Optic disc pit (ODP) is a rare congenital anomaly of the optic disc, which can be complicated by a maculopathy associated with progressive visual loss. Optic disc pits are usually unilateral and sporadic in occurrence, and the development of maculopathy is unpredictable with no known triggers. Optic disc pit maculopathy (ODP-M) is characterized by intraretinal and subretinal fluid at the macula, causing visual deterioration. The source of this fluid is still unclear, and several competing theories have suggested it may be vitreous fluid, cerebrospinal fluid, leakage from blood vessels at the base of the pit or leakage from the choroid. The mechanism of pathogenesis of ODP-M has not been fully elucidated, but vitreous liquefaction and traction and pressure gradients within the eye have been implicated to be involved. There are no clear guidelines on the management of patients with ODP-M, and numerous techniques have been described, including laser photocoagulation, intravitreal gas injection, macular buckling and pars plana vitrectomy with many different modifications. The majority of reports describe small series, and as there are no comparative studies there is no consensus regarding the optimal treatment for ODP-M. This review discusses the literature on the possible sources of fluid and mechanisms of pathogenesis in ODP-M, as well as the wide array of treatment modalities and their results. Based on these, a set of recommended key concepts for the timing and choice of treatment for these challenging are presented.

Dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.7 mg (DEX 0.7) was approved for treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) after demonstration of its efficacy and safety in the MEAD registration trials. We performed subgroup analysis of MEAD study results to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DEX 0.7 treatment in patients with previously treated DME. Three-year, randomized, sham-controlled phase 3 study in patients with DME, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 34–68 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters (20/200–20/50 Snellen equivalent), and central retinal thickness (CRT) ≥300 μm measured by time-domain optical coherence tomography. Patients were randomized to 1 of 2 doses of DEX (0.7 mg or 0.35 mg), or to sham procedure, with retreatment no more than every 6 months. The primary endpoint was ≥15-letter gain in BCVA at study end. Average change in BCVA and CRT from baseline during the study (area-under-the-curve approach) and adverse events were also evaluated. The present subgroup analysis evaluated outcomes in patients randomized to DEX 0.7 (marketed dose) or sham based on prior treatment for DME at study entry. Baseline characteristics of previously treated DEX 0.7 (n = 247) and sham (n = 261) patients were similar. In the previously treated subgroup, mean number of treatments over 3 years was 4.1 for DEX 0.7 and 3.2 for sham, 21.5 % of DEX 0.7 patients versus 11.1 % of sham had ≥15-letter BCVA gain from baseline at study end (P = 0.002), mean average BCVA change from baseline was +3.2 letters with DEX 0.7 versus +1.5 letters with sham (P = 0.024), and mean average CRT change from baseline was −126.1 μm with DEX 0.7 versus −39.0 μm with sham (P < 0.001). Cataract-related adverse events were reported in 70.3 % of baseline phakic patients in the previously treated DEX 0.7 subgroup; vision gains were restored following cataract surgery. DEX 0.7 significantly improved visual and anatomic outcomes in patients with DME previously treated with laser, intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor, intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide, or a combination of these therapies. The safety profile of DEX 0.7 in previously treated patients was similar to its safety profile in the total study population. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00168337 and NCT00168389 , registered 12 September 2005

Background: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is the leading cause of blindness in the working-age population. The purpose of this review is to gather the existing literature regarding the use of the approved anti-vascular endothelial growth (anti-VEGF) agents in the treatment of DR. Methods: A comprehensive literature review in PubMed engine search was performed for articles written in English language up to 1 July 2021, using the keywords “diabetic retinopathy”, “ranibizumab”, “aflibercept”, and “anti-VEGF”. Emphasis was given on pivotal trials and recent robust studies. Results: Intravitreal anti-VEGF agents have been found to significantly improve visual acuity and reduce retinal thickness in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) in a long-term follow-up ranging from 1 to 5 years and are considered the standard-of-care in such patients. Regarding DR, intravitreal anti-VEGF agents provided ≥2-step improvement in DR severity on color fundus photography in about 30–35% of patients with NPDR at baseline, in the majority of clinical trials originally designed to evaluate the efficacy of intravitreal anti-VEGF agents in patients with DME. Protocol S and CLARITY study have firstly reported that intravitreal anti-VEGF agents are non-inferior to panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) in patients with proliferative DR (PDR). However, the use of new imaging modalities, such as optical coherence tomography-angiography and wide-field fluorescein angiography, reveals conflicting results about the impact of anti-VEGF agents on the regression of retinal non-perfusion in patients with DR. Furthermore, one should consider the high “loss to follow-up” rate and its devastating consequences especially in patients with PDR, when deciding to treat the latter with intravitreal anti-VEGF agents alone compared to PRP. In patients with PDR, combination of treatment of intravitreal anti-VEGF agents and PRP has been also supported. Moreover, in the specific case of vitreous hemorrhage or tractional retinal detachment as complications of PDR, intravitreal anti-VEGF agents have been found to be beneficial as an adjunct to pars plana vitrectomy (PPV), most commonly given 3–7 days before PPV, offering reduction in the recurrence of vitreous hemorrhage. Conclusions: There is no general consensus regarding the use of intravitreal anti-VEGF agents in patients with DR. Although anti-VEGF agents are the gold standard in the treatment of DME and seem to improve DR severity, challenges in their use exist and should be taken into account in the decision of treatment, based on an individualized approach.

Early diagnosis and treatment of choroidal neovascularization (CNV), a main cause of severe vision loss in age related macular degeneration (AMD), is crucial in order to preserve vision and the quality of life of patients. This review summarizes current literature on the subject of early detection of CNV, both in the clinic setting and mainly in the patient’s home. New technologies are evolving to allow for earlier detection and thus vision preservation in AMD patients.

Purpose: To compare identification rates of retinal fluid of the Notal Vision Home Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) device (NVHO) when used by people with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) to those captured by a commercial OCT. Methods: Prospective, cross-sectional study where patients underwent commercial OCT imaging followed by self-imaging with either the NVHO 2.5 or the NVHO 3 in clinic setting. Outcomes included patients’ ability to acquire analyzable OCT images with the NVHO and to compare those with commercial images. Results: Successful images were acquired with the NVHO 2.5 in 469/531 eyes (88%) in 264/290 subjects (91%) with the mean (SD) age of 78.8 (8.8); 153 (58%) were female with median visual acuity (VA) of 20/40. In the NVHO 3 cohort, 69 eyes of 45 subjects (93%) completed the self-imaging. Higher rates of successful imaging were found in eyes with VA ≥ 20/320. Positive percent agreement/negative percent agreement for detecting the presence of subretinal and/or intraretinal fluid when reviewing for fluid in three repeated volume scans were 97%/95%, respectively for the NVHO v3. Conclusion: Self-testing with the NVHO can produce high quality images suitable for fluid identification by human graders, suggesting the device may be able to complement standard-of-care clinical assessments and treatments.