Fluocinolone acetonide implant increases resolution of macular edema through 36 months
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts
Patients with noninfectious uveitis affecting the posterior segment who were treated with a fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant experienced beneficial effects on macular edema through 36 months.
“In-office injection of the fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant improved inflammatory control, increased the resolution of macular edema with the anticipated positive impact on vision and had a manageable safety profile,” Seenu M. Hariprasad, MD, said at the virtual American Society of Retina Specialists meeting.
Hariprasad presented 36-month data from a prospective, randomized phase 3 clinical trial. The trial included 87 patients with noninfectious uveitis affecting the posterior segment who received Yutiq (fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant 0.18 mg, EyePoint Pharmaceuticals). Researchers compared 36-month outcomes with 42 patients who were treated with sham injections.
Patients who received the implant experienced a median time to first recurrence of uveitis at 1,051 days compared with 95 days in the sham group. Additionally, 69% of patients in the sham group received at least one local adjunctive anti-inflammatory injection compared with 19.5% of patients in the implant group, Hariprasad said.
At 36 months, the rate of macular edema was reduced by 48% in the implant group compared with 41% in the sham group, he said.
“Resolution rates were higher in the insert-treated eyes despite more adjunctive treatments used in the sham group,” Hariprasad said.
The higher rate of macular edema resolution in the implant group was seen earlier in the course of treatment compared with the sham group. The steady increase in the resolution rate of the sham group was likely due to the increased use of adjunctive medications as the study progressed, he said.
In a subset of patients with macular edema at baseline, there were more eyes gaining three or more lines of vision in the implant group compared with the sham group, 50% vs. 22%, respectively. The proportion of eyes losing three or more lines of vision was 9% in the sham group compared with 0% in the implant group, he said.