Comparison Between Intravitreous Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant, Ozurdex Implant, and Cyclosporine in Treatment of Noninfectious Uveitic Macular Edema

Background: Communicable etiologies such as Toxocara canis tuberculosis, herpes virus, toxoplasmosis, syphilis, and Lyme disease, can cause secondary uveitis. Ocular inflammation is frequently accompanied by an underlying general disease, such as sarcoidosis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), Vogt-Koyonagi-Harada (VKH), tubulointerstitial nephritis (TINU), inflammatory bowel disease and uveitis. Methods: A sum of 60 eyes of 45 uveitic participants were enlisted in our study. In 1st group; 20 eyes undergo an Intravitreous fluocinolone acetonide implant 2nd group; 20 eyes undergo an ozurdex implant. The 3rd group of 20 eyes undergo cyclosporine injection. Results: For our study, a sum of 60 eyes from 45 uveitic participants (36 men, 24 women) were enrolled. 20 eyes from the 1st group receive intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implants. 20 eyes from the 2nd group receive Ozurdex implants. The 3rd group of 20 eyes received nine injections of cyclosporine at a dose of 5 mg/kg/day, one dose every two weeks for three months, and subsequently one dose per month for three months. Conclusion: In order to reduce the negative outcomes of corticosteroids and other hazardous medications, this research showed cyclosporin injection could remain as a solitary treatment to manage uveitic ME related to noninfectious uveitis. Tiny subset of individuals, though, cannot tolerate the toxicity of cyclosporine, therefore it must be carefully monitored. The final management must be customized established regarding severity of illness, the risk/benefit ratio of each treatment, and the participant preferences.