Periocular Triamcinolone vs. Intravitreal Triamcinolone vs. Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant for the Treatment of Uveitic Macular Edema: The PeriOcular vs. INTravitreal corticosteroids for uveitic macular edema (POINT) Trial

Multicenter Uveitis Steroid Treatment Trial Research Group

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of 3 regional corticosteroid injections for uveitic macular edema (ME): periocular triamcinolone acetonide (PTA), intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (ITA), and the intravitreal dexamethasone implant (IDI). Design: Multicenter, randomized clinical trial. Participants: Patients with uveitic ME. Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 1 of the 3 therapies. Patients with bilateral ME were assigned the same treatment for both eyes. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of baseline (PropBL) central subfield thickness (CST) at 8 weeks (CST at 8 weeks/CST at baseline) assessed with OCT by masked readers. Secondary outcomes included ≥20% improvement and resolution of ME, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and intraocular pressure (IOP) events over 24 weeks. Results: All treatment groups demonstrated improved CST during follow-up. At 8 weeks, each group had clinically meaningful reductions in CST relative to baseline (PropBL: 0.77, 0.61, and 0.54, respectively, which translates to reductions of 23%, 39%, and 46% for PTA, ITA, and IDI, respectively). Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (PropBL ITA/PropBL PTA, hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; 99.87% confidence interval [CI], 0.65–0.96) and IDI (PropBL IDI/PropBL PTA, HR, 0.69; 99.87% CI, 0.56–0.86) had larger reductions in CST than PTA (P < 0.0001). Intravitreal dexamethasone implant was noninferior to ITA at 8 weeks (PropBL IDI/PropBL ITA, HR, 0.88; 99.87% CI, 0.71–1.08). Both ITA and IDI treatments also were superior to PTA treatment in improving and resolving uveitic ME. All treatment groups demonstrated BCVA improvement throughout follow-up. Both ITA and IDI groups had improvements in BCVA that was 5 letters greater than in the PTA group at 8 weeks (P < 0.004). The risk of having IOP ≥24 mmHg was higher in the intravitreal treatment groups compared with the periocular group (HR, 1.83; 95% CI, 0.91–3.65 and HR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.29–4.91 for ITA and IDI, respectively); however, there was no significant difference between the 2 intravitreal treatment groups. Conclusions: Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide and the IDI were superior to PTA for treating uveitic ME with modest increases in the risk of IOP elevation. This risk did not differ significantly between intravitreal treatments.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)283-295
Number of pages13
JournalOphthalmology
Volume126
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2019

Fingerprint

Triamcinolone
Triamcinolone Acetonide
Macular Edema
Dexamethasone
Adrenal Cortex Hormones
Therapeutics
Confidence Intervals
Intraocular Pressure
Visual Acuity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Periocular Triamcinolone vs. Intravitreal Triamcinolone vs. Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant for the Treatment of Uveitic Macular Edema : The PeriOcular vs. INTravitreal corticosteroids for uveitic macular edema (POINT) Trial. / Multicenter Uveitis Steroid Treatment Trial Research Group.

In: Ophthalmology, Vol. 126, No. 2, 01.02.2019, p. 283-295.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{c67273c3e8e24aa58c702e482eb80041,
title = "Periocular Triamcinolone vs. Intravitreal Triamcinolone vs. Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant for the Treatment of Uveitic Macular Edema: The PeriOcular vs. INTravitreal corticosteroids for uveitic macular edema (POINT) Trial",
abstract = "Purpose: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of 3 regional corticosteroid injections for uveitic macular edema (ME): periocular triamcinolone acetonide (PTA), intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (ITA), and the intravitreal dexamethasone implant (IDI). Design: Multicenter, randomized clinical trial. Participants: Patients with uveitic ME. Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 1 of the 3 therapies. Patients with bilateral ME were assigned the same treatment for both eyes. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of baseline (PropBL) central subfield thickness (CST) at 8 weeks (CST at 8 weeks/CST at baseline) assessed with OCT by masked readers. Secondary outcomes included ≥20{\%} improvement and resolution of ME, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and intraocular pressure (IOP) events over 24 weeks. Results: All treatment groups demonstrated improved CST during follow-up. At 8 weeks, each group had clinically meaningful reductions in CST relative to baseline (PropBL: 0.77, 0.61, and 0.54, respectively, which translates to reductions of 23{\%}, 39{\%}, and 46{\%} for PTA, ITA, and IDI, respectively). Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (PropBL ITA/PropBL PTA, hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; 99.87{\%} confidence interval [CI], 0.65–0.96) and IDI (PropBL IDI/PropBL PTA, HR, 0.69; 99.87{\%} CI, 0.56–0.86) had larger reductions in CST than PTA (P < 0.0001). Intravitreal dexamethasone implant was noninferior to ITA at 8 weeks (PropBL IDI/PropBL ITA, HR, 0.88; 99.87{\%} CI, 0.71–1.08). Both ITA and IDI treatments also were superior to PTA treatment in improving and resolving uveitic ME. All treatment groups demonstrated BCVA improvement throughout follow-up. Both ITA and IDI groups had improvements in BCVA that was 5 letters greater than in the PTA group at 8 weeks (P < 0.004). The risk of having IOP ≥24 mmHg was higher in the intravitreal treatment groups compared with the periocular group (HR, 1.83; 95{\%} CI, 0.91–3.65 and HR, 2.52; 95{\%} CI, 1.29–4.91 for ITA and IDI, respectively); however, there was no significant difference between the 2 intravitreal treatment groups. Conclusions: Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide and the IDI were superior to PTA for treating uveitic ME with modest increases in the risk of IOP elevation. This risk did not differ significantly between intravitreal treatments.",
author = "{Multicenter Uveitis Steroid Treatment Trial Research Group} and Jennifer Thorne and Elizabeth Sugar and Holbrook, {Janet Teresa} and Burke, {Alyce E.} and Altaweel, {Michael M.} and Vitale, {Albert T.} and Acharya, {Nisha R.} and Kempen, {John H.} and Douglas Jabs",
year = "2019",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.08.021",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "126",
pages = "283--295",
journal = "Ophthalmology",
issn = "0161-6420",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Periocular Triamcinolone vs. Intravitreal Triamcinolone vs. Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant for the Treatment of Uveitic Macular Edema

T2 - The PeriOcular vs. INTravitreal corticosteroids for uveitic macular edema (POINT) Trial

AU - Multicenter Uveitis Steroid Treatment Trial Research Group

AU - Thorne, Jennifer

AU - Sugar, Elizabeth

AU - Holbrook, Janet Teresa

AU - Burke, Alyce E.

AU - Altaweel, Michael M.

AU - Vitale, Albert T.

AU - Acharya, Nisha R.

AU - Kempen, John H.

AU - Jabs, Douglas

PY - 2019/2/1

Y1 - 2019/2/1

N2 - Purpose: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of 3 regional corticosteroid injections for uveitic macular edema (ME): periocular triamcinolone acetonide (PTA), intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (ITA), and the intravitreal dexamethasone implant (IDI). Design: Multicenter, randomized clinical trial. Participants: Patients with uveitic ME. Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 1 of the 3 therapies. Patients with bilateral ME were assigned the same treatment for both eyes. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of baseline (PropBL) central subfield thickness (CST) at 8 weeks (CST at 8 weeks/CST at baseline) assessed with OCT by masked readers. Secondary outcomes included ≥20% improvement and resolution of ME, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and intraocular pressure (IOP) events over 24 weeks. Results: All treatment groups demonstrated improved CST during follow-up. At 8 weeks, each group had clinically meaningful reductions in CST relative to baseline (PropBL: 0.77, 0.61, and 0.54, respectively, which translates to reductions of 23%, 39%, and 46% for PTA, ITA, and IDI, respectively). Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (PropBL ITA/PropBL PTA, hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; 99.87% confidence interval [CI], 0.65–0.96) and IDI (PropBL IDI/PropBL PTA, HR, 0.69; 99.87% CI, 0.56–0.86) had larger reductions in CST than PTA (P < 0.0001). Intravitreal dexamethasone implant was noninferior to ITA at 8 weeks (PropBL IDI/PropBL ITA, HR, 0.88; 99.87% CI, 0.71–1.08). Both ITA and IDI treatments also were superior to PTA treatment in improving and resolving uveitic ME. All treatment groups demonstrated BCVA improvement throughout follow-up. Both ITA and IDI groups had improvements in BCVA that was 5 letters greater than in the PTA group at 8 weeks (P < 0.004). The risk of having IOP ≥24 mmHg was higher in the intravitreal treatment groups compared with the periocular group (HR, 1.83; 95% CI, 0.91–3.65 and HR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.29–4.91 for ITA and IDI, respectively); however, there was no significant difference between the 2 intravitreal treatment groups. Conclusions: Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide and the IDI were superior to PTA for treating uveitic ME with modest increases in the risk of IOP elevation. This risk did not differ significantly between intravitreal treatments.

AB - Purpose: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of 3 regional corticosteroid injections for uveitic macular edema (ME): periocular triamcinolone acetonide (PTA), intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (ITA), and the intravitreal dexamethasone implant (IDI). Design: Multicenter, randomized clinical trial. Participants: Patients with uveitic ME. Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 1 of the 3 therapies. Patients with bilateral ME were assigned the same treatment for both eyes. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of baseline (PropBL) central subfield thickness (CST) at 8 weeks (CST at 8 weeks/CST at baseline) assessed with OCT by masked readers. Secondary outcomes included ≥20% improvement and resolution of ME, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and intraocular pressure (IOP) events over 24 weeks. Results: All treatment groups demonstrated improved CST during follow-up. At 8 weeks, each group had clinically meaningful reductions in CST relative to baseline (PropBL: 0.77, 0.61, and 0.54, respectively, which translates to reductions of 23%, 39%, and 46% for PTA, ITA, and IDI, respectively). Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (PropBL ITA/PropBL PTA, hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; 99.87% confidence interval [CI], 0.65–0.96) and IDI (PropBL IDI/PropBL PTA, HR, 0.69; 99.87% CI, 0.56–0.86) had larger reductions in CST than PTA (P < 0.0001). Intravitreal dexamethasone implant was noninferior to ITA at 8 weeks (PropBL IDI/PropBL ITA, HR, 0.88; 99.87% CI, 0.71–1.08). Both ITA and IDI treatments also were superior to PTA treatment in improving and resolving uveitic ME. All treatment groups demonstrated BCVA improvement throughout follow-up. Both ITA and IDI groups had improvements in BCVA that was 5 letters greater than in the PTA group at 8 weeks (P < 0.004). The risk of having IOP ≥24 mmHg was higher in the intravitreal treatment groups compared with the periocular group (HR, 1.83; 95% CI, 0.91–3.65 and HR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.29–4.91 for ITA and IDI, respectively); however, there was no significant difference between the 2 intravitreal treatment groups. Conclusions: Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide and the IDI were superior to PTA for treating uveitic ME with modest increases in the risk of IOP elevation. This risk did not differ significantly between intravitreal treatments.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85060349677&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85060349677&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.08.021

DO - 10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.08.021

M3 - Article

C2 - 30269924

AN - SCOPUS:85060349677

VL - 126

SP - 283

EP - 295

JO - Ophthalmology

JF - Ophthalmology

SN - 0161-6420

IS - 2

ER -