Tag Archives: pautler

Vabysmo better than Eylea?

Posted on by

Yosemite/Rhine Studies: a critical analysis

The Yosemite and Rhine Studies were twin randomized, double-masked, multicenter non-inferiority trials comparing the efficacy of faricimab (Vabysmo) vs aflibercept (Eylea) in the treatment of diabetic macular edema.

The study abstract begins with the statement, “To reduce treatment burden and optimize patient outcomes in diabetic macular oedema, we present the 1-year results from two phase 3 trials of faricimab, a novel angiopoeitin-2 and vascular endothelial growth factor-A bispecific antibody.”  However, analysis of the data reveals the study report did NOT demonstrate reduced treatment burden at one year.  It did demonstrate potential non-inferiority of faricimab compared with aflibercept with an increased treatment burden in the faricimab arms of the studies. 

Treatment burden was greater in both faricimab treatment arms of both studies compared with aflibercept. Table 1 reveals 25% greater injections in the faricimab q8 week group compared with aflibercept.  The faricimab group received 10 injections at 52 weeks compared with aflibercept at 9 injections.  The faricimab group did not experienced a reduced treatment burden compared with aflibercept.  Moreover, the faricimab group sustained a more intense treatment burden to meet the “non-inferiority” assessment compared with aflibercept.  

Table 1. Injection schedule for faricimab (Fq8) and aflibercept (Aq8) q8 week study arms.

wk#1481216202428323640444852total
Fq81111110101010110
Aq8111110101010109

There was only one subgroup of eyes that received one less injection of faricimab at one year compared with aflibercept.  There were 63 eyes of 286 (22%) in Yosemite and 66 eyes of 308 (21%) in Rhine who underwent 7 faricimab injections within the group randomized to “personalized treatment interval” (PTI) compared with 8 injections in the aflibercept group.  Unfortunately, the visual and anatomic outcomes of this subgroup of faricimab eyes were reported a part of the entire PTI group, which overall had more injections than the aflibercept group. 

The primary outcome of the study was the number of letters of improvement on the standard ETDRS chart. However, because of the uneven staggered injection schedule between the q8 week treatments groups, the method to calculate the visual improvement outcome favored faricimab over aflibercept.  The study design called for averaging the measurements of visual improvement over a three-month time frame (i.e. at week 48, 52, and 56).  As a result, the three averaged measurements for faricimab (Fq8) was 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and 4 weeks post-injection (average 5.3 weeks), while the three measurements for aflibercept (Aq8) were 8, 4, and 8 weeks post injection (average 6.6 weeks).  Thus, the unevenly staggered injection schedule resulted in a final visual endpoint measurement inappropriately in favor of faricimab.  

Even in the subgroup of faricimab (Fpti) that touted one 16week treatment interval, the visual acuity measurements were taken at 16weeks, 4weeks, and 8 weeks post-injection.  This represents an average of 9.3 weeks post-injection; this is nowhere near the measurement taken at 16 weeks.  In addition, the acuity outcomes in the Fpti group were reported as a group without reporting the acuity gains made specifically by the subgroup of eyes extended to a 16-week interval.  Therefore, the reported acuity gains do not apply to this subgroup with extended treatment.       

A secondary outcome of the study was the central subfield macular thickness (CST).  This measurement shows the anatomic improvement in macular edema.  The slope of the thickness curve trended toward a more rapid decrease in both arms of faricimab compared with aflibercept during the monthly injection stage (initial loading stage).  Analysis of the results after the loading stage (monthly injections), both faricimab and aflibercept showed a similar jagged curve demonstrating a drop-off of treatment effect during the no-treatment month.  A similar jagged response is not seen in the Fpti group as the treatment intervals varied within that group.  The rebound in edema seen in both faricimab and aflibercept suggests the durability of the treatment effect may be similar.  These studies did not perform a direct comparison of faricimab and aflibercept on the same personalized treatment interval protocol.

Remarkably, these limitations of the study were not discussed in the published article and the FDA granted approval of faricimab for use in the United States based on these data drawn from an imperfect study design that favored faricimab.  More research is needed in order to determine if faricimab is truly non-inferior to aflibercept and whether faricimab may offer a reduced treatment burden.  

UPDATE Oct 2022: I have been using Vabysmo in the office. I am please with the results in patients with wet AMD in that I can extend the treatment interval further than with older drugs. However, patients with large serous pigment epithelial detachments (PED) appear to be at greater risk of vision loss from rips in the PED. I have not been impressed with superior effectiveness of Vabysmo in patients with diabetic retinopathy.

By Scott E. Pautler, MD

For a telemedicine consultation with Dr Pautler, please send email request to spautler@rvaf.com. We accept Medicare and most insurances in Florida. Please include contact information (including phone number) in the email. We are unable to provide consultation for those living outside the state of Florida with the exception of limited one-time consultations with residents of the following states: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Minnesota, and Washington.

Copyright  © 2022 Designs Unlimited of Florida

Yosemite and Rhine Studies: an editorial

Posted on by

Faricimab was recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME). It is the first drug which simultaneously blocks vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A) and angiopoietin-2 (Ang 2). The anti-VEGF-A action is shared with bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept; and stabilizes microvascular permeability and inhibits neovascularization. The Ang 2 inhibition works via the angiopoietin and Tie signaling pathway to reduce microvascular permeability by a pathway independent of VEGF-A blockade. Preclinical studies suggested that faricimab might be more effective than simple anti-VEGF inhibition in treating diabetic macular edema. In particular, there were expectations for improvement over the status quo in duration of action. If similar efficacy with lesser treatment burden were possible, this would help overtaxed clinicians and patients and begin to close the real-world versus randomized trial performance gap.1

The results of two identical, phase 3 randomized clinical trials, YOSEMITE and RHINE, were recently published, allowing clinicians the opportunity to assess how the efficacy of faricimab matches the promise of the preclinical studies.2 There were 3 groups in the randomization: faricimab 6 mg q 8 weeks (F8), faricimab 6 mg with a personalized treatment interval (FPTI), and aflibercept 2 mg q 8 weeks (A8). The study authors reported the following in their paper:

  1. With A8 as the comparator, both F8 and FPTI were noninferior (4 letter margin) based on a primary outcome of mean change in best-corrected visual acuity at 1 year, averaged over weeks 48, 52, and 56.
  2. There were no differences in safety events among the 3 groups.
  3. In the FPTI group, more than 70% of patients achieved every-12-week dosing or longer at 1 year.
  4. Reductions in CST and proportions of eyes without center-involved DME (CI-DME) over 1 year consistently favored faricimab over aflibercept.
  5. Faricimab demonstrated a potential for extended durability in treating CI-DME.

Based on the evidence in the paper, are the claims substantiated? 

With respect to noninferiority of mean change in best corrected visual acuity, the answer is qualified by the authors’ method of measurement. Because the three groups got last injections at different times, there was no single visit for which assessment of final visual acuity was intuitive. Therefore, the authors averaged the visual acuities measured at 48, 52, and 56 weeks. For the F8 group, the 3 components of the average were 4 weeks post-injection (the measurements taken at 48 weeks), 8 weeks post-injection (the measurements taken at 52 weeks), and 4 weeks post-injection (the measurements taken at 56 weeks), implying that the average last visual acuity was at 5.33 weeks post-injection ([4+8+4]/3=5.33). For the A8 group, the 3 components of the average were 8 weeks post-injection (the measurements taken at 48 weeks), 4 weeks post-injection (the measurements taken at 52 weeks), and 8 weeks post-injection (the measurements taken at 56 weeks), implying that the average last visual acuity was at 6.66 weeks post-injection ([8+4+8]/3=6.66). That is, the A8 group was disadvantaged relative to the F8 group by virtue of the F8 group having more injections in the first year, and an injection nearer to the outcome measurement times. This issue might have been averted had the F8 group received the same 5 initial monthly injections as the A8 group.    

It is difficult to provide an analogous comparative calculation for the FPTI group. The relevant information is depicted in figure 3B, but the scale of the figure is microscopic, and only estimates can be made. For example, the YOSEMITE panel of figure 3B, the red-boxed subgroup, appears to comprise 63 patients. For these patients, the 3 components of the average were 16 weeks post-injection (the measurements taken at 48 weeks), 4 weeks post-injection (the measurements taken at 52 weeks), and 8 weeks post-injection (the measurements taken at 56 weeks), implying that the average last visual acuity was at 9.3 weeks post-injection ([16+4+8]/3=9.3). Likewise, for the RHINE panel of figure 3B, the red-boxed subgroup, appears to comprise 67 patients with the average last visual acuity at 9.3 weeks.  At the other extreme of the figure (the bottom) sits the group of eyes that could never be extended beyond 4 weeks.  For YOSEMITE and RHINE this group appears to comprise 19 and 23 patients, respectively. The average last visual acuity for these eyes would be 4 weeks. In between these extremes of the figure, one would need to do an analogous calculation for every row in the figure, pooling all the results for an overall average. This is clearly more than a reader can be asked to do. The authors should have done it and reported the result in the paper, to allow the reader to see if the outcome time for the FPTI group is comparable to the A8 group. The suspicion is that they are not comparable.

Regarding the claim that the safety results of the three groups were equivalent, we agree with the authors’ interpretation. There is no evidence that faricimab is less safe to use over the 52 weeks of follow-up reported.

The authors claim that over 70% of the FPTI group were able to enter the q 12 week dosing interval. The specific term they chose was “achieved” to signal this distinction. However, entering 12 week dosing is different from demonstrating that faricimab can sustain such intervals. The primary outcome at 52 weeks did not give enough time to determine if those eyes entering 12 week or longer durations could sustain that performance, or whether they would regress to require shorter interval injections. In YOSEMITE, 169 eyes (59%) and in RHINE, 172 eyes (56%) completed one 12wk interval to be assessed for successful completion. The reader has no idea if this proportion will be sustained in the second year of the trial, and it would be an unfounded assumption to expect the entrance to q12 week intervals to be maintained. This outcome will be of great interest when the 2-year results are reported. Only 22%/21% (Yosemite/Rhine) actually completed a 16-week interval and none were treated long enough to determine sustainability of this interval.

Another problem with the authors’ claim on duration of effect has to do with a form of spin, specifically type 3 spin, in the classification of Demla and colleagues.3 A reader might think that this achievement by faricimab distinguishes it from aflibercept, but that inference would not be warranted because of the study design. There was no aflibercept personalized treatment interval arm of the randomization, which would be required to make a claim that increased duration between injections was an advantage of faricimab. While true that a drug company investing in faricimab has no obligation to provide an opportunity for the competitor’s comparator drug to perform as well, the authors cannot claim that the feature displayed by faricimab is a differentiator worthy of a clinician’s choice as a deciding factor in the question of which drug to use. It is also true that the authors don’t make this claim differentiating the drugs, but in presenting asymmetric evidence as they do, an erroneous inference is easy to make, which we seek to avert.

The authors’ claim of superior drying effectiveness for faricimab is supported by the presented data, but unremarked by the authors was evidence of similar durations of drying action of faricimab and aflibercept. To see this, examine figure 3C. The slope of the thickness curve trended toward a more rapid decrease in both arms of faricimab compared with aflibercept during the monthly injection stage (initial loading stage).  In an analysis of the graphs after the loading stage (monthly injections), both faricimab and aflibercept showed a similar jagged curve demonstrating a drop-off of treatment effect during the no-treatment month. A jagged response is not seen in the FPTI group because the treatment intervals varied within that group.  The zig-zag rebound of edema seen in both faricimab (F8) and aflibercept (A8) groups suggests the durability of the treatment effect may be similar between the two drugs.  These studies did not perform a direct comparison of faricimab and aflibercept on the same personalized treatment interval protocol.

The authors’ contention that faricimab rendered a higher proportion of eyes free of CI-DME is warranted by the data they present.

Finally, the authors emphasize the potential of faricimab for lesser burden of treatment because of potential longer durability. This emphasis is unsupported by the evidence presented. The F8 group received 10 injections. The A8 group received 9 injections – hence no decreased burden favoring faricimab over aflibercept in this comparison. It is more complicated to analyze in the FPTI group because the needed information is not reported, but we can make some inferences. There were 63 eyes of 286 (22%) in Yosemite and 66 eyes of 308 (21%) in Rhine that achieved the opportunity to extend treatment; these eyes underwent a total of 8 faricimab injections at week 52.  This number represents the least number of scheduled injections and only one less than the aflibercept group. The remainder of eyes were scheduled to have more than 8 injections, but the pooled average is difficult to parse from figure 3B.  We can easily note that from the figure that the greatest number of injections at week 52 in this arm of the study was 14 injections in eyes that required monthly treatment (19 eyes (7%) in Yosemite, and 22 eyes (7%) in Rhine).  This is far more than the 9 injections of A8, and does not demonstrate a reduced treatment burden among eyes in the faricimab group compared with aflibercept. When the remainder of eyes between the extremes of figure 3B are added in to the calculation of average treatment burden, which we encourage the authors to report, we suspect that it was greater for the FPTI arm of the study than for A8, not less.  

In summary, YOSEMITE and RHINE provide data that faricimab as administered in the studies was equivalent to aflibercept in the primary visual outcome, and superior to aflibercept as given in the study in drying the macula. No data were presented supporting a claim that treatment burden is less with faricimab than aflibercept. The published data show that a proportion of eyes can be managed with a reduced injection burden with faricimab, but provide no evidence that this would differentiate faricimab from aflibercept were aflibercept plugged into the same personal treatment interval algorithm. There was no arm of the study that would allow such a comparison to be made. The published data substantiate that faricimab has a greater macular drying effect than aflibercept, but the see-saw central subfield thickness curve in the non-loading phase of the first year suggests that the duration of drying by faricimab is no greater than with aflibercept.

The FDA has approved faricimab for the treatment of CI-DME based on YOSEMITE and RHINE. Retinal specialists will be making choices of which drug to use. An economic perspective will enter into the decision. The clinical decision will not be based exclusively on efficacy. The offered average costs for aflibercept and faricimab to the editorialists are $1747 and $2168, respectively. Is the $441 differential cost a reasonable price to pay for the documented differences in drug performance? Our opinion is no. There is no published difference in visual outcomes, nor any published difference in durability, because it wasn’t checked. There is a difference in macular drying, analogous to the superior drying effect of aflibercept over bevacizumab in the better-vision group of protocol T (eyes with CI-DME)or in the aflibercept versus bevacizumab group in SCORE-2 (eyes with central retinal vein occlusion with macular edema).4,5 We, and many others, did not think that differences warranted the use of aflibercept over the less expensive bevacizumab in cases similar to those in the better seeing group of protocol T or eyes like those studied in SCORE-2, nor do we think that drying difference seen in YOSEMITE and RHINE between faricimab and aflibercept is reason to choose the more expensive drug. We congratulate the authors of these studies for providing ophthalmologists with new options for treating diabetic macular edema, but nothing they have published suggests that this option marks a milestone in reducing treatment burden in DME. The 2-year results will be more informative for decision-making than the 1-year results, and we encourage the authors to remedy the flaws in their year -1 results data presentation so that the 2-year data are more useful.

By David J. Browning, MD, PhD and Scott E. Pautler, MD

References

   1.   Kiss S, Liu Y, Brown J, et al. Clinical utilization of anti-vascular endothelial growth-factor agents and patient monitoring in retinal vein occlusion and diabetic macular edema. Clin Ophthalmol 2014;8:1611-1621.

   2.   Wykoff CC, Abreu F, Adamis AP, et al. Efficacy, durability, and safety of intravitreal faricimab with extended dosing up to every 16 weeks in patients with diabetic macular oedema (YOSEMITE and RHINE): two randomised, double-masked, phase 3 trials. Lancet 2022;DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00018-6.

   3.   Demla S, Shinn E, Ottwell R, Arthur W, Khattab M, Hartwell M, Wright DN, Vassar M. Evaluaton of “spin” in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on cataract therapies. Am J Ophthalmol 2021;228:47-57.

   4.   Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network, Welss JA, Glassman AR, Ayala AR, Jampol LM, Aiello LP, Antoszyk AN, Arnold-Bush AN, Baker CW, Bressler NM, Browning DJ, Elman MJ, Ferris FJ, Friedman SJ, Melia M, Pieramici D, Sun JK, Beck RW. Aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1193-1203.

   5.   Scott IU, VanVeldhuisen PC, Ip MS, et al, SCORE2 Investigator group. Effect of bevacizumab vs aflibercept on visual acuity among patients with macular edema due to central retinal vein occlusion: the SCORE2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2017;317:2072-2087.

Pain After Eye Injections

Posted on by

Why are eye injections given?

There are many conditions, which threaten loss of vision, that are treated by injecting various medications into the eye. The eye conditions include macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy, retinal vein occlusion, uveitis, and others.  The injections may be given into the tissues outside the eyeball (subtenon’s injections) or into the eyeball (intravitreal injections).  It is very important to avoid pain as these injections may need to be given repeatedly over time.

Why do I have pain after eye injections?

Although pain during eye injections can usually be minimized with anesthetics given before the injection, sometimes there is pain for hours after the injection.  There are many reasons why this may occur:

1.) The antibiotic (betadine) may irritate the eye for hours after it has been applied to the eye.

2.) The eye may become dried out after the injection due to insufficient blinking.

3.) The eye may be accidentally scratched by rubbing the eye while it is still anesthetized.  

4.) The drug that is injected into the eye may cause an inflammatory reaction.

5.) Rarely, a severe infection called endophthalmitis may occur after injection into the eyeball.  

What can be done to prevent pain after injections?

The key to eliminating pain after eye injections is to identify the underlying cause. This may take some detective work.  Although betadine is given at the time of injection to prevent infection, only a small dose is needed.  If a large amount of betadine is used or if the betadine has not been thoroughly rinsed off the eye, it may cause blurred vision, persistent burning, itching, and/or a scratchy sensation like sand in the eye (called a foreign body sensation).  Therefore, it is important for the eye doctor or technician to completely rinse the betadine off the eye after an eye injection in order to avoid pain later.

Sometimes, the surface of the eye may become dry after an injection because the patient does not blink frequently enough or not completely enough.  This often happens as a result of the anesthetic used in preparation for the injection.  After the injection is over, the anesthetic may continue to work for 15-30 minutes.  During that time, the patient does not have the normal sensation necessary to indicate that it is time to blink.  If the eye does not blink often enough, the surface may dry out and cause blurred vision, pain or foreign body sensation.  Therefore, the patient may need to purposefully blink frequently or simply rest the eye closed for a while after an eye injection in order to prevent drying.  Similarly, if a patient does not close the eye completely with each blink, part of the eye can become dry.  In some cases, it may be necessary to forcibly close the eyes with each blink in order to be sure the lids close completely.

At times a patient may unknowingly rub and scratch the eye after an injection because of persistent numbing after an injection.  Therefore, it is very important to avoid touching the eye for 15-30 minutes after an injection.  If the eye needs to be dried off, a clean tissue may be used with a gently damping or blotting motion in the corner of the eye where the lids come together at the bridge of the nose.  It is best not to move the tissue left and right or up and down in a rubbing fashion.  Once the eye becomes dry or irritated for any reason listed above, it may take 1-2 days for the pain to go away and the eye to return to normal. 

Rarely, a drug that is injected into the eye can cause an inflammation that causes pain or blurred vision.  The doctor makes this diagnosis by examining the eye under the biomicroscope (called a slit lamp).  If a medication is determined to be the cause of inflammation, it is treated with prescription eye drops and the offending drug is not used again in that patient in the future. 

Infection is an extremely rare cause of pain after an eye injection.  In about one in several thousand injections, germs may enter the eye through the needle tract after an eye injection.  This rare infection is called endophthalmitis (pronounced like “end-off-thal-my-tiss”).  Symptoms usually start with pain, redness, and loss of vision several days to a few weeks after an injection.  There is no perfect way to prevent endophthalmitis.  The doctor uses techniques like applying betadine before the injection.  The patient tries to avoid contaminating the eye by avoiding exposure the unclean areas (like a barnyard) and avoid rubbing the eyes after injection.  Endophthalmitis is very serious and may result in permanent loss of vision.  Therefore, any patient having deep aching pain, increasing redness, and loss of vision starting several days or weeks after an eye injection should notify their eye doctor for prompt evaluation.  

What can be done to make the eye feel better?

If the cause of the pain and irritation is from betadine, drying, or rubbing the eye, the best treatment is lubrication.  Lubricants are available over-the-counter in the form of eye drops, eye gels, and eye ointments (see examples at the end of this article).  The thicker the lubricant, the better the relief of pain and discomfort.  However, gels and ointments may be difficult to place into the eye and they tend to make the vision blurry for several minutes or more.  Lubricants may be used as often as needed.  Resting the eyes closed may also provide relief.  Cold compresses help many patients.  Over-the-counter pain medications like ibuprofen and/or Tylenol may be helpful.  Prescription pain medications are rarely needed and may cause undesirable side effects.

If the cause of the pain and irritation is from a drug reaction or from infection inside the eye, the doctor will prescribe special anti-inflammatory eye drops.  If the eye exam shows infection, antibiotic injections must be given into the eye and surgery in the operating room may be necessary. 

If pain keeps occurring after eye injections despite taking the measures listed above, sometimes prescription eye medication can help. Non-steroid (NSAID) eyes drops or steroid/antibiotic ointments may help prevent the pain. Most instances of pain after eye injections may be avoidable. Please talk with your eye doctor to help resolve the problem in order to undergo treatment without pain.

Check the current price of Systane Gel on Amazon.

Gels are easier to apply than ointments and may be used immediately after an eye injection to prevent eye pain and they may be used later to soothe eye discomfort.

Check the current price of Lacri-Lube on Amazon.

Ointments are more difficult to place in the eye. However, they provide longer duration of action. They may be used immediately after an eye injection to prevent eye pain and they may be used later to soothe eye discomfort.

By Scott E. Pautler, MD

For a telemedicine consultation with Dr Pautler, please send email request to spautler@rvaf.com. We accept Medicare and most insurances in Florida. Please include contact information (including phone number) in the email. We are unable to provide consultation for those living outside the state of Florida with the exception of limited one-time consultations with residents of the following states: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Minnesota, and Washington.

Please note: As an Amazon Associate I may earn from qualifying purchases. You pay no additional fees by accessing the link. These funds help defray the costs of maintaining this website. Thank you for supporting this blog.

Copyright  © 2020-2022 Designs Unlimited of Florida.  All Rights Reserved.

Beovu for Macular Degeneration

Posted on by
globe anatomy
anatomy of the eye (click on image to enlarge)

What is Beovu therapy?

            Beovu (pronounced “BEE oh view”) therapy is a treatment for wet-type macular degeneration (AMD).  It was approved by the FDA in the United States in 2019. It involves repeated injections of medication into the eye to stop abnormally leaky blood vessels. Other similar medications include Avastin, Lucentis, Eylea, and Vabysmo.

How effective is Beovu therapy?      

            Beovu was proven in FDA-approved studies to be as effective as Eylea. In wet-type macular degeneration, injections of Beovu over a one-year period offered a 95% chance of losing less than three lines on a standard eye chart. The results with Beovu were similar to treatment with Eylea; however, Beovu appeared to stop leakage in wet AMD more often than Eylea. Beovu therapy often starts with injections every 4-6 weeks. Afterwards, the injections may be given every two or three months to maintain vision. Half of eyes treated in a large study could be managed with injections every three months. At this time, it is not known whether Beovu is more effective than Eylea due to limitations in the studies to date.   

What are the risks of Beovu therapy? 

            Severe complications are very rare, but risks of Beovu injection include inflammation (~10%), artery occlusion (~3.4%), bleeding, infection, retinal detachment, glaucoma, cataract, and loss of vision/loss of the eye. When inflammation occurs, it may affect the blood flow to the retina with an overall risk of ~3.4% in Beovu-treated eyes. This complication may result in permanent and profound loss of vision. The risk of retinal detachment is about 1 in 5,000 injections, but the results of surgical repair are poor. In initial studies there appeared to be a low risk of stroke with Beovu therapy. The risk of stroke may be related to the older age of patients in which it is used. Further investigation will provide more information. Pregnancy should be avoided while on Beovu therapy. Currently, caution is used in recommending Beovu due to the risk of inflammation and loss of vision, which appears greater than other available medications. In 2022, a new medication, Vabysmo, was approved by the FDA. Vabysmo may offer the advantage of less frequent injections like Beovu, but with a lower risk of inflammation.        

What do I expect after a Beovu injection?

Be careful not to rub the eye after the injection because the eye may remain anesthetized for several hours. You may be given eye drops and instructions on how to use them. Physical activity is not limited after the injection. On the day of injection, Tylenol or Ibuprofen may be used if there is discomfort after the injection, but severe pain should be reported to your doctor without delay. It is normal to experience a red area on the white of the eye, which disappears in one to two weeks. After the day of injection, if you develop new floating dots, new pain, and/or loss of vision, contact your doctor.

By Scott E. Pautler, MD

For a telemedicine consultation with Dr Pautler, please send email request to spautler@rvaf.com. We accept Medicare and most insurances in Florida. Please include contact information (including phone number) in the email. We are unable to provide consultation for those living outside the state of Florida with the exception of limited one-time consultations with residents of the following states: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Minnesota, and Washington.

Copyright ©2019-2022 Designs Unlimited of Florida.  All Rights Reserved.