Gustavo Barreto de Melo, MD, PhD, FASRS
This case report delves into a pivotal and frequently underestimated concern surrounding intravitreal injections (IVI). In light of the substantial global number of IVI procedures, even ostensibly minor issues demand our attention. The presence of silicone oil (SO) droplets in the vitreous of a patient after a single pegcetacoplan injection is similar to what has been known in the literature for any anti-VEGF agent. Although some of the drug’s physical and chemical properties may play a role in the amount of SO released, the handling of the syringe itself alongside its manufacturing process are the main reasons for such problems.
The authors have posited that the reciprocating motion of the plunger during IVI may have the potential to displace SO from the syringe, particularly when administered alongside the final volume of the medication. While this hypothesis exhibits logical appeal, our research group conducted a study that, regrettably, failed to empirically substantiate that such movements may trigger supplementary SO release. However, it is well established that any form of agitation assumes a critical role in the dispersion of SO, spanning from the conventional flicking or tapping actions to incidental shocks and mishandling incidents during the product’s journey from manufacturing to distribution and eventual utilization by end users. This is also particularly worrisome when prefilled syringes are involved.
One should bear in mind that the 2018 ASRS Preferences and Trends Survey showed that about a third of U.S. retina specialists had encountered patients manifesting SO droplets after IVI, 5% had resorted to vitrectomy to address symptomatic floaters, and 1.8% had seen patients initiating legal actions stemming from these complications. Unlike prior knowledge from the initial anti-VEGF era, recent publications have unmasked a considerably higher prevalence of SO presence in the vitreous, affecting up to 80% of eyes undergoing routine IVI.
Furthermore, the authors advocate for the adoption of SO-free syringes for IVI, an idea I endorse. Undoubtedly, it is incumbent upon prominent stakeholders within this domain to facilitate the widespread availability of superior quality, ophthalmology-tailored, SO-free syringes. I should also point out that some high-quality siliconized syringes release a minimal amount of SO. Although we should target no SO at all, the better quality syringes that are commercially available on the market should be pursued.
References:
Bijon J, et al. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2023;doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2023.3495.
García SB, et al. BMC Ophthalmol. 2022;doi:10.1186/s12886-022-02536-2.
Gerhardt A, et al. J Pharm Sci. 2014;doi:10.1002/jps.23973.
Kim NA, et al. Int J Pharm. 2020;doi:10.1016/j.ijpharm.2020.119704.
Melo GB, et al. Acta Ophthalmol. 2021;doi:10.1111/aos.14838.
Melo GB, et al. Br J Ophthalmol. 2020;doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-313823.
Melo GB, et al. Int J Retina Vitreous. 2019;doi:10.1186/s40942-019-0184-9.
Melo GB, et al. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2021;doi:10.1016/j.preteyeres.2020.100862.
Stone TW, et al. ASRS 2018 preferences and trends membership survey. Presented at: American Society of Retina Specialists annual meeting; July 26-30, 2019; Chicago.
Thompson JT. Ophthalmol Retina. 2020;doi:10.1016/j.oret.2020.07.021.
Gustavo Barreto de Melo, MD, PhD, FASRS
Affiliate professor at Federal University of São Paulo, Brazil
Disclosures: Melo reports being a consultant for Molecular Partners, Pine Pharmaceuticals, SJJ Solutions and TriboFilm Research and a member of Bayer, Roche and West Pharmaceutical advisory boards.