Sustained-release glaucoma implants

This audio article is from VisualFieldTest.com.

Read the full article here: https://visualfieldtest.com/en/sustained-release-glaucoma-implants

Test your visual field online: https://visualfieldtest.com

Support the show so new episodes keep coming: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2563091/support

Excerpt:

Sustained-Release Glaucoma Implants Imagine having glaucoma and relying on daily eye drops to protect your vision – but every night, whether out of fatigue or busy schedule, you forget or skip them. Many patients know this drill: missing eye-drop doses, administering them poorly, or giving up because the drops sting or irritate. Glaucoma often feels like a hidden disease – vision can worsen silently when pressure stays high – so skipping medication can be dangerous. Studies show that roughly one in three glaucoma patients admit they do not use their eye drops consistently (). Side effects like burning, redness or dry eyes make matters worse: patients who experience side effects are much more likely to stop or skip treatments (). In short, relying on daily eye drops is a major problem – many people simply do not take them as prescribed, meaning real-world glaucoma control suffers () (). Ophthalmologists and researchers have long noted these challenges. Topical drops can work well if used perfectly, but in reality poor adherence and side effects are common (). Recognizing this, scientists have developed sustained-release alternatives. The idea is to deliver glaucoma medicine inside or near the eye once, so it slowly bathes the eye with medication for months – eliminating the need for a patient to remember daily drops. These new approaches include small intracameral implants (placed inside the eye), drug-eluting devices (like medicated spacers or rings), and long-acting prostaglandin delivery systems. By continuously releasing medication over time, these technologies promise steadier eye pressure control and far fewer missed doses, potentially reshaping glaucoma care () (). Why Eye Drops Are So Hard Glaucoma treatment often starts with eye-drop medications that lower intraocular pressure (IOP). But using drops correctly isn't easy. Many patients struggle with arm or neck stiffness, shaky hands, or poor vision that makes self-instilling drops difficult. People sometimes miss the eye entirely, or blink the drop out. Even simply remembering to take an oftentimes twice-daily dose can be a challenge amid busy lives. Surveys and studies confirm this: a review found that 30–50% of patients with chronic diseases in general do not adhere perfectly to their treatments (), and in glaucoma specifically roughly 30% admit missing enough drops to be considered “non-adherent” () (). Side effects add another hurdle. Glaucoma drops often contain preservatives or strong active drugs, which can cause stinging, redness, or eye dryness. For example, one study noted that about 38% of patients who had any side effects at all admitted poor use, compared to only 18% of those without side effects (). Preservatives in drops (like benzalkonium chloride) can irritate sensitive eyes, worsening comfort. Over time, patients may decide that putting drops in each day is “too unpleasant,” leading them to skip doses or stop the medication entirely. All this adds up to a hidden but serious real-world problem. In the controlled setting of a clinical trial, patients may dutifully use every drop and achieve excellent IOP control, but in everyday life “the patient-independent” issues – forgetfulness, dexterity, discomfort – often mean glaucoma is undertreated. Doctors ring alarm bells: poor adherence is a leading cause of glaucoma progression and vision loss. As one glaucoma review put it, conventional drops suffer from “poor patient adherence” and “local side effects”, which spurs the search for better delivery systems (). How Sustained-Release Systems Work Sustained-release glaucoma devices are built to solve these adherence issues. Instead of relying on a patient to administer a drug every day, the medication is encapsulated inside an implant or insert. These can be placed in or around the eye in a simple procedure, and then they continuously leach small doses of medicine over weeks to months. Intracameral implants: These are tiny drug-packed rods or reservoirs placed in the anterior chamber (front part) of the eye. For example, a biodegradable polymer rod can be injected through a needle into the eye; once inside, the polymer slowly breaks down, releasing the drug inside the eye over time (). Some devices, like the newly FDA-approved iDose® TR, use a tiny titanium reservoir anchored in the eye’s drainage angle, dispensing travoprost around the clock () (). Drug-eluting inserts or depots: Other ideas include punctal plugs or ocular rings: think of a soft plug placed in the tear duct or a ring in the eyelid that slowly releases prostaglandin analogs. These sit in the eye’s drainage or surface and diffuse medication gradually. Some specialty contact lenses have been tested that soak up a prostaglandin and sit on the eye, giving off drug slowly over days. Biodegradable implants: Many approaches use biopolymers (like PLGA or PEA) that safely dissolve in the eye. For instance, the Travoprost XR (ENV515) implant is made of a biodegradable material designed to release travoprost evenly for 6–12 months (). After that period, it has fully dissolved, and if needed a new one can be injected. Other implants may need manual removal or replacement. The common theme is “set it and forget it.” A doctor or specialist places the device in the eye during a visit. The patient then goes home and in the background (literally behind their eyeball) the medication is continuously supplied, day and night, without any effort from the patient. It’s like having a mini medication pump inside the eye. Researchers often describe this as “continuous drug delivery” – a stark contrast to the ups and downs of dosing with drops (). Example: Bimatoprost Sustained-Release (Durysta) One real-world example is Durysta® (bimatoprost SR) – the first FDA-approved implant (March 2020) for glaucoma treatment (). This tiny cylindrical implant contains 10 micrograms of bimatoprost (a prostaglandin analog) embedded in a solid polymer. It is injected with a fine needle into the front of the eye in a quick office procedure. Once inside, the polymer slowly dissolves, sending steady bimatoprost to the eye tissues over about 4–6 months. In clinical trials, Durysta’s single injection lowered eye pressure about as well as a daily bimatoprost drop would have, but for many patients it lasted significantly longer. Because it is biodegradable, no device removal is needed – it simply disappears over time. After one Durysta implant, many patients achieve target IOP for 6 months or more without any drops. However, the FDA label notes a key precaution: Durysta is currently approved for only one injection per eye, due to some concerns about corneal safety if repeated (). (In a few trial patients, multiple Durysta implants led to too much stress on the cornea’s cells, so repeated use is not allowed at present.) Example: Travoprost Implant (iDose® TR and Others) Travoprost, a common eye-drop medication, is also being delivered by implants. The new iDose® TR (by Glaukos) received FDA approval in December 2023 (). This device is a tiny, non-degradable pill made of titanium with 75 micrograms of travoprost inside. A surgeon places it in the drainage angle of the eye, and a thin membrane slowly releases travoprost 24/7 for about three years () (). Once that time’s up, the implant can be removed or replaced. In pivotal trials, a single iDose implant lowered pressure effectively for years, matching the effect of daily travoprost drops. Most people in the trials were able to reduce or stop additional glaucoma drops after the implantation. Another travoprost implant under study is Travoprost XR (ENV515) – a biodegradable rod similar in concept to Durysta but with travoprost. Preclinical tests in dogs and early human trials show that a single ENV515 injection lowers eye pressure significantly for many months (). In one trial, by Day 25 the implanted eye had a 30%+ drop in IOP, comparable to someone using daily travoprost eye drops (). Later in that study, most patients on the implant achieved target pressure control for a year or more. ENV515 is still going through clinical testing and awaits FDA approval (). Other Investigational Systems Research is ongoing on many other sustained-release systems. For instance, researchers have tested medicated contact lenses that slowly release latanoprost for a week, and punctal plugs that release travoprost or latanoprost. Some labs are developing long-acting injections (like microscopic particles) placed under the conjunctiva that dissolve over time. These are not yet in mainstream use, but they illustrate the wide interest in “drop alternatives.” Benefits of Sustained-Release Implants These new technologies offer several clear advantages over daily drops: Steady IOP control: Instead of daily peaks and troughs from each drop, the eye is bathed in a constant low-dose stream of medication. This can keep pressure very stable. Some trials have found that implant patients have more consistent IOPs and less fluctuation than those on drops. No missed doses: Because the patient doesn’t have to apply a drop, there’s virtually no chance of forgetting or misusing the medication. In a large travoprost implant trial, about 80–84% of patients using an implant reduced or elimin

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Sustained release glaucoma implants. Imagine having glaucoma and relying on daily eye drops to protect your vision. But every night, whether out of fatigue or busy schedule, you forget or skip them. Many patients know this drill missing eye drop doses, administering them poorly, or giving up because the drops sting or irritate. Glaucoma often feels like a hidden disease. Vision can worsen silently when pressure stays high, so skipping medication can be dangerous. Studies show that roughly one in three glaucoma patients admit they do not use their eyedrops consistently. Side effects like burning, redness, or dry eyes make matters worse. Patients who experience side effects are much more likely to stop or skip treatments. In short, relying on daily eye drops is a major problem. Many people simply do not take them as prescribed, meaning real-world glaucoma control suffers. Ophthalmologists and researchers have long noted these challenges. Topical drops can work well if used perfectly, but in reality, poor adherence and side effects are common. Recognizing this, scientists have developed sustained release alternatives. The idea is to deliver glaucoma medicine inside or near the eye once so it slowly bathes the eye with medication for months, eliminating the need for a patient to remember daily drops. These new approaches include small intracameral implants placed inside the eye, drug-eluding devices like medicated spacers or rings, and long-acting prostaglandin delivery systems. By continuously releasing medication over time, these technologies promise steadier eye pressure control and far fewer missed doses, potentially reshaping glaucoma care. Why eye drops are so hard? Glaucoma treatment often starts with eye drop medications that lower intraocular pressure, IOP. But using drops correctly isn't easy. Many patients struggle with arm or neck stiffness, shaky hands, or poor vision that makes self-instilling drops difficult. People sometimes miss the eye entirely or blink the drop out. Even simply remembering to take an oftentimes twice-daily dose can be a challenge amid busy lives. Surveys and studies confirm this. A review found that 30 to 50% of patients with chronic diseases in general do not adhere perfectly to their treatments. And in glaucoma specifically, roughly 30% admit missing enough drops to be considered non-adherent. Side effects add another hurdle. Glaucoma drops often contain preservatives or strong active drugs, which can cause stinging, redness, or eye dryness. For example, one study noted that about 38% of patients who had any side effects at all admitted poor use, compared to only 18% of those without side effects. Preservatives in drops, like benzylconium chloride, can irritate sensitive eyes, worsening comfort. Over time, patients may decide that putting drops in each day is too unpleasant, leading them to skip doses or stop the medication entirely. All this adds up to a hidden but serious real-world problem. In the controlled setting of a clinical trial, patients may dutifully use every drop and achieve excellent IOP control, but in everyday life, the patient-independent issues, forgetfulness, dexterity, discomfort, often mean glaucoma is undertreated. Doctors ring alarm bells. Poor adherence is a leading cause of glaucoma progression and vision loss. As one glaucoma review put it, conventional drops suffer from poor patient adherence and local side effects, which spurs the search for better delivery systems. How sustained release systems work. Sustained release glaucoma devices are built to solve these adherence issues. Instead of relying on a patient to administer a drug every day, the medication is encapsulated inside an implant or insert. These can be placed in or around the eye in a simple procedure, and then they continuously leach small doses of medicine over weeks to months. Intracameral implants. These are tiny drug-packed rods or reservoirs placed in the anterior chamber, front part of the eye. For example, a biodegradable polymer rod can be injected through a needle into the eye. Once inside, the polymer slowly breaks down, releasing the drug inside the eye over time. Some devices, like the newly FDA-approved IDOS TR, use a tiny titanium reservoir anchored in the eye's drainage angle, dispensing travoprost around the clock. Drug-eluding inserts or depots. Other ideas include punctal plugs or ocular rings. Think of a soft plug placed in the tear duct or a ring in the eyelid that slowly releases prostaglandin analogs. These sit in the eye's drainage or surface and diffuse medication gradually. Some specialty contact lenses have been tested that soak up a prostaglandin and sit on the eye, giving off drugs slowly over days. Biodegradable implants. Many approaches use biopolymers, like PLGA or PEA, that safely dissolve in the eye. For instance, the Travoprost XR, EN5 and 5 implant, is made of a biodegradable material designed to release Travopross evenly for 6 to 12 months. After that period, it has fully dissolved, and if needed, a new one can be injected. Other implants may need manual removal or replacement. The common theme is set it and forget it. A doctor or specialist places the device in the eye during a visit. The patient then goes home and in the background, literally behind their eyeball, the medication is continuously supplied day and night, without any effort from the patient. It's like having a mini medication pump inside the eye. Researchers often describe this as continuous drug delivery, a stark contrast to the ups and downs of dosing with drops. Example, Bimatoprost Sustained Release, Dorista. One real-world example is Durista, Bimatoprost SR, the first FDA-approved implant, March 2020 for glaucoma treatment. This tiny cylindrical implant contains 10 micrograms of bimatoprost, a prostaglandin analog embedded in a solid polymer. It is injected with a fine needle into the front of the eye in a quick office procedure. Once inside, the polymer slowly dissolves, sending steady bimatoprost to the eye tissues over about four to six months. In clinical trials, darista's single injection lowered eye pressure about as well as a daily bimatoprost drop would have. But for many patients, it lasted significantly longer. Because it is biodegradable, no device removal is needed. It simply disappears over time. After one derista implant, many patients achieve target IOP for six months or more without any drops. However, the FDA label notes a key precaution. Derista is currently approved for only one injection per eye, due to some concerns about corneal safety if repeated. In a few trial patients, multiple durista implants led to too much stress on the cornea's cells, so repeated use is not allowed at present. Example, travopost implant, IDose TR and others. Travoprost, a common eyedrop medication, is also being delivered by implants. The new IDose TR by Glaucose received FDA approval in December 2023. This device is a tiny, non-degradable pill made of titanium with 75 micrograms of travoprost inside. A surgeon places it in the drainage angle of the eye, and a thin membrane slowly releases travoprost 24-7 for about three years. Once that times up, the implant can be removed or replaced. In pivotal trials, a single eye dose implant lowered pressure effectively for years, matching the effect of daily travoprost drops. Most people in the trials were able to reduce or stop additional glaucoma drops after the implantation. Another travopost implant under study is Travoprost XR, EN55, a biodegradable rod similar in concept to durista but with travoprost. Preclinical tests in dogs and early human trials show that a single EN515 injection lowers eye pressure significantly for many months. In one trial, by day 25, the implanted eye had a 30% plus drop in IOP, comparable to someone using daily travoprost eye drops. Later in that study, most patients on the implant achieve target pressure control for a year or more. ENVA15 is still going through clinical testing and awaits FDA approval. Other investigational systems research is ongoing on many other sustained release systems. For instance, researchers have tested medicated contact lenses that slowly release litanoprost for a week and punctal plugs that release travoprost or latanoprost. Some labs are developing long-acting injections like microscopic particles placed under the conjunctiva that dissolve over time. These are not yet in mainstream use, but they illustrate the wide interest in drop alternatives. Benefits of sustained release implants. These new technologies offer several clear advantages over daily drops. Steady IOP control. Instead of daily peaks and troughs from each drop, the eye is bathed in a constant low-dose stream of medication. This can keep pressure very stable. Some trials have found that implant patients have more consistent IOPs and less fluctuation than those on drops. No missed doses. Because the patient doesn't have to apply a drop, there's virtually no chance of forgetting or misusing the medication. In a large travoprost implant trial, about 80 to 84% of patients using an implant reduced or eliminated other glaucoma meds by one year, whereas only about 24% of the daily eye drop group did. This implies the implant itself was doing most of the work, freeing patients from constant dosing. Fewer side effects, potentially. With a slow release inside the eye, the drug can often be delivered with fewer preservatives and with less exposure to the front surface tissues. For example, darista has no preservatives, which may improve tolerability in some people compared to preservative-containing drops. The continuous low dose may also reduce blood levels of the drug, potentially lessening systemic side effects. Convenience and compliance. Patients report that an in-eye device is often more convenient than multiple daily drops. Imagine not needing to wake up or drive around with bottles of eye medicine. This is especially helpful for people with busy schedules, memory issues, or physical limitations like arthritis that make drops hard. One analysis even noted that despite the higher upfront cost of implants, the adherence advantages might justify it for patients who prioritize relying less on daily drops. Improved real-world effectiveness. Clinical trials often assume perfect drop use, but real patients are human. Sustained release devices largely remove the patient factor. In practice, this means more patients may actually get the full benefit of a glaucoma medication. Experts suggest these can improve adherence and deliver more predictable effects, potentially reshaping how glaucoma is managed. Risks and considerations. No treatment is risk-free, and these implants have their own considerations. Patients and doctors should weigh the following. Procedure-related risks, implantation or removal, requires an intraocular procedure. Even though they are designed to be minimally invasive, there is a risk of eye infection, endothermitis, bleeding, or injury with any injection. Also, immediately after the procedure, some patients may experience a spike in pressure. Eye inflammation. Introducing a foreign device can cause inflammation inside the eye, irritus, or uveitis in some cases. In trials, a noticeable fraction of implant patients had mild inflammatory signs more often than drop patients. This usually resolves with topical steroids, but it's a risk to monitor. Corneal safety. A major concern has been the health of the corneal endothelium, the cells on the inner cornea. In one bimatoprost implant study, patients who received multiple implants in the same eye developed gradual corneal cell loss. That is why Darista is limited to one administration per eye, and why long-term corneal safety is being carefully studied. Newer devices are designed to sit away from the cornea, and early data, for example with Idose TR over three years, suggest endothelial cell counts remain stable, but long-term follow-up is needed. Side effects. Because these are still prostaglandin analogs, they can carry similar side effects as drops, only delivered continuously. For example, conjunctival redness, hyperemia, or changes in eyelash growth might still occur. Some patients might get persistent high eye pressure if the dose is too strong. Examples from studies show the most common side effects over 2% of patients are increased IOP and mild eye irritation. Cost? Current versions of these implants can be expensive. For instance, one report noted the eye dose device's list price is about $13,950 per implant, whereas a vial of a month's drops might cost around $64. Deresta's wholesale price is lower, around $1,950 per implant, but compare this to roughly $64 for a bottle of drops, even generic ones. Insurance coverage varies and long-term cost effectiveness is under study. Patients should check whether their plan covers these new devices and consider the financial trade-off. Repeat treatments. Durista currently can only be used once in each eye. Other systems like IDOS TR can be replaced after their course. It's designed to last three years, but this involves another minor procedure. Ongoing treatments, every 6 to 12 months for a biodegradable rod or every few years for a refillable implant. Means patients must return to the clinic periodically. In summary, while sustained release implants greatly reduce the daily burden on patients, they do require an upfront procedure and carry a different risk profile. Ongoing studies and real-world use will continue to clarify their safety and cost implications. Who might benefit most? Not every glaucoma patient will jump to implant therapy immediately, but certain groups stand to gain the most. Patients with poor adherence. Anyone who has trouble taking drops regularly, for example, due to forgetfulness, busy routine, or difficulty handling bottles, is a prime candidate. Elderly or disabled patients, people with tremors, arthritis, or vision impairment often struggle with drops. A one-time implant can be far easier on this group. Those with ocular surface disease. Patients who developed chronic redness, dry eye, or irritation from drops, especially those with preservatives, might prefer an implant to avoid these issues. Patients on multiple medications. Many glaucoma sufferers use two or three different drops. Instead of juggling multiple bottles, an implant that covers 6 to 12 months of therapy could simplify management and improve overall control. Busy professionals and travelers. Someone who flies often or can't be tied to a strict daily routine may appreciate getting the medicine in them in one visit. Advanced or progressing glaucoma. Patients who continue to progress despite drops might consider an implant or depot as an adjunct, ensuring more consistent pressure reduction. People wary of surgery, some implants can be placed in an office setting with a needle, which may appeal to those at risk for more invasive glaucoma surgeries. In fact, implants like derista and IDOS are often considered interventional therapies that sit between drops and full incisional surgery. In clinician reviews, experts note that already approved devices like B Mataprost SR, DERIESTA, and IDOS are being used in practice, and more are in trials. Selecting the right patient involves balancing glaucoma severity, adherence history, side effect profile, and willingness to undergo an in-office procedure. Ophthalmologists will typically discuss these trade-offs with eligible patients. Could this become standard care? It's still early days for sustained release glaucoma treatments, but momentum is building. Regulatory approvals and positive trial results suggest these implants very well could become an integral part of future glaucoma care. Think of other chronic diseases. For example, diabetics now have insulin pumps. Psychiatry has even experimented with long-acting injectable antipsychotics. Glaucoma may see a similar shift if these dropless solutions prove safe, effective, and economically viable. Long term, it's possible that devices like these will be offered routinely to patients early on, especially those predicted to struggle with drops. Some experts imagine a time when a patient newly diagnosed with glaucoma could have a brief procedure and then not worry about daily drops for a year or more. Clinical practice guidelines may evolve. We already see some call for incorporating device-based therapies for suitable patients. However, standard adoption will depend on accumulating evidence, comparative studies, e.g., drops versus implants in various patient groups, and real-world data on outcomes and cost. Safety remains paramount. The glass half-full perspective is that these devices improve adherence and deliver more predictable effects, potentially reshaping treatment paradigms. The cautious side notes that we must watch corneal health and long-term vision results closely. If ongoing studies show clear benefits in preventing vision loss, beyond just lowering IOP numbers, insurers might endorse wider use. At the very least, sustained release implants are adding exciting tools to the glaucoma toolbox. For patients frustrated with drops, they offer hope, a future where managing glaucoma could be as simple as a quarterly or annual office visit instead of a nightly routine of squeezing bottles. Conclusion. Daily glaucoma drops are effective only when patients actually use them, but real-world adherence is frustratingly low. Sustained release implants and drug-eluding devices have emerged to bridge this gap. By steadily delivering prostaglandin medications inside the eye for months at a time, these innovations can keep eye pressure stable without daily patient effort. Early examples, like Allergan's Durista, bimataprost implant, and Glaucos' IDOSTR, Travoprost implant, have shown they can match the pressure lowering of drops while reducing the need for patient compliance. The potential benefits are clear: fewer missed doses, less worry about side effects, and more consistent pressure control. But they also come with trade-offs, implantation procedures, possible inflammation, and costs. Most devices in use or in trials are still one-time or limited use, so ongoing research is determining how best to reuse or refill them. For now, these implants are excellent options for patients who struggle with drops, the elderly, busy professionals, or anyone with ocular surface issues. As more data comes in, eye doctors anticipate that sustained release treatments will increasingly complement or even partly replace daily drops. The goal is a future where everyone with glaucoma gets the reliable therapy they need, whether by drops or devices, to protect their vision. For many patients, sustained release implants could be the drop free path to better glaucoma control. All links to sources are available in the text version of this article. You can find the full article at visualfieldtest.com. Thanks for listening. To check your visual field, click the link at the bottom of this article or visit visualfieldtest.com.