyes scanned. Out of 87 patients, 74 patients had unilateral VMT (38 right, 36 left) and 13 patients had bilateral VMT. Eighteen patients with unilateral VMT satisfied NICE criteria of severe sight problems in the affected eye. Eight were managed for a coexisting pathology, one refused treatment, one patient did not attend, two closed spontaneously, and one received ocriplasmin prior to the study start date. Only two patients with unilateral VMT received ocriplasmin and three underwent vitrectomy. Those failing to meet NICE criteria for unilateral VMT were predominantly asymptomatic (n=49) or had coexisting ERM (n=5) or both (n=2). Conclusion: Ocriplasmin provides an alternative treatment for patients with symptomatic VMT. Our data shows that the majority of patients with VMT do not meet NICE TA297 primarily due to lack of symptoms. Those meeting NICE criteria, but not treated, tended to have coexisting macular pathology. Variation in patient selection due to subjective factors not outlined in NICE guidance suggests that real world outcomes of ocriplasmin therapy should be interpreted with caution.