Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Oct 1;16(10):e0257695. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257695

Diabetic macular edema: Safe and effective treatment with intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (Taioftal)

Francesco Saverio Sorrentino 1,*, Claudio Bonifazzi 2, Francesco Parmeggiani 3
Editor: Alfred S Lewin4
PMCID: PMC8486126  PMID: 34597309

Abstract

Purpose

To suggest the safety and efficacy of preservative-free triamcinolone acetonide intravitreal injectable suspension (Taioftal) for the treatment of diabetic macular edema.

Methods

A prospective clinical study involved 49 patients (49 eyes), that were treated with Taioftal and followed-up for six months. Complete ophthalmic examination, including spectral domain optical coherence tomography, was performed at baseline, and at month 1, 3, 6 after the intravitreal injection. Accurate collection and analysis of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central foveal thickness (CFT), intraocular pressure (IOP), and adverse events (AEs) were carried out in order to evaluate visual function and macular morphology before and after treatment

Results

Median BCVA value chosen as comparing statistics was significantly improved at every follow-up time points (gain of 6 letters at month 1, 12 at month 3 –improvement up to 24% at month 3 with stabilization until month 6) compared to baseline, as certified by Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test (P<0.05). Median CFT significantly waned at each follow-up times (decrease of about 65 μm at month 1, 155 at month 3 –reduction up to 28% at month 3 keeping good outcome until month 6) compared to baseline (P<0.05). IOP elevation, with no severe increases, was the most common among spotted AEs (median of 23 mmHg at month 1, 20 at month 3).

Conclusion

Intravitreal injection of preservative-free triamcinolone (Taioftal) is an effective, safe and inexpensive drug used to improve visual acuity and reduce central foveal thickness in eyes affected by diabetic macular edema during an average time of 6 months. Temporary, never severe, elevation of IOP is totally manageable with topical medications. No serious vision-threatening complications are related to the use of intravitreal triamcinolone injections.

Introduction

Macular edema (ME), continuously rising worldwide, is the main cause of visual loss in patients suffering from diabetic retinopathy (DR). Diabetic macular edema (DME), occurring at any stage of DR and often bilaterallyhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4458661/ - b1, results from defects in the blood-retinal barrier which lead to vascular leakage, intraretinally/subretinally fluid accumulation and macular thickening [1, 2]. The more frequent symptoms are blurring vision and drop of the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). The exact pathophysiology of the formation and the recurrence of ME is definitely complex [3]. Many pro-inflammatory molecules and biochemical factors are largely involved in the breakdown of the blood-retinal barrier [4].

Standard care for DME includes monitoring glycemia/glycated hemoglobin levels and focal/grid laser photocoagulation of leaking microaneurysms and areas of diffuse capillary bed leakage [3]. Clinical evidence, after recent clinical trials, has showed that anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy can be regarded as first-line therapy, but intravitreal steroids maintain a remarkable role in the management of DME [3, 5, 6]. Among steroid drugs, triamcinolone acetonide (TA) has the effect of anti-inflammatory and anti-angiogenic agent. Many reports have demonstrated the usefulness of intravitreal TA (IVTA) in suspension form, currently available as several commercial preparations, to treat DME [711]. TA is a synthetic steroid with anti-inflammatory strength five-folds higher than hydrocortisone and it has got a long-acting profile due to its low water solubility. As literature reports, the therapeutic effect of intravitreal 4 mg TA persists for up to 3 months [12, 13]. Most of studies have been carried out with TA with preservatives, but we will focus on TA preservative-free formulation, since it has been demonstrated that preservatives such as benzyl alcohol could be toxic on retinal tissues to a certain extent [1416].

Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network recommends IVTA either alone or in combination with laser therapy in selected patients with persistent and refractory DME and vision loss.

With this study, we would like to present our experience which has highlighted a possible duration of IVTA (Taioftal) for up to 4–6 months, with a safe drug profile during the follow-up period. We have used statistical criteria to analyze changes in both visual acuity and macular thickness at different stages of follow-up.

Materials and methods

This prospective clinical study, including a total of 49 eyes of 49 patients, was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020 in the Department of Ophthalmology at Ospedale Maggiore “C.A. Pizzardi” Bologna, Italy, where the use of IVTA was regarded as therapeutic option, prescribed at the discretion of the treating ophthalmologist, for diabetic macular edema. This study was approved by our Institutional Review Board (Bologna Hospital Local Ethic Commission) and patients signed informed consent for the use of their data. Also patients who declined to take part in this study could receive the same treatment, if the treating ophthalmologist chose TA for them. The study adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.

The number of 49 patients with ME secondary to DR was the representative sample of a population affected by DME. Criteria for inclusion were the presence of ME secondary to DR and the central foveal thickness (CFT) higher than 300 μm as measured by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) at baseline examination. Regardless of DR grading, we included DME of non proliferative diabetic retinopathy that had never treated with laser, macular grid or panretinal photocoagulation. We ruled out DME in proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Exclusion criteria were ME secondary to other causes (retinal vein occlusion, age-related macular degeneration, uveitis, post-phaco) and eyes which already had any surgical treatment.

At baseline, all patients had a complete ophthalmic examination, comprising assessment of BCVA—using Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) charts -, tonometry to measure intraocular pressure (IOP), biomicroscopy, fundus ophthalmoscopy and SD-OCT (Cirrus HD-OCT, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, CA, USA) with automated CFT measurements [17].

All patients were treated with a 4 mg/0.05 ml triamcinolone acetonide intravitreal injection (Taioftal, Sooft Italia S.p.A., Montegiorgio, IT) within two weeks from the baseline examination. IVTA was performed in the operation room. Taioftal was injected into the vitreous cavity through the pars plana using a single-use 27-gauge needle, after having performed a small corneal paracenthesis. Patients were treated with topical ophthalmic antibiotic 3 days before and 5 days after the treatment. After IVTA, they were given dorzolamide-timolol eye drops twice a day in the treated eye for 3 months. In the last 3-month period, we continued with IOP-lowering therapy only in case of IOP>19 mmHg. Moreover, we prescribed bromfenac eye drop twice a day for the first month.

Outcome measures (BCVA, CFT, IOP) were collected at month 1, month 3 and month 6. We also recorded adverse events during follow-up. There were no significant intraoperative complications as well as no significant postoperative troubles such as either endophthalmitis or severe intraocular inflammation. No cataract progression was observed during the study follow-up of six month. We compared the mean change in BCVA and CFT evaluating modifications in visual acuity and retinal morphology over six months of follow-up.

Since the values of BCVA and CFT showed single and grouped outliers at baseline, we considered the median, that is exactly the central value among all values and the quartile values, i.e. the common non-parametric statistics, for monitoring the improving of BCVA and CFT at each follow-up time. With respect to the common-used mean and standard deviation values, the advantage of using non-parametric statistics (median and percentiles) was to describe changes in BCVA and CFT even in presence of non-respondent patients. The IOP was even measured and described by means of the same statistical approach. Since the IOP elevation has been well-controlled by topic antiglaucoma medications (up to median of 23 mmHg at month 1), we avoided from providing graphs to describe IOP trends throughout this manuscript.

Data were analyzed with basic statics tools in R environment. The descriptive analysis was performed by using the box-and-whiskers plot to display outcomes (BCVA and CFT). Mean value and CI 95% were adopted to sum-up and compare the baseline with values of each follow-up time. For both parameters, the pair-wise t-test with Bonferroni correction was used to compare the baseline and the subsequent follow-up values. The value of P<0.05 was considered for statistical significance [18].

Results

Forty-nine eyes of 49 patients (of age 45–90, median 75 years) with DME undergoing a triamcinolone injection have been included for this analysis.

Visual acuity

At baseline, the median of BCVA was 50 letters (12 to 73 as range). It progressively improved up to 56 letters (14 to 83) at month 1, 62 (14 to 87) at month 3, and remained 62 (15 to 87) at month 6. The Bonferroni pairwise test gave a statistical significance (P<0.01) for each comparison follow-up time vs baseline. As expected, it was not significant between month 6 and month 3 (P = 0.9) of follow-up.

The dispersion of values of BCVA (Fig 1A and 1B, Table 1) is represented as difference between Q3 e Q1 percentile values (i.e., Interquartile range, IQR). At month 1, the dispersion of central values remains similar to baseline. At month 3 and 6, the dispersion of central values decreases (lower IQR with respect to baseline and month 1). On Fig 1A, specifically at month 3 and 6, there are some outliers that precisely indicate patients, for whom treatment was not effective.

Fig 1.

Fig 1

A. Box-plot of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at baseline and each time of the study follow-up (month 1, 3 and 6). The BCVA median, depicted as vertical bar in each box, strongly increases till the month 3. It substantially remains unchanged at month 6. The BCVA mean, depicted as little rhombus in each box, progressively increases till the month 3, remaining more or less unvaried at month 6. Due to the presence of outliers, the mean values are systematically lower than the median values. B. Mean±95% CI of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at baseline and each time of the study follow-up (month 1, 3 and 6). The plot shows the increasing trend of mean BCVA with the related 95% CI. The increasing trend underlines the overall rise of BCVA during the period of maximum effectiveness of IVTA (month 3). The graph shows the steady level of BCVA at month 6. As evident, at month 3 and 6 the 95% CI does not overlap baseline. This highlights the fact that we have a remarkable and lasting effect over the time. The BCVA percentile values and the trend over the follow-up period are detailed in Table 1.

Table 1. Best-corrected visual acuity measured over the time (baseline and follow-up).

Time Min Q1 Median Mean Q3 Max Mean SE 95% CI
Baseline 12 32 50 45 61 73 45.2 2.4 4.9
1-Month 14 39 56 51 65 83 51.4 2.5 5.0
3-Month 14 49 62 56 69 87 56.4 2.7 5.3
6-Month 15 49 62 57 68 87 56.7 2.6 5.1

Min: minimum value, Q1: percentile 25%, Q3: percentile 75%, Max: maximum value, SE: standard error, CI: confidence interval.

We inserted two-fold the mean to recall the label of Fig 1. In the left columns the percentile values are displayed, in the right columns the mean values and 95% CI.

The Table 1 displays a similar minimum value at both baseline and follow-up period. On the contrary, the percentiles from Q1 to maximum value have an increasing of more than 10 letters. Furthermore, the difference between the third (Q3) and first quartile (Q1) remarkably decreases (about 30%), see Fig 1A. To note, the mean standard error SE≈3 gives indication that there is a general improvement of BCVA for each time of follow-up.

After IVTA, the BCVA median significantly improved at month 1 and month 3, increasing respectively of 12% (6 letters at ETDRS) and 24% (12 letters at ETDRS) compared to baseline. Neither further improvements nor worsening happenings occurred at month 6, substantially remaining unvaried with respect to month 3. The non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test certificated that there was a difference in median values at month 1, 3 and 6 with respect to baseline (P<0.01).

Retinal morphology

At baseline, the median of CFT was 552 μm (311 to 779 as range). It progressively decreased to 487 μm (245 to 735) at month 1, 397 μm (188 to 703) at month 3 and 406 μm (221 to 658) at month 6. The Bonferroni pairwise test gave a statistical significance (P<0.01) for each comparison follow-up time vs baseline. As expected, it was not significant between month 6 and month 3 (P≈1.0) of follow-up.

After IVTA, the CFT median significantly decreased at month 1 and month 3, reducing respectively of 12% (65 μm at OCT) and 28% (155 μm) compared to baseline. At month 6, no significant changes occurred and retinal thickness remained approximately similar to month 3. The non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test certificated that there was a difference in median values at month 1, 3 and 6 with respect to baseline (P<0.01).

As above-mentioned, the dispersion of CFT values (Fig 2A and 2B, Table 2) is represented as difference between Q3 e Q1 values (i.e., Interquartile range, IQR). At month 1 and 3 the IQR value is slightly reduced (at most 25 μm); at month 6, the dispersion of central values slightly increases. Small differences are detectable in Range value (80 μm at month 3, 30 at month 6). By observing the IQR and Range values, the reduction of foveal thickness does not display such a clear trend as visual acuity does.

Fig 2.

Fig 2

A. Box-plot of central foveal thickness (CFT) at baseline and each time of the study follow-up (month 1, 3 and 6). The CFT median, depicted as vertical bar in each box, remarkably decreases till the month 3, with a slight increasing at month 6. The CFT mean, depicted as little rhombus in each box, progressively decreases till the month 3, remaining more or less unvaried at month 6. To note, at month 3 and 6 the mean values are higher than the median, and the CFT values less than 400 μm are more grouped. B. Mean±95% CI of central foveal thickness (CFT) at baseline and each time of the study follow-up (month 1, 3 and 6). The plot displays the decreasing trend of CFT mean with the related 95% CI. This trend underlines the overall decrease of CFT during the period of maximum effectiveness of IVTA (month 3). The graph displays a sort of steady level of CFT at month 6. As evident, at month 3 and 6 the 95% CI does not overlap baseline. This highlights the fact that we have a remarkable and lasting effect over the time. The CFT values of 95% CI and the trend over the follow-up period are detailed in Table 2.

Table 2. Central foveal thickness measured over the time (baseline and follow-up).

Time Min Q1 Median Mean Q3 Max Mean SE 95%CI
Baseline 311 454 552 542 625 779 542.3 17.9 35.1
1-Month 245 411 487 494 556 735 494.4 17.4 34.1
3-Month 188 356 397 433 501 703 433.2 17.0 33.4
6-Month 221 339 406 431 532 658 430.6 16.7 32.7

Min: minimum value, Q1: percentile 25%, Q3: percentile 75%, Max: maximum value, SE: standard error, CI: confidence interval.

We inserted two-fold the mean to recall the label of Fig 2. In the left columns the percentile values are displayed, in the right columns the mean values and 95% CI.

The Table 2 displays different minimum values for each time of follow-up with a maximum CFT decreasing of about 30%. A reduction of CFT from 15 to 25% is common to each percentile (see the quartile vertical lines in Fig 2A). As above-mentioned, the common mean standard error SE≈18 μm confirms the overall decreasing of CFT during the follow-up period (see the 95% CI width in Fig 2B).

Correlation visual acuity vs retinal morphology

We evaluated the correlation between BCVA and CFT values. The graph in Fig 3 displays the linear regression analysis that has been built up by using values of Intercept and Slope according to the following formula: BCVA = Intercept + Slope * CFT.

Fig 3. Linear regression between best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central foveal thickness (CFT) at baseline and each time of follow-up (month 1, 3 and 6).

Fig 3

The Slope absolute value increases from baseline to 6-month highlighting the linear relationship between CFT and BCVA. The improving of BCVA for decreasing CFT is clear for 3-month and 6-month, as stressed by the grouping of points (CFT-BCVA) on the left side in the bottom panels. The linear relationships at 3-month and 6-month are substantially very similar, as made evident by Intercept and Slope values.

For each time of follow-up, P<0.01 shows that this linear model correctly describes the existing relationship between CFT and BCVA. The coefficient of determination R-squared (R-sq) significantly enhances at month 1 and month 3 with respect to baseline, but also at month 6 it is higher than baseline and month 1. The increased R-sq indicates that values of BCVA and CFT are closer to the linear line.

Due to Intercept and Slope values, we can give a quantitative evaluation of the efficacy of IVTA over the time of 6-month follow-up. Slope is characterized by negative values for each time of follow-up to highlight the fact that decreased retinal thickness can improve the visual function. Slope indicates the increasing amount of letters of BCVA for 100 μm of CFT reduction. At baseline, Slope = -0.06 means that without IVTA we can have a gain of 6 letters for 100 μm decrease of CFT. At month 3, Slope = -0.11 means that after IVTA we have a gain of 11 letters instead of 6 for 100 μm CFT reduction. At month 6, Slope = -0.09 means gain of 9 letters for each 100 μm of persistent CFT reduction.

Intraocular pressure

We measured IOP at baseline and at each time (month 1, 3 and 6) of follow-up. We observed a peak of IOP at month 1, with constantly decreasing trend at month 3 and month 6. The median at baseline was 16 mmHg (12 to 20 as range). At month 1 the IOP median was 23 (13 to 30), 20 (13 to 30) at month 3, and 17 (12 to 20) at month 6. The Bonferroni p-value adjustment method was statistically significant (P<0.01) by comparing month 1 and 3 with baseline mean values, but not significant between month 6 and baseline (P = 0.12).

Discussion

In this prospective study, we evaluated progressive changes in visual acuity and macular morphology in eyes undergoing IVTA injections (Taioftal) for DME over a 6-month follow-up period. We found that the treatment with injectable preservative-free suspension of TA initially induced a significant improvement in BCVA, already one month after administration (6 letters at ETDRS, 12% of improvement). The best result was at month 3 of follow-up (12 letters at ETDRS, 24% of improvement) and the positive effect lasted approximately up to month 6. Likewise, CFT showed an ameliorating trend, significantly decreasing after three months (28% of reduction, corresponding to more than 150 μm with respect to baseline), and keeping the good outcomes until the sixth month after treatment. At month 6, CFT did not significantly get better with respect to month 3, but it displayed a sort of stabilization keeping rather good outcomes compared to baseline.

Over recent years, several studies have showed the safety and efficacy of IVTA injections in patients with DME. Our results are substantially in according with these studies, but we did not observe a drop in outcomes at month 6 [1922]. Also, we have been positive impressed by our data at month 6: no further improved outcomes compared to month 3, but not significant worsened at all. The linear regression analysis, describing the relationship between CFT and BCVA, has showed a progressive increase of coefficient of determination R-sq. This value significantly enhances at month 1 and 3 with respect to baseline, pointing out that the improvement of BCVA fully depends on CFT during the period of utmost efficacy of Taioftal. However, the R-sq value at month 6 higher than one at baseline and month 1 confirms that the effect of IVTA is rather durable, lasting more than 3 months as medical literature usually reports.

The stable clinical condition we reached is likely due to different and concurrent conditions. As known, there is the multifaceted pharmacological effect of steroids: anti-inflammatory, anti-VEGF and immunosuppressor. Taioftal has got precise physical and chemical characteristics that make this injectable drug similar but not exactly the same of other TA formulations for intravitreal use. Distinct preservative-free TA formulations substantially differ each other in pH value, particle size and load, solubility, dissolution, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics after intravitreal injection [12, 23, 24].

So far, many studies have been carried out with the use of triamcinolone acetonide with preservatives (Kenalog®, Kenacort®), whereas only few studies have discussed the use of preservative-free triamcinolone acetonide (Triescence®). The difference between triamcinolone with or without preservatives is relevant, because the use of molecules such as benzyl alcohol could provoke toxicity on retinal tissues and also might bring to a rise of IOP [1416]. With Taioftal the severity of ocular hypertension is negligible. There is a peak of IOP at month 1, then decreasing with no ocular complications and without affecting visual outcomes, and it is absolutely manageable with topical hypotensive medications. As above-mentioned in Methods, we performed a little paracenthesis right before the intravitreal injection and we prescribed topic therapy with IOP-lowering for three months and anti-inflammatory eye drops for the first month after IVTA. In this way, we have never had untreatable hypertone and we had well-managed peaks of IOP in the course of follow-up period. We were wondering the reason of the stability of outcomes during follow-up. Undoubtedly, TA has got a profile of safety and effectiveness for DME treatment. But, we would like to highlight how helpful bromfenac might be as supportive topic therapy in the first thirty days. BCVA maintained slightly better outcomes than CFT, which improved, gradually but less quickly, up to month 3, tending to early worsen at month 6. We observed less scattered values of BCVA and CFT at month 3 and 6 compared to baseline, therefore we can state that TA can induce a global improving effect. Nonetheless, probably there was something else that kept good visual function at month 6, while the retinal morphology slowly began to get worse again. An intriguing study carried out by Imai and coworkers reported that there is a close link between inflammation, microvascular permeability and glucocorticoid receptor in DME [25]. Thus, we assumed that IVTA injection could reduce neurodegeneration and neuroinflammation by lowering the level of inflammation in the microenvironment of the vitreous cavity as well as on the surface of the vitreoretina interface [26, 27].

In conclusion, we have showed that intravitreal preservative-free triamcinolone injections provide significant functional and morphological benefits in patients with DME. After three months, BCVA significantly improves of about 24% with respect to baseline. But this good outcome remains at month 6 with a more uniformed distribution around the median value of BCVA. Conversely, CFT significantly decreases of about 28% up to month 3 and displays a very little worsening at month 6 with much more dispersion of values, regardless of the good stability of BCVA. No troubles with the increase of IOP in the first three months, because it is well-controlled by topic IOP-lowering treatments. Further studies and investigations are needed to better evaluate the long-term effect of IVTA on DME.

This study has demonstrated that one intravitreal preservative-free triamcinolone injection accompanied by topical treatment (IOP-lowering and anti-inflammatory eye drops) and, mainly, a good balance of systemic glico-metabolic situation can be effective, well-tolerated and rather inexpensive as mid-term treatment (four-six months) against ME caused by diabetes.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge physicians and nurses for working at the retinal disease office and doctors for performing intravitreal injections.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Klein BE, Myers CE, Howard KP, Klein R. Serum lipids and proliferative diabetic retinopathy and macular edema in persons with long-term type 1 diabetes mellitus: the Wisconsin epidemiologic study of diabetic retinopathy. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015;133:503–10. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.5108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bhagat N, Grigorian RA, Tutela A, Zarbin MA. Diabetic macular edema: pathogenesis and treatment. Surv Ophthalmol. 2009;54:1–32. doi: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2008.10.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Schmidt-Erfurth U, Garcia-Arumi J, Bandello F, et al. Guidelines for the management of diabetic macular edema by the European Society of Retina Specialists (EURETINA). Ophthalmologica. 2017;237:185–222. doi: 10.1159/000458539 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Funatsu H, Noma H, Mimura T, Eguchi S, Hori S. Association of vitreous inflammatory factors with diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology. 2009;116:73–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.09.037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Schwartz SG, Scott IU, Stewart M, Flynn HW. Update on corticosteroids for diabetic macular edema. Clin Ophthalmol. 2016;10:1723–30. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S115546 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Lattanzio R, Cicinelli MV, Bandello F. Intravitreal steroids in diabetic macular edema. Dev Ophthalmol. 2017;60:78–90. doi: 10.1159/000459691 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Jonas JB, Akkoyun I, Kreissig I, Degenring RF. Diffuse diabetic macular edema treated by IVTA: a comparative, non-randomised study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005; 89:321–6. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2004.046391 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network. A randomized trial comparing intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide and focal/grid photocoagulation for diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology. 2008; 115:1447–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.06.015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hauser D, Bukelman A, Pokroy R, Katz H, Len A, Thein R, et al. Intravitreal triamcinolone for diabetic macular edema: comparison of 1, 2, and 4 mg. Retina. 2008; 28:825–30. doi: 10.1097/IAE.0b013e318165767e [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Šaric B, Šaric VB, Motušic R, Predovic J. Is the effect of intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide on diabetic macular edema dose-dependent? Eur J Ophthalmol. 2014; 24:221–7. doi: 10.5301/ejo.5000358 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Al Hinai A, Wali UK, Rasool TA, Rizvi SG. Experience of intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide for treatment of diabetic macular edema among Omani population. Oman J Ophthalmol. 201710:177–83. doi: 10.4103/ojo.OJO_173_2016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bandello F, Preziosa C, Querques G, Lattanzio R. Update of intravitreal steroids for the treatment of diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmic Res. 2014; 52:89–96. doi: 10.1159/000362764 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Nurözler Tabakcı B, Ünlü N. Corticosteroid treatment in diabetic macular edema. Turk J Ophthalmol. 2017; 47:156–60. doi: 10.4274/tjo.56338 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Altamirano-Vallejo JC, Mora-Ríos LE, Castellanos-González MA, et al. Comparison of intraocular pressure in eyes with macular edema treated with intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide with and without preservatives. Rev Mex Oftalmol. 2008; 82:397–402 [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Li Q, Wuang J, Yang L, et al. A Morphologic study of retinal toxicity induced by triamcinilone acetonide vehicles in rabbit eyes. Retina. 2008; 28:504–10 doi: 10.1097/IAE.0b013e318158e9c0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lüke M, Januschowski K, Beutel J, Warga M, Grisanti S, et al. The effects of triamcinolone crystals on retinal function in a model of isolated perfused vertebrate retina. Exp Eye Res. 2008; 1:22–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study research group. Photocoagulation for diabetic macular edema: Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study report number 1. Arch Ophthalmol. 1985; 103:1796–806. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Basic statistics test in “base” package in R environment—R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2017; URL https://www.R-project.org/ [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Audren F, Tod M, Massin P, et al. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling of the effect of triamcinolone acetonide on central macular thickness in patients with diabetic macular edema. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004; 45:3435–41. doi: 10.1167/iovs.03-1110 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Mehta H, Hennings C, Gillies MC, Nguyen V, Campain A, Fraser-Bell S. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor combined with intravitreal steroids for diabetic macular oedema. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;4:CD011599. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011599.pub2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Hong IH, Choi W, Han JR. The effects of intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide in diabetic macular edema refractory to anti-VEGF treatment. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2020; 64:196–202. doi: 10.1007/s10384-019-00710-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Muftuoglu IK, Tsai FF, Lin T, Freeman WR. High-dose decanted triamcinolone for treatment-resistant persistent macular edema. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2017; 48:717–26. doi: 10.3928/23258160-20170829-06 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Zhang X, Wang N, Schachat AP, Bao S, Gillies MC. Glucocorticoids: structure, signaling and molecular mechanisms in the treatment of diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema. Curr Mol Med. 2014; 14:376–84. doi: 10.2174/1566524014666140128114414 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Yang Y, Bailey C, Loewenstein A, Massin P. Intravitreal corticosteroids in diabetic macular edema: pharmacokinetic considerations. Retina. 2015; 35:2440–9. doi: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000000726 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Imai S, Otsuka T, Naito A, Shimazawa M, Hara H. Triamcinolone acetonide suppresses inflammation and facilitates vascular barrier function in human retinal microvascular endothelial cells. Curr Neurovasc Res. 2017; 14:232–41. doi: 10.2174/1567202614666170619081929 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Stem MS, Gardner TW. Neurodegeneration in the pathogenesis of diabetic retinopathy: molecular mechanisms and therapeutic implications. Curr Med Chem. 2013; 20:3241–50. doi: 10.2174/09298673113209990027 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Dong N, Xu B, Chu L, Tang X. Study of 27 aqueous humor cytokines in type 2 diabetic patients with or without macular edema. PLoS One. 2015; 10:e0125329. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125329 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Alfred S Lewin

21 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-17143

Diabetic macular edema: safe and effective treatment with intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (Taioftal)

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sorrentino,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The reviewers report that your findings are sound and that the results support your conclusions, but one reviewer indicates that the abstract needs more detail and both recommend additional papers for you to cite and discuss. Please distinguish between triamcinolone acetonide with preservatives preservative-free triamcinolone acetonide.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 05 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alfred S Lewin, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for including your ethics statement:  "This study was approved by our Institutional Review Board".   

a. Please amend your current ethics statement to include the full name of the ethics committee/institutional review board(s) that approved your specific study.

b. Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

 For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a very interesting manuscript on a topic of great relevance in a real world scenario. The use of intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide has been used as primary treatment and as an adjuvant treatment to other treatment modalities in diabetic macular edema. However, the use of this steroid is not exempt from adverse events such as ocular hypertension and the appearance and/or progression of cataract.

It is important to mention that most of the studies with this drug have been with the use of triamcinolone acetonide with preservatives (Kenalog®, kenacort®) and there are few studies on the use of preservative-free triamcinolone acetonide. This is relevant, since the use of preservatives such as benzyl alcohol have shown toxicity in ocular tissues. Therefore, it is relevant for the authors to discuss this point and its possible relationship with the adverse events observed, specifically, with the rate and severity of ocular hypertension observed, and with the visual results at 3 and 6 months after the injection of the drug. There are some published articles that talk about the subject:

1. Altamirano-Vallejo J.C., Mora-Ríos L.E., Castellanos-González M.A., et al. Comparison of intraocular pressure in eyes with macular edema treated with intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide with and without preservatives. Rev Mex Oftalmol. 2008;82(6):397-402

2. Li Q, Wuang J, Yang L. et al. A Morphologic study of retinal toxicity induced by triamcinilone acetonide vehicles in rabbit eyes. Retina 2008; (28):504-10

3. Lüke M, Januschowski K, Beutel J, Warga M, Grisanti S., et al. The effects of triamcinolone crystals on retinal function in a model of isolated perfused vertebrate retina. Exp Eye Res 2008; (1):22-9.

In general, it is an interesting article that opens the possibility of making new comparative studies in the future specially between triamcinolone acetonide with and without preservatives.

Reviewer #2: Abstract could be wrote more detailed

What do ou think about the rebound phenomenon for triamcinolone? You can read this article (Dikmetas O, Kuehlewein L, Gelisken F. Rebound Phenomenon after Intravitreal Injection of Triamcinolone Acetonide for Macular Edema. Ophthalmologica. 2020;243(6):420-425. doi: 10.1159/000507712. Epub 2020 Apr 6. PMID: 32252055.)

Hoe do you make the analysis of the data? Only one researcher? intraobserver reliability?

Table and figures are too busy. I think you can make them more understandable

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Arturo Santos MD Ph.D.

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Oct 1;16(10):e0257695. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257695.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


6 Aug 2021

First of all, I thank you all for the time dedicating to evaluate this manuscript giving your personal scientifically considerations. It has been a pleasure to revise it, according to your careful observations and useful suggestions.

To Reviewer 1, you were perfectly right to underline the fact I would have stressed about the difference between triamcinolone with preservatives and preservative-free formulation. I focused on a specific preservative-free molecule (Taioftal). According with papers you pointed out, I enriched this manuscript with considerations about the difference between treatments with preservative or preservative-free triamcinolone. I totally agree about the next chance to make comparative studies between different types of triamcinolone.

To Reviewer 2, I rewrote the abstract adding some important data as you requested. I collected all data during my routinely outpatient clinics, so there was just me as researcher. However, the statistical analysis was performed with the essential help of Professor Claudio Bonifazzi from the University of Ferrara. Also, the design of the study is due to Professor Francesco Parmeggiani from the University of Ferrara. I really apologize for my shameful absent-mindedness about the list of Authors. About Figures and Tables, I think there are not busy but rich of information and data. With a deeper look at graphs and legends, you can understand the sense of the entire paper. Anyway, I tried to explain figures as much as I can because I recognize their complexity. Thank you for the interesting paper you reported about the rebound phenomenon after IVTA. Authors pointed out this phenomenon from baseline at 2 months after IVTA injection. Personally, I have never experienced it when treating diabetic macular edema, but rarely when treating macular edema post-occlusion.

Thank you all again for your help to improve this manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Alfred S Lewin

8 Sep 2021

Diabetic macular edema: safe and effective treatment with intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (Taioftal)

PONE-D-21-17143R1

Dear Dr. Sorrentino,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Alfred S Lewin, Ph.D.

Section Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Alfred S Lewin

23 Sep 2021

PONE-D-21-17143R1

Diabetic macular edema: safe and effective treatment with intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (Taioftal)

Dear Dr. Sorrentino:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Alfred S Lewin

Section Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES