The 0.19-mg Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant for the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema: An Expert Consensus

Le résumé fourni par la source

Background and Objective: To better understand the level of agreement among retina specialists on the role of inflammation in diabetic retinopathy (DR) and diabetic macular edema (DME), and the use of 0.19-mg fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant in DME treatment, a consensus survey was drafted and disseminated to retina specialists across the United States. Materials and Methods: Using the modified Delphi method, a list of 12 consensus statements were generated by the coauthors based on short-answer responses to an initial survey. In total, 56 retina specialists completed the entire consensus survey. Except for two multiple-choice questions, there were 10 consensus statements that used a modified Likert scale to indicate their level of agreement to the statement: Agree = 3, Mostly Agree = 2, Mostly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 0. Percentage agreement and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, and a consensus threshold was set at > 80% agreement for each statement. Results: Seven of 10 consensus statements using the modified Likert scale reached consensus, including those on the role of inflammation in pathophysiology of DR/DME, injection burden and patient adherence, and efficacy and safety of the FAc implant. The remaining three statements displayed high agreement with average scores > 80%, but the 95% CIs were below threshold. These included the impact of the FAc implant on DR progression, FAc as baseline therapy for DME, and the effectiveness of the steroid challenge to mitigate intraocular pressure risk after FAc use. Two multiple-choice questions focused on clinical situations in which corticosteroids would be used as baseline therapy for DME (pseudophakic eye [73%], recent stroke/myocardial infarction [66%], and pregnancy/breastfeeding [66%]) and which delivery route satisfies the steroid challenge for the FAc implant (intravitreal [100%], sub-tenon/periocular [73%], and topical [57%]). Conclusions: Physicians highly agreed on the role of inflammation in pathophysiology of DR/DME, injection burden and patient adherence, and efficacy and safety of the FAc implant. However, full consensus was not found on the impact of the FAc implant on DR progression, FAc as baseline therapy for DME, and the effectiveness of the steroid challenge to mitigate intraocular pressure risk after FAc use. [ Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2023;54(3):166–173.]

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.