July 2019
Volume 60, Issue 9
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   July 2019
Efficacy of the 0.19 mg Fluocinolone Acetonide (FAc) Implant (ILUVIEN®) in a Multiphysician, Single-practice Setting – The Cleveland Experience
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Daniel C Daroszewski
    Retina Associates of Cleveland, Cleveland, Ohio, United States
    University Hospitals Eye Institute, Cleveland, Ohio, United States
  • Joseph M Coney
    Retina Associates of Cleveland, Cleveland, Ohio, United States
  • Jerome P Schartman
    Retina Associates of Cleveland, Cleveland, Ohio, United States
  • David G Miller
    Retina Associates of Cleveland, Cleveland, Ohio, United States
  • Llewelyn J Rao
    Retina Associates of Cleveland, Cleveland, Ohio, United States
  • Hernando Zegarra
    Retina Associates of Cleveland, Cleveland, Ohio, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Daniel Daroszewski, None; Joseph Coney, Alimera (C); Jerome Schartman, None; David Miller, None; Llewelyn Rao, None; Hernando Zegarra, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science July 2019, Vol.60, 2624. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Daniel C Daroszewski, Joseph M Coney, Jerome P Schartman, David G Miller, Llewelyn J Rao, Hernando Zegarra; Efficacy of the 0.19 mg Fluocinolone Acetonide (FAc) Implant (ILUVIEN®) in a Multiphysician, Single-practice Setting – The Cleveland Experience. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2019;60(9):2624.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Clinical trials and previous case studies have shown the efficacy and safety of long-term use of the 0.19 mg FAc implant. This retrospective, cohort study of 48 eyes (42 patients) with diabetic macular edema (DME) was performed by a single practice in the greater Cleveland area (9 sites; 5 physicians) with a broad range of demographics and underlying disease severity. This case series assessed injection burden, foveal thickness, visual acuity, and changes in intraocular pressure (IOP) before and after treatment with FAc implant in a real-world setting.

Methods : Eyes with DME treated with at least one FAc intravitreal implant, subsequent to a prior corticosteroid, and with at least one year of follow-up (mean, 18.1 ± 7.9 months) were included in this analysis. Data were collected on visual acuity (VA), central foveal thickness (CFT), intraocular pressure (IOP), and supplemental treatments after a single FAc implant

Results : Mean age at the time of FAc administration was 67.7 ± 11.2 years. The mean baseline VA before implant was 59.6 ± 13.7 letters and remained stable (see table). Mean CFT before ILUVIEN was 392.7 ± 117.5 μm and showed a steady decline at 1 and 2 years (see table); 32.6% of eyes required no additional treatment. In patients receiving supplemental therapy, the treatment burden was reduced from 1 treatment every 1.9 months pre-FAc to 1 treatment every 5 months post-FAc. A mild, nonsignificant increase in IOP (see table) was observed throughout follow-up; 7 eyes experienced a rise in IOP (above 22 mmHg), and all were effectively managed with topical drops.

Conclusions : This long-term study adds to the current body of literature on the safety and effectiveness of the FAc implant in US real-world practices. Findings showed that all patients experienced stable VA, reduced foveal thickness, and a reduction of injections post-FAc administration.

This abstract was presented at the 2019 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Vancouver, Canada, April 28 - May 2, 2019.

 

Two-year FAc treatment outcomes, 48 eyes with DME.

Two-year FAc treatment outcomes, 48 eyes with DME.

 

Treatment outcome for a single eye before and after the FAc implant, illustrating that no additional anti-VEGF (E; aflibercept) or laser (L) treatments were required after the FAc implant compared with a comparable timeframe before the implant.

Treatment outcome for a single eye before and after the FAc implant, illustrating that no additional anti-VEGF (E; aflibercept) or laser (L) treatments were required after the FAc implant compared with a comparable timeframe before the implant.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×