Medical policy: Intravitreal and Punctum Corticosteroid Implants

Policy number: MP 2.159

Effective date: 10/1/2026

Policy

A fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant 0.59 mg (Retisert^®) may be considered medically necessary for the treatment of:

• Chronic noninfectious intermediate, posterior, or pan uveitis.

A fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant 0.19 mg (Iluvien^®) may be considered medically necessary for the treatment of:

• Diabetic macular edema in individuals who have been previously treated with a course of corticosteroids and did not have a clinically significant rise in intraocular pressure.

A dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.7 mg (Ozurdex^®) may be considered medically necessary for the treatment of:

• Noninfectious ocular inflammation, or uveitis, affecting the intermediate or posterior segment of the eye, OR
• Macular edema following branch or central retinal vein occlusion, OR
• Diabetic macular edema.

A punctum dexamethasone insert 0.4 mg (Dextenza^®) may be considered medically necessary for the treatment of:

• Ocular inflammation and pain following ophthalmic surgery.

A punctum dexamethasone insert 0.4 mg (Dextenza^®) is considered investigational for:

• Ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis.

A fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant 0.59 mg (Retisert^®) or 0.19 mg (Iluvien^®) or dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.7 mg (Ozurdex^®) is considered investigational for the treatment of:

• Birdshot retinochoroidopathy
• Cystoid macular edema related to retinitis pigmentosa
• Idiopathic macular telangiectasia type 1
• Postoperative macular edema
• Circumscribed choroidal hemangiomas
• Proliferative vitreoretinopathy
• Radiation retinopathy
• Prophylaxis of cystoid macular edema in individuals with noninfectious intermediate uveitis or posterior uveitis and cataract undergoing cataract surgery

A fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant 0.18 mg (Yutiq™) or 0.19 mg (Iluvien^®) is considered investigational for the treatment of chronic noninfectious uveitis affecting the posterior segment of the eye.

All other uses of a corticosteroid intravitreal or punctum implant are considered investigational. There is insufficient evidence to support a general conclusion concerning the health outcomes or benefits associated with this procedure.

Policy guidelines

An intravitreal implant, used according to Food and Drug Administration approved indications, may be an acceptable alternative in individuals who are intolerant or refractory to other therapies or in individuals who are judged likely to experience severe adverse events from systemic corticosteroids. Given the modest improvement in vision and potential adverse events, individuals should be informed about the potential adverse effects of a corticosteroid intravitreal implant (including cataracts), increased intraocular pressure, or hypotony, endophthalmitis, and risk for additional surgical procedures. Because of the differing benefits and risks of treatment with intravitreal implants in comparison with systemic corticosteroid therapy or intraocular injections, individuals should make an informed choice among treatments.

Cross-references

• MP 2.028 Corneal Collagen Cross-Linking
• MP 2.149 Aqueous Shunts and Stents for Glaucoma
• MP 4.008 Photocoagulation Therapy for Treatment of AMD

Product variations

This policy is only applicable to certain programs and products administered by Capital Blue Cross and subject to benefit variations. Please see additional information below.

FEP PPO - Refer to the FEP Medical Policy Manual. The FEP Medical Policy Manual can be found at: FEP Medical Policy Manual.

Description/background

Eye conditions

Uveitis

Uveitis encompasses various conditions, of infectious and noninfectious etiologies, that are characterized by inflammation of any part of the uveal tract of the eye (iris, ciliary body, choroid). Infectious etiologies include syphilis, toxoplasmosis, cytomegalovirus retinitis, and candidiasis. Noninfectious etiologies include sarcoidosis, Behçet syndrome, and “white dot” syndromes such as multifocal choroiditis or “birdshot” chorioretinopathy. Uveitis may be idiopathic, have a sudden or insidious onset, a duration that is limited (<3 months) or persistent, and a course that may be acute, recurrent, or chronic.

The classification scheme recommended by the Uveitis Study Group and the Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature Working Group is based on anatomic location. Patients with anterior uveitis typically develop symptoms such as light sensitivity, pain, tearing, and redness of the sclera. In posterior uveitis, which comprises approximately 5% to 38% of all uveitis cases in the United States, the primary site of inflammation is the choroid or retina (or both). Patients with intermediate or posterior uveitis typically experience minimal pain, decreased visual acuity, and the presence of floaters (bits of vitreous debris or cells that cast shadows on the retina). Chronic inflammation associated with posterior segment uveitis can lead to cataracts, glaucoma, and structural damage to the eye, resulting in severe and permanent vision loss.

Treatment

The primary goal of therapy for uveitis is to preserve vision. Noninfectious uveitis typically responds well to corticosteroid treatment. Immunosuppressive therapy (e.g., antimetabolites, alkylating agents, T-cell inhibitors, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors) may also be used to control severe uveitis. Immunosuppressive therapy is typically reserved for patients who require chronic high-dose systemic steroids to control their disease. While effective, immunosuppressants may have serious and potentially life-threatening adverse effects, including renal and hepatic failure and bone marrow suppression.

Macular edema after retinal vein occlusion

Retinal vein occlusions are classified by whether the central retinal vein or one of its branches is obstructed. Central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) and branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) differ in pathophysiology, clinical course, and therapy. CRVOs are categorized as ischemic or nonischemic. Ischemic CRVOs are referred to as severe, complete, or total vein obstruction, and account for 20% to 25% of all CRVOs. Macular edema and permanent macular dysfunction occur in virtually all patients with ischemic CRVO, and in many patients with nonischemic CRVO. BRVO is a common retinal vascular disorder in adults between 60 and 70 years of age and occurs approximately 3 times more often than CRVO.

Treatment

Intravitreal injections of triamcinolone are used to treat macular edema associated with CRVO, with a modest beneficial effect on visual acuity. The treatment effect lasts about 6 months and repeat injections may be necessary. Cataracts are a common side effect, and steroid-related pressure elevation occurs in about one-third of patients, with 1% requiring filtration surgery.

Macular photocoagulation with grid laser improves vision in BRVO but is not recommended for CRVO. Although intravitreal injections of triamcinolone have also been used for BRVO, serious adverse events have stimulated the evaluation of new treatments, including intravitreal steroid implants or the intravitreal injection of antivascular endothelial growth factor.

Diabetic macular edema

Diabetic retinopathy is a common microvascular complication of diabetes and a leading cause of blindness in adults. The 2 most serious complications for vision are diabetic macular edema (DME) and proliferative diabetic retinopathy. At its earliest stage (nonproliferative retinopathy), microaneurysms occur. As the disease progresses, blood vessels that nourish the retina are blocked, triggering the growth of new and fragile blood vessels (proliferative retinopathy). Severe vision loss with proliferative retinopathy arises from leakage of blood into the vitreous. DME is characterized by swelling of the macula due to gradual leakage of fluids from blood vessels and breakdown of the blood-retinal barrier. Moderate vision loss can arise from the fluid accumulating in the center of the macula (macular edema) during the proliferative or nonproliferative stages of the disease. Although proliferative disease is the main blinding complication of diabetic retinopathy, macular edema is more frequent and is the leading cause of moderate vision loss in people with diabetes.

Treatment

Tight glycemic and blood pressure control is the first line of treatment to control diabetic retinopathy, followed by laser photocoagulation for patients whose retinopathy is approaching the high-risk stage. Although laser photocoagulation is effective at slowing the progression of retinopathy and reducing visual loss, it does not restore lost vision. Alternatives to intravitreal implants include intravitreal injection of triamcinolone acetonide, which is used as off-label adjunctive therapy for DME. Angiostatic agents such as injectable vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors, which block stages in the pathway leading to new blood vessel formation (angiogenesis), have demonstrated efficacy in DME.

Age-related macular degeneration

Age-related macular degeneration is a degenerative disease of the retina that results in loss of central vision with increasing age. Two different forms of degeneration, known as dry and wet, may be observed. The dry form (also known atrophic or areolar) is more common and is often a precursor to the wet form (also known as exudative neovascular or disciform). The wet form is more devastating and characterized by serous or hemorrhagic detachment of the retinal pigment epithelium and development of choroidal neovascularization, which greatly increases the risk of developing severe irreversible loss of vision. Choroidal neovascularization is categorized as classic or occult.

Treatment

Effective specific therapies for exudative or wet age-related macular degeneration are an intravitreous injection of a VEGF inhibitor, possibly thermal laser photocoagulation (in selected patients), and photodynamic therapy.

Intravitreal and punctum implants

Intravitreal and punctum implants deliver a continuous concentration of a pharmacologic agent to the eye over a prolonged period. The goal of therapy is to reduce inflammation in the eye while minimizing the adverse events of the therapeutic regimen.

Selection of the route of corticosteroid administration (topical, systemic, periocular, or intraocular injection) is based on the cause, location, and severity of the disease. Each therapeutic approach has drawbacks. For example, topical corticosteroids require frequent (e.g., hourly) administration and may not adequately penetrate the posterior segment of the eye due to their poor ability to penetrate ocular tissues. Systemically administered drugs penetrate poorly into the eye because of the blood-retinal barrier, and high-dose or long-term treatments may be necessary. Long-term systemic therapies can be associated with substantial adverse events such as hypertension and osteoporosis, while repeated (every 4-6 weeks) intraocular corticosteroid injections may result in pain, intraocular infection, globe perforation, fibrosis of the extraocular muscles, reactions to the delivery vehicle, increased intraocular pressure, and cataract development.

Corticosteroid implants are biodegradable or nonbiodegradable. Nonbiodegradable systems are thought to be preferable for treating chronic, long-term disease, while biodegradable products may be preferred for conditions that require short-term therapy. Although the continuous local release of steroid with an implant may reduce or eliminate the need for intravitreal injections and/or long-term systemic therapy, insertion or surgical implantation of the device carries risks, and the device could increase ocular toxicity due to increased corticosteroid concentrations in the eye over a longer duration. With any route of administration, cataracts are a frequent complication of long-term corticosteroid therapy.

Intraocular corticosteroid implants being evaluated include:

• Retisert (nonbiodegradable fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant; Bausch & Lomb) is a sterile implant that consists of a tablet containing fluocinolone acetonide 0.59 mg, a synthetic corticosteroid that is less soluble in aqueous solution than dexamethasone. The tablet is encased in a silicone elastomer cup with a release orifice and membrane; the entire elastomer cup assembly is attached to a suture tab. Following implantation (via pars plana incision and suturing) in the vitreous, the implant releases the active drug at a rate of 0.3 to 0.4 μg/d over 2.5 years.
• Iluvien (nonbiodegradable injectable intravitreal implant with fluocinolone acetonide; Alimera Sciences) is a rod-shaped device made of polyimide and polyvinyl alcohol containing fluocinolone acetonide 0.19mg. It is small enough to be placed using a 25-gauge applicator. It is expected to provide sustained delivery of fluocinolone acetonide for up to 3 years.
• Ozurdex (previously known as Posurdex; biodegradable dexamethasone intravitreal implant; Allergan) is composed of a biodegradable copolymer of lactic acid and glycolic acid with micronized dexamethasone. This implant is placed into the vitreous cavity through the pars plana using a customized, single-use, 22-gauge applicator. The implant provides intravitreal dexamethasone for up to 6 months. The mean number of Ozurdex injections reported in the literature is 4.2 injections per year, and more than 6 consecutive injections have been reported.
• Dextenza^® (biodegradable dexamethasone intracanalicular insert; Ocular Therapeutix™) is a rod-shaped hydrogel device that is designed to deliver a sustained and tapered release of 0.4 mg of dexamethasone over 4 weeks. Following ophthalmic surgery, it is inserted through the inferior punctum into the canaliculus of the operative eye. To allow for visualization and retention monitoring, the hydrogel device is conjugated with fluorescein. No removal is required as the device is designed to resorb and exit the nasolacrimal system independently.
• Yutiq (non-biodegradable fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant; EyePoint Pharmaceuticals U.S., Inc.) is a sterile 3.3 mm-long implant consisting of fluocinolone acetonide 0.18 mg that is preloaded into a single-dose applicator and injected directly into the vitreous. It is designed to provide a sustained release of fluocinolone acetonide at an initial rate of 0.25 mcg/day within over a 36-month period.

Regulatory status

In 2009, Ozurdex^® (dexamethasone 0.7 mg intravitreal implant; Allergan) was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of macular edema following branch retinal vein occlusion or central retinal vein occlusion. Subsequently, in September 2010, the indication was expanded to include treatment of noninfectious uveitis affecting the segment of the eye. In 2014, the indication was again expanded to include treatment of diabetic macular edema.

In September 2014, Iluvien^® (fluocinolone acetonide 0.19 mg intravitreal implant; Alimera Sciences/ANI Pharmaceuticals) was approved by the FDA for the treatment of diabetic macular edema in patients previously treated with a course of corticosteroids and without a clinically significant rise in intraocular pressure. In March 2025, the indication was expanded to include treatment of chronic noninfectious uveitis affecting the posterior segment of the eye.

In November 2004, Retisert™ (fluocinolone acetonide 0.59 mg intravitreal implant; Bausch & Lomb) was approved by the FDA for the treatment of chronic noninfectious uveitis affecting the posterior segment of the eye.

In October 2018, Yutiq^® (fluocinolone acetonide 0.18 mg intravitreal implant; EyePoint Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) was approved by the FDA for the treatment of chronic noninfectious uveitis affecting the posterior segment of the eye.

In 2025, EyePoint Pharmaceuticals, Inc. decided to discontinue manufacturing of fluocinolone acetonide (Yutiq^®).

In November 2018, Dextenza^® (dexamethasone 0.4 mg intracanalicular implant; Ocular Therapeutix) was approved by the FDA for the treatment of ocular inflammation and pain following ophthalmic surgery. In October 2021, the indication was expanded to include treatment of ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis.

Rationale

Summary of evidence

Uveitis

For individuals with chronic noninfectious intermediate or posterior uveitis who receive an intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant (0.59 mg), the evidence includes 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Relevant outcomes are symptoms, change in disease status, functional outcomes, quality of life, and treatment-related morbidity. Two of the 4 RCTs compared 2 doses of implants, and 2 trials compared implants with systemic steroids (and immunosuppression when indicated). All trials supported the efficacy of intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implants in preventing recurrence and improving visual acuity over 4-year follow-up. The head-to-head trial comparing implants with systemic corticosteroids did not show substantial superiority in the overall effectiveness of either approach. After 24 and 54 months of follow-up, visual acuity improved from baseline in the implant groups compared with the systematic therapy groups by +6.0 and +3.2 letters (p=0.16) and +2.4 and 3.1 letters (p=0.073), respectively. However, nearly all phakic patients receiving implants developed cataracts and required cataract surgery. Further, most also developed glaucoma, with 75% of patients requiring intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering medications and 35% requiring filtering surgeries. Systemic adverse events such as hyperlipidemia, diabetes, osteoporosis, fractures, and blood count/chemistry abnormalities were infrequent and not statistically distinguishable between groups. The incidence of hypertension was greater in the systemic therapy group (27%) than in the implant group (13%), but rates of antihypertensive treatment initiation did not differ. The evidence is sufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.

For individuals with noninfectious intermediate or posterior uveitis who receive an intravitreal dexamethasone implant (0.7 mg), the evidence includes a RCT. Relevant outcomes are symptoms, change in disease status, functional outcomes, quality of life, and treatment-related morbidity. Results of this trial at 8 weeks showed that the implant was effective in reducing inflammation (the proportion of eyes with no inflammation was 47% and 12% with implant and sham, respectively) and resulted in clinically meaningful improvement in vision at week 8 compared with sham controls (the proportion of patients with a gain of ≥15 letters in best-corrected visual acuity from baseline was >40% with implants and 10% with sham). Further, at week 26, patients treated with implants reported meaningful increases in vision-related functioning. The major limitation of this trial was its lack of long-term follow-up. Use of implants resulted in higher incidences of cataracts and elevated IOP. The evidence is sufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.

For individuals with chronic noninfectious posterior uveitis affecting the posterior segment of the eye and who receive intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant (0.18 or 0.19 mg), the evidence includes 2 pivotal RCTs. Relevant outcomes are symptom improvement, change in disease status, functional status, and quality of life. Harmful outcomes of interest are treatment-related morbidity. Both RCTs consistently found statistically significantly lower uveitis recurrence rates for intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant (0.18 mg) at both 6 and 12 months. However, serious limitations of these findings include inconsistency in the magnitude of the benefit at 12 months (odds ratio [OR], 67.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.81 to 511.06 in the first RCT and OR, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.52 to 6.08 in the second RCT) and, with more imputed recurrences in the sham groups than the treatment groups, an overestimation of the treatment effect cannot be ruled out. For the remainder of key outcomes, results were inconsistent between RCTs, appearing more favorable in the first trial. Most notable were the differences between RCTs in mean change in best-corrected visual acuity at 12 months (higher for fluocinolone acetonide in the first trial, lower in the second trials) and risk of increased intraocular pressure within 12 months (increased risk in the second trial, but not in the first trial). Due to these inconsistencies and serious methodological limitations, the evidence is insufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.

Macular edema

For individuals with macular edema after retinal vein occlusion who receive an intravitreal dexamethasone implant (0.7 mg), the evidence includes 2 RCTs, systemic reviews, and observational studies. Relevant outcomes are symptoms, change in disease status, functional outcomes, quality of life, and treatment-related morbidity. Compared with sham controls, implants resulted in clinically meaningful improvements in visual acuity within 1 to 3 months post implant and improvement in vision occurred faster. The difference in the proportion of patients with gain of 15 or more letters in best-corrected visual acuity from baseline was more than 10% in favor implants versus sham in both studies at 30, 60, and 90 days, but not at 180 days post implant. Use of implants resulted in higher incidences of cataracts and elevated IOP. Several additional RCTs, systematic reviews, and observational studies have evaluated the comparative effects of dexamethasone intravitreal implants versus other therapies and found mixed results. The evidence is sufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.

For individuals with macular edema after retinal vein occlusion who receive an intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant (0.59 mg), no relevant studies were identified. Relevant outcomes are symptoms, change in disease status, functional outcomes, quality of life, and treatment-related morbidity. The evidence is insufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.

Diabetic macular edema

For individuals with refractory (persistent or recurrent) DME who receive an intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant (0.59 mg), the evidence includes a RCT. Relevant outcomes are symptoms, change in disease status, functional outcomes, quality of life, and treatment-related morbidity. Compared with the standard of care (as needed laser or observation), a greater proportion of patients with implants reported clinically significant improvement in vision at 6 months (1.4% vs 16.8% respectively) and subsequent time points assessed but not at or beyond 30 months of follow-up. Ninety percent of patients with phakic eyes who received implants required cataract surgery, and 60% developed elevated IOP. Due to the substantial increase in adverse events and availability of agents with better tolerability profiles (e.g., anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors), implant use in DME is questionable. The evidence is insufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.

For individuals with DME who receive an intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant (0.19 mg), the evidence includes 2 RCTs and several observational studies. Relevant outcomes are symptoms, change in disease status, functional outcomes, quality of life, and treatment-related morbidity. In RCTs, implant-treated eyes showed clinically meaningful improvements in the vision at 2- and 3-years post implant. The percentage of patients who gained 15 letters or more was 28.7% in the implant group vs 18.9% in the sham group at 3 years. Subgroup analysis showed greater improvements in visual acuity in patients who were pseudophakic compared with those who were phakic (difference in mean change in number of letters at 2 years from baseline was 5.6 letters in pseudophakic patient’s vs 1 letter in phakic patients). Similar results were seen in observations studies with follow up to 2 years. A major limitation of these implants is that nearly 80% of all phakic patients will develop cataracts and will require cataract surgery. Further, IOP was elevated in 34% of patients who received this implant compared with 10% of controls. The evidence is sufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.

For individuals with DME who receive an intravitreal dexamethasone implant (0.7 mg), the evidence includes RCTs and additional nonrandomized comparative studies. Relevant outcomes are symptoms, change in disease status, functional outcomes, quality of life, and treatment-related morbidity. Compared with sham control, 2 identically designed RCTs showed clinically meaningful improvements in vision with dexamethasone implants that peaked at 3 months and maintained 39 months (with retreatment). The difference in the proportion of patients with a gain of 15 or more letters in best-corrected visual acuity from baseline was 9.3% and 13.0% in the 2 trials, respectively, favoring implant vs sham at 39 months post implant. Subgroup analysis of these trials showed greater improvements in visual acuity in patients who were pseudophakic compared with those who were phakic. Additionally, evidence from various small and/or short-term trials and retrospective studies have found that, compared with primarily anti-VEGF treatments, intravitreal dexamethasone implant (0.7 mg) was consistently associated with larger reductions in retinal thickness, but visual acuity changes were similar between treatment groups. The evidence is sufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.

For individuals with diabetic macular edema who receive an intravitreal dexamethasone implant (0.7 mg) plus anti-VEGF therapy, the evidence includes 2 RCTs. Relevant outcomes are symptoms, change in disease status, functional outcomes, quality of life, and treatment-related morbidity. Findings from both RCTs were consistent in demonstrating that although adding dexamethasone to an anti-VEGF treatment can lead to a greater mean reduction in central subfield thickness, it does not improve visual acuity and can lead to a higher risk of intraocular pressure elevation. Based on the consistent lack of improvement in visual acuity, increased risk of intraocular pressure elevation, and imprecision, the evidence is insufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.

For individuals with DME who receive an intravitreal dexamethasone implant (0.7 mg) plus laser photocoagulation, the evidence includes a RCT. Relevant outcomes are symptoms, change in disease status, functional outcomes, quality of life, and treatment-related morbidity. One RCT with 1-year follow-up demonstrated that combination implants plus laser photocoagulation compared with laser photocoagulation alone resulted in better visual acuity (as measured by a gain of ≥10 letters) at 9 months but not at 12 months. However, the generally accepted standard outcome measure for change is 15 or more letters, and this standard was not used in this trial. The use of dexamethasone implants resulted in higher incidences of cataracts and elevated IOP. Further, a differential loss to follow-up, lack of power calculations for sample size estimation, and lack of intention-to-treat analysis preclude interpretation of results. A larger RCT with adequate power is needed to confirm these findings. The evidence is insufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.

Age-related macular degeneration

For individuals with age-related macular degeneration who receive an intravitreal dexamethasone implant (0.7 mg) plus anti-VEGF inhibitor, the evidence includes a RCT. Relevant outcomes are symptoms, change in disease status, functional outcomes, quality of life, and treatment-related morbidity. Results of this trial did not demonstrate clinically meaningful reductions in the ranibizumab injection-free interval between combined treatments (34 days) and anti-VEGF alone (29 days; p=0.016). Further, IOP was elevated in a greater proportion of patients receiving implants without any additional clinical benefit. The evidence is insufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.

Other conditions

For individuals with birdshot retinochoroidopathy refractory or intolerant to standard therapy who receive an intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant (0.59 mg) or intravitreal dexamethasone implant (0.7 mg), the evidence includes multiple observational studies. Relevant outcomes are symptoms, change in disease status, functional outcomes, quality of life, and treatment-related morbidity. Multiple observational studies have noted improvements in anatomic and visual acuity outcomes. Long-term follow-up for efficacy and safety is limited. RCTs are needed to permit conclusions on the efficacy of corticosteroid implants in patients with refractory or intolerant birdshot retinochoroidopathy. The evidence is insufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.

For individuals with cystoid macular edema who receive an intravitreal dexamethasone implant (0.7 mg), the evidence includes one observation controlled RCT (N=14), 3 comparative observational studies, and numerous case series. Relevant outcomes are symptoms, change in disease status, functional outcomes, quality of life, and treatment-related morbidity. The RCT found improved mean visual acuity and eye anatomy outcomes with intravitreal dexamethasone compared to the control eyes, but these differences were not sustained at 6 months. The comparative observational studies included 269 patients (range, 60 to 135) and also lacked responder analysis of the proportion of patients with a 15-or-more letter improvement. One case series evaluated the proportion of patients with a 3-line improvement in best-corrected visual acuity; although 88% of patients achieved this outcome at 2 months, the proportion with improvement was not sustained at 6 months (27.8%). Additional blinded, multicenter RCTs are needed that compare intravitreal dexamethasone to another established treatment. The trials should be adequately powered for measuring the proportion of patients in whom vision had improved by 15 letters or more. The evidence is insufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.

For individuals with idiopathic macular telangiectasia type 1 who receive an intravitreal dexamethasone implant (0.7 mg), the evidence includes multiple case reports. Relevant outcomes are symptoms, change in disease status, functional outcomes, quality of life, and treatment-related morbidity. Case reports have noted mixed results for visual acuity and inflammation-related outcomes. Long-term follow-up for efficacy and safety is limited. Better quality studies with long-term follow-up are needed to permit conclusions on the efficacy of corticosteroid implants in patients with idiopathic macular telangiectasia type 1. The evidence is insufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.

For individuals with postoperative chronic macular edema (pseudophakic cystoid macular edema, Irvine-Gass syndrome) who receive an intravitreal dexamethasone implant (0.7 mg), the evidence includes 1 RCT (N=29) that compared dexamethasone intravitreal implant, 0.7 mg to triamcinolone intravitreal injection 4 mg, 2 comparative observational studies and numerous case series. Relevant outcomes are symptoms, change in disease status, functional outcomes, quality of life, and treatment-related morbidity. The RCT found no statistically significant difference between treatments in mean visual acuity improvement at 3 or 6 months. The proportion of patients in whom vision had improved by 15 letters or more was not reported. The comparative observational studies included only small numbers of patients and also lack responder analysis of the proportion of patients with a 15-or-more letter improvement. In the largest case series (N=100), 2 of every 5 patients experienced clinically meaningful improvements in visual acuity after 1 year of follow-up. Additional RCTs are needed that have clearly defined and representative populations (i.e., for chronic and refractory patients, documentation of intensity and duration of the first-line therapy regimens) and are adequately powered for measuring the proportion of patients in whom vision had improved by 15 letters or more. The evidence is insufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.

For individuals with circumscribed choroidal hemangiomas who receive an intravitreal dexamethasone implant (0.7 mg) plus photodynamic therapy, the evidence includes a case report. Relevant outcomes are symptoms, change in disease status, functional outcomes, quality of life, and treatment-related morbidity. Results of the case report do not permit conclusions about the efficacy or safety of adding dexamethasone implants for circumscribed choroidal hemangiomas to photodynamic therapy. RCTs are needed to permit conclusions on the efficacy of corticosteroid implants in this population. The evidence is insufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.

For individuals with proliferative vitreoretinopathy who receive an intravitreal dexamethasone implant (0.7 mg), the evidence includes a case series and a case report. Relevant outcomes are symptoms, change in disease status, functional outcomes, quality of life, and treatment-related morbidity. These studies have reported multiple interventions, including dexamethasone implants in conjunction with surgery and laser for preventing proliferative retinopathy after retinal detachment surgery. RCTs are needed to permit conclusions on the efficacy of corticosteroid implants in patients with proliferative retinopathy. The evidence is insufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.

For individuals with radiation retinopathy who receive an intravitreal dexamethasone implant (0.7 mg), the evidence includes multiple observational studies. Relevant outcomes are symptoms, change in disease status, functional outcomes, quality of life, and treatment-related morbidity. Multiple observational studies have noted improvements in anatomic and visual acuity outcomes. Long-term follow-up for efficacy and safety is limited. RCTs are needed to permit conclusions on the efficacy of corticosteroid implants in patients with radiation retinopathy. The evidence is insufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.

For individuals with ocular inflammation and pain following ophthalmic surgery who receive punctum dexamethasone insert (0.4 mg), the evidence includes 3 RCTs. Relevant outcomes are symptoms, functional outcomes, quality of life, and treatment-related morbidity. All 3 trials noted significant improvements with the punctum dexamethasone insert (0.4 mg) across both coprimary efficacy endpoints of absence of pain at 8 days and absence of anterior chamber cells at day 14. Adverse events were generally similar between punctum dexamethasone insert (0.4 mg) and sham. Based on the consistent benefits and lack of important increases in adverse event risk, evidence is sufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.

For individuals with noninfectious intermediate uveitis or posterior uveitis and cataract undergoing cataract surgery who receive prophylaxis with intravitreal dexamethasone implant (0.7 mg), the best evidence includes 1 single-center, open-label RCT of 43 patients in India. Relevant outcomes are symptoms, functional outcomes, quality of life, and treatment-related morbidity. Compared with oral corticosteroids, intravitreal dexamethasone 0.7 mg had similar benefits and avoided the need for early steroid taper due to adverse effects on blood glucose, but potentially increased risk of developing intraocular pressure. Due to important study limitations including its small sample size, unclear allocation concealment methods, and lack of blinding, evidence is insufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.

For individuals with ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis who receive punctum dexamethasone implant (0.4 mg), the evidence includes 3 RCTs, 2 of which have been published. Relevant outcomes are symptoms, functional outcomes, quality of life, and treatment-related morbidity. Compared with the sham insert, punctum dexamethasone implant (0.4) demonstrated a significant decrease in patient-reported ocular itching after 1-week post-implant, and throughout most time points up to 30 days. Adverse events were similar in both groups and were all considered mild to moderate. However, limitations of these trials prevent evaluation of therapeutic use. It was not described if included participants had previously failed first-line therapies or if they were treatment-naive, making the intended use population unclear. If intended for use in treatment-naive patients, comparison to first-line topical agents is necessary for therapeutic evaluation. Additionally, the modified symptom scoring model used by investigators is typically only used in controlled, research settings, and not typically used for evaluation of therapeutic outcomes in real-world environments. The remaining approval trial (NCT02988882) also found improved ocular itching with the punctum dexamethasone insert compared with vehicle control on day 8. However, the differences were generally smaller than those seen in the published trial and failed to reach significance. Due to the limitations of the published literature, and the lack of predefined clinically meaningful difference in symptom scores, the clinical significance of the primary outcome is unclear. The evidence is insufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.

Definitions

Intravitreal - Refers to that which is injected into the eye's vitreous humor between the lens and the retina.

Uveitis - An inflammation of part or all of the uvea, the middle (vascular) tunic of the eye and commonly involving the other tunics (the sclera and cornea and the retina).

Disclaimer

Capital Blue Cross’ medical policies are used to determine coverage for specific medical technologies, procedures, equipment, and services. These medical policies do not constitute medical advice and are subject to change as permitted by law or applicable clinical evidence from independent treatment guidelines. Treating providers are solely responsible for medical advice and treatment of members. These polices are not a guarantee of coverage or payment. Payment of claims is subject to a determination regarding the member’s benefit program and eligibility on the date of service, and a determination that the services are medically necessary and appropriate. Final processing of a claim is based upon the terms of contract that applies to the members’ benefit program, including benefit limitations and exclusions. If a provider or a member has a question concerning this medical policy, please contact Capital Blue Cross’ Provider Services or Member Services.

Coding information

Note: This list of codes may not be all-inclusive, and codes are subject to change at any time. The identification of a code in this section does not denote coverage as coverage is determined by the terms of member benefit information. In addition, not all covered services are eligible for separate reimbursement.

Investigational, therefore not covered

Covered when medically necessary

Covered when medically necessary

The following codes apply to code J7311:

Covered when medically necessary

The following codes apply to code J7312:

Covered when medically necessary

The following codes apply to code J7313:

Covered when medically necessary

The following codes apply to code J1096:

References

1. Haller JA, Bandello F, Belfort R, et al. Randomized, sham-controlled trial of dexamethasone intravitreal implant in patients with macular edema due to retinal vein occlusion. Ophthalmology. Jun 2010; 117(6): 1134-1146.e3. PMID 20417567
2. Haller JA, Bandello F, Belfort R, et al. Dexamethasone intravitreal implant in patients with macular edema related to branch or central retinal vein occlusion twelve-month study results. Ophthalmology. Dec 2011; 118(12): 2453-60. PMID 21764136
3. Bausch & Lomb Incorporated. Retisert (fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant) 0.59 mg: Prescribing Label. 2025;
4. Jaffe GJ, Martin D, Callanan D, et al. Fluocinolone acetonide implant (Retisert) for noninfectious posterior uveitis: thirty-four-week results of a multicenter randomized clinical study. Ophthalmology. Jun 2006; 113(6): 1020-7. PMID 16690128
5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Application Number: 22-315. Summary Review. 2009;.
6. Pavesio C, Zierhut M, Bairi K, et al. Evaluation of an intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant versus standard systemic therapy in noninfectious posterior uveitis. Ophthalmology. Mar 2010; 117(3): 567-75, 575.e1. PMID 20079922
7. Kempen JH, Altaweel MM, Holbrook JT, et al. Randomized comparison of systemic anti-inflammatory therapy versus fluocinolone acetonide implant for intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis: the multicenter uveitis steroid treatment trial. Ophthalmology. Oct 2011; 118(10): 1916-26. PMID 21840602
8. Kempen JH, Altaweel MM, Drye LT, et al. Benefits of Systemic Anti-inflammatory Therapy versus Fluocinolone Acetonide Intraocular Implant for Intermediate Uveitis, Posterior Uveitis, and Panuveitis: Fifty-four-Month Results of the Multicenter Uveitis Steroid Treatment (MUST) Trial and Follow-up Study. Ophthalmology. Oct 2015; 122(10): 1967-75. PMID 26298715
9. Jaffe GJ, Branchaud B, Hahn P, et al. Quality of Life and Risks Associated with Systemic Anti-inflammatory Therapy versus Fluocinolone Acetonide Intraocular Implant for Intermediate Uveitis, Posterior Uveitis, or Panuveitis: Fifty-four-Month Results of the Multicenter Uveitis Steroid Treatment Trial and Follow-up Study. Ophthalmology. Oct 2015; 122(10): 1976-86. PMID 26298718
10. Brady CJ, Villanti AC, Law HA, et al. Corticosteroid implants for chronic non-infectious uveitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Feb 12 2016; 2(2): CD010469. PMID 26866343
11. Reddy A, Liu SH, Brady CJ, et al. Corticosteroid implants for chronic non-infectious uveitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Jan 16 2023; 1(1): CD010469. PMID 36645716
12. Holbrook JT, Sugar EA, Burke AE, et al. Dissociations of the Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant: The Multicenter Uveitis Steroid Treatment (MUST) Trial and Follow-up Study. Am J Ophthalmol. Apr 2016; 164: 29-36. PMID 26748056
13. Lowder C, Belfort R, Lightman S, et al. Dexamethasone intravitreal implant for noninfectious intermediate or posterior uveitis. Arch Ophthalmol. May 2011; 129(5): 545-53. PMID 21220619
14. Lightman S, Belfort R, Naik RK, et al. Vision-related functioning outcomes of dexamethasone intravitreal implant in noninfectious intermediate or posterior uveitis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. Jul 18 2013; 54(7): 4864-70. PMID 23761087
15. Gillespie BW, Musch DC, Niziol LM, et al. Estimating minimally important differences for two vision-specific quality of life measures. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. Jun 06 2014; 55(7): 4206-12. PMID 24906863
16. Allergan Inc. Ozurdex (dexamethasone intravitreal implant): Prescribing Label 2025;
17. Jaffe GJ, Foster CS, Pavesio CE, et al. Effect of an Injectable Fluocinolone Acetonide Insert on Recurrence Rates in Chronic Noninfectious Uveitis Affecting the Posterior Segment: Twelve-Month Results. Ophthalmology. Apr 2019; 126(4): 601-610. PMID 30367884
18. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Application number 210331, Medical Review. 2018;
19. Biswas J, Tyagi M, Agarwal M. The 0.2-μg/day Fluocinolone Acetonide Intravitreal Implant in Chronic Noninfectious Posterior Uveitis: A 3-year Randomized Trial in India. Ophthalmol Sci. 2024; 4(1): 100403. PMID 38027419
20. Jaffe GJ, Pavesio CE. Effect of a Fluocinolone Acetonide Insert on Recurrence Rates in Noninfectious Intermediate, Posterior, or Panuveitis: Three-Year Results. Ophthalmology. Oct 2020; 127(10): 1395-1404. PMID 32624244
21. Yeh S, Kim SJ, Ho AC, et al. Therapies for macular edema associated with central retinal vein occlusion: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. Apr 2015; 122(4): 769-78. PMID 25576994
22. Pichi F, Specchia C, Vitale L, et al. Combination therapy with dexamethasone intravitreal implant and macular grid laser in patients with branch retinal vein occlusion. Am J Ophthalmol. Mar 2014; 157(3): 607-15.e1. PMID 24528934
23. Ehlers JP, Kim SJ, Yeh S, et al. Therapies for Macular Edema Associated with Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. Sep 2017; 124(9): 1412-1423. PMID 28551163
24. Maturi RK, Chen V, Raghinaru D, et al. A 6-month, subject-masked, randomized controlled study to assess efficacy of dexamethasone as an adjunct to bevacizumab compared with bevacizumab alone in the treatment of patients with macular edema due to central or branch retinal vein occlusion. Clin Ophthalmol. 2014; 8: 1057-64. PMID 24940042
25. Gado AS, Macky TA. Dexamethasone intravitreous implant versus bevacizumab for central retinal vein occlusion-related macular oedema: a prospective randomized comparison. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014; 42(7): 650-5. PMID 24612095
26. Kuppermann BD, Blumenkranz MS, Haller JA, et al. Randomized controlled study of an intravitreous dexamethasone drug delivery system in patients with persistent macular edema. Arch Ophthalmol. Mar 2007; 125(3): 309-17. PMID 17353400
27. Kumar P, Sharma YR, Chandra P, et al. Comparison of the Safety and Efficacy of Intravitreal Ranibizumab with or without Laser Photocoagulation Versus Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant with or without Laser Photocoagulation for Macular Edema Secondary to Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion. Folia Med (Plovdiv). Jun 01 2019; 61(2): 240-248. PMID 31301668
28. Ji K, Zhang Q, Tian M, et al. Comparison of dexamethasone intravitreal implant with intravitreal anti-VEGF injections for the treatment of macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion: A meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). May 2019; 98(22): e15798. PMID 31145307
29. Tang HX, Li JJ, Yuan Y, et al. Comparing the efficacy of dexamethasone implant and anti-VEGF for the treatment of macular edema: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2024; 19(7): e0305573. PMID 38985778
30. Thorne JE, Sugar EA, Holbrook JT, et al. Periocular Triamcinolone vs. Intravitreal Triamcinolone vs. Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant for the Treatment of Uveitic Macular Edema: The PeriOcular vs. INTravitreal corticosteroids for uveitic macular edema (POINT) Trial. Ophthalmology. Feb 2019; 126(2): 283-295. PMID 30269924
31. Cai X, Wang J, Zhao J, et al. Safety and efficacy of ranibizumab combined with dexamethasone intravitreal implant versus ranibizumab monotherapy for macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion: a 12-month prospective, randomized study. Int Ophthalmol. Oct 23 2025; 45(1): 436. PMID 41128968
32. Fraser-Bell S, Kang HK, Mitchell P, et al. Dexamethasone intravitreal implant in treatment-naïve diabetic macular oedema: findings from the prospective, multicentre, AUSSIEDEX study. Br J Ophthalmol. Jan 2023; 107(1): 72-78. PMID 34433549
33. Zhang M, Liu Y, Song M, et al. Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant Has Better Retinal Perfusion than Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Treatment for Macular Edema Secondary to Retinal Vein Occlusion: A Five-Year Real-World Study. Ophthalmic Res. 2023; 66(1): 247-258. PMID 36215955
34. Garay-Aramburu G, Hunt A, Arruabarrena C, et al. Initial response and 12-month outcomes after commencing dexamethasone or vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors for retinal vein occlusion in the FRB registry. Sci Rep. Mar 13 2024; 14(1): 6122. PMID 38480837
35. Rittiphairoj T, Mir TA, Li T, et al. Intravitreal steroids for macular edema in diabetes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Nov 17 2020; 11(11): CD005656. PMID 33206392
36. Grover D, Li TJ, Chong CC. Intravitreal steroids for macular edema in diabetes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Jan 23 2008; (1): CD005656. PMID 18254088
37. Pearson PA, Comstock TL, Ip M, et al. Fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant for diabetic macular edema: a 3-year multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Ophthalmology. Aug 2011; 118(8): 1580-7. PMID 21813090
38. Campochiaro PA, Brown DM, Pearson A, et al. Long-term benefit of sustained-delivery fluocinolone acetonide vitreous inserts for diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology. Apr 2011; 118(4): 626-635.e2. PMID 21459216
39. ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Iluvien (fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant) 0.19 mg for Intravitreal Injection: Prescribing Label. 2026;
40. Campochiaro PA, Brown DM, Pearson A, et al. Sustained delivery fluocinolone acetonide vitreous inserts provide benefit for at least 3 years in patients with diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology. Oct 2012; 119(10): 2125-32. PMID 22727177
41. Cunha-Vaz J, Ashton P, Iezzi R, et al. Sustained delivery fluocinolone acetonide vitreous implants: long-term benefit in patients with chronic diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology. Oct 2014; 121(10): 1892-903. PMID 24935282
42. Massin P, Erginay A, Dupas B, et al. Efficacy and safety of sustained-delivery fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant in patients with chronic diabetic macular edema insufficiently responsive to available therapies: a real-life study. Clin Ophthalmol. 2016; 10: 1257-64. PMID 27468222
43. Morozova C, Humayun LL, Kasper J, et al. Real-World Outcomes of the 0.19 mg Fluocinolone Acetonide Intravitreal Implant for Diabetic Macular Edema. J Vitreoretin Dis. 2024; 8(4): 394-400. PMID 39148560
44. Capone L, Airaghi P, Aragona P, et al. Real-world experience with fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant in patients with diabetic macular edema. Eur J Ophthalmol. Nov 2024; 34(6): 1837-1842. PMID 38396370
45. Boyer DS, Yoon YH, Belfort R, et al. Three-year, randomized, sham-controlled trial of dexamethasone intravitreal implant in patients with diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology. Oct 2014; 121(10): 1904-14. PMID 24907062
46. Gillies MC, Lim LL, Campain A, et al. A randomized clinical trial of intravitreal bevacizumab versus intravitreal dexamethasone for diabetic macular edema: the BEVORDEX study. Ophthalmology. Dec 2014; 121(12): 2473-81. PMID 25155371
47. U.S. National Library of Medicine. Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant for the Treatment of Persistent Diabetic Macular Edema (DIME) NCT02471651. 2019.
48. Callanan DG, Loewenstein A, Patel SS, et al. A multicenter, 12-month randomized study comparing dexamethasone intravitreal implant with ranibizumab in patients with diabetic macular edema. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. Mar 2017; 255(3): 463-473. PMID 27632215
49. Sharma A, Bellala K, Dongre P, et al. Anti-VEGF versus dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex) for the management of Centre involved Diabetic Macular Edema (CiDME): a randomized study. Int Ophthalmol. Jan 2020; 40(1): 67-72. PMID 31377905
50. Cornish EE, Teo KY, Gillies MC, et al. Five-year outcomes of eyes initially enrolled in the 2-year BEVORDEX trial of bevacizumab or dexamethasone implants for diabetic macular oedema. Br J Ophthalmol. Jan 2023; 107(1): 79-83. PMID 34340975
51. Chakraborty D, Mondal S, Sengupta S, et al. Aflibercept vs. dexamethasone implant for recalcitrant diabetic macular edema in pseudophakic eyes - 1-year outcomes from a quazi-randomized study in India. Indian J Ophthalmol. Jul 01 2024; 72(7): 1001-1006. PMID 38622856
52. Bolukbasi S, Cakir A, Erden B, et al. Comparison of the short-term effect of aflibercept and dexamethasone implant on serous retinal detachment in the treatment of naive diabetic macular edema. Cutan Ocul Toxicol. Dec 2019; 38(4): 401-405. PMID 31438736
53. Cakir A, Erden B, Bolukbasi S, et al. Comparison of the effect of ranibizumab and dexamethasone implant in diabetic macular edema with concurrent epiretinal membrane. J Fr Ophtalmol. Sep 2019; 42(7): 683-689. PMID 31088741
54. Coelho J, Malheiro L, Melo Beirão J, et al. Real-world retrospective comparison of 0.19 mg fluocinolone acetonide and 0.7 mg dexamethasone intravitreal implants for the treatment of diabetic macular edema in vitrectomized eyes. Clin Ophthalmol. 2019; 13: 1751-1759. PMID 31571814
55. Maturi RK, Glassman AR, Liu D, et al. Effect of Adding Dexamethasone to Continued Ranibizumab Treatment in Patients With Persistent Diabetic Macular Edema: A DRCR Network Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. Jan 01 2018; 136(1): 29-38. PMID 29127949
56. Maturi RK, Bleau L, Saunders J, et al. A 12-Month, Single-Masked, Randomized Controlled Study of Eyes with Persistent Diabetic Macular Edema After Multiple Anti-VEGF Injections to Assess the Efficacy of the Dexamethasone-Delayed Delivery System as an Adjunct to Bevacizumab Compared with Continued Bevacizumab Monotherapy. Retina. Aug 2015; 35(8): 1604-14. PMID 25829346
57. Callanan DG, Gupta S, Boyer DS, et al. Dexamethasone intravitreal implant in combination with laser photocoagulation for the treatment of diffuse diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology. Sep 2013; 120(9): 1843-51. PMID 23706947
58. Kuppermann BD, Goldstein M, Maturi RK, et al. Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant as Adjunctive Therapy to Ranibizumab in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. Ophthalmologica. 2015; 234(1): 40-54. PMID 26088793
59. Bajwa A, Aziz K, Foster CS. Safety and efficacy of fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant (0.59 mg) in birdshot retinochoroidopathy. Retina. Nov 2014; 34(11): 2259-68. PMID 24999722
60. Burkholder BM, Wang J, Dunn JP, et al. Postoperative outcomes after fluocinolone acetonide implant surgery in patients with birdshot chorioretinitis and other types of posterior and panuveitis. Retina. Sep 2013; 33(8): 1684-93. PMID 23549097
61. Rush RB, Goldstein DA, Callanan DG, et al. Outcomes of birdshot chorioretinopathy treated with an intravitreal sustained-release fluocinolone acetonide-containing device. Am J Ophthalmol. Apr 2011; 151(4): 630-6. PMID 21277557
62. Srour M, Querques G, Leveziel N, et al. Intravitreal dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex) for macular edema secondary to retinitis pigmentosa. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. Jun 2013; 251(6): 1501-6. PMID 23275039
63. Erdoğan G, Aydoğan T, Ünlü C, et al. Dexamethasone Implant for the Treatment of Type 1 Idiopathic Macular Telangiectasia. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. May 2016; 32(4): 211-5. PMID 26985700
64. Donati S, Gandolfi C, Caprani SM, et al. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Treatment with Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant in Cystoid Macular Edema Secondary to Retinal Vein Occlusion. Biomed Res Int. 2018; 2018: 3095961. PMID 30175123
65. Laine I, Lindholm JM, Ylinen P, et al. Intravitreal bevacizumab injections versus dexamethasone implant for treatment-naïve retinal vein occlusion related macular edema. Clin Ophthalmol. 2017; 11: 2107-2112. PMID 29225460
66. Spaide RF. Retinal Vascular Cystoid Macular Edema: Review and New Theory. Retina. Oct 2016; 36(10): 1823-42. PMID 27328171
67. Ozkok A, Saleh OA, Sigford DK, et al. THE OMAR STUDY: Comparison of Ozurdex and Triamcinolone Acetonide for Refractory Cystoid Macular Edema in Retinal Vein Occlusion. Retina. Jul 2015; 35(7): 1393-400. PMID 25748280
68. Csaky KG, Richman EA, Ferris FL. Report from the NEI/FDA Ophthalmic Clinical Trial Design and Endpoints Symposium. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. Feb 2008; 49(2): 479-89. PMID 18234989
69. Park UC, Park JH, Ma DJ, et al. A Randomized Paired-Eye Trial of Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant for Cystoid Macular Edema in Retinitis Pigmentosa. Retina. Jul 2020; 40(7): 1359-1366. PMID 31166248
70. Veritti D, Sarao V, De Nadai K, et al. Dexamethasone Implant Produces Better Outcomes than Oral Acetazolamide in Patients with Cystoid Macular Edema Secondary to Retinitis Pigmentosa. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. Apr 2020; 36(3): 190-197. PMID 31886707
71. Novais EA, Maia M, Filho PA, et al. Twelve-Month Follow-Up of Dexamethasone Implants for Macular Edema from Various Diseases in Vitrectomized and Nonvitrectomized Eyes. J Ophthalmol. 2016; 2016: 7984576. PMID 27721989
72. Bansal P, Agarwal A, Gupta V, et al. Spectral domain optical coherence tomography changes following intravitreal dexamethasone implant, Ozurdex^® in patients with uveitic cystoid macular edema. Indian J Ophthalmol. May 2015; 63(5): 416-22. PMID 26139803
73. Fortoul V, Denis P, Kodjikian L. Anatomical and functional recurrence after dexamethasone intravitreal implants: a 6-month prospective study. Eye (Lond). Jun 2015; 29(6): 769-75. PMID 25853447
74. Bezatis A, Spital G, Höhn F, et al. Functional and anatomical results after a single intravitreal Ozurdex injection in retinal vein occlusion: a 6-month follow-up -- the SOLO study. Acta Ophthalmol. Aug 2013; 91(5): e340-7. PMID 23638803
75. Lei S, Lam WC. Efficacy and safety of dexamethasone intravitreal implant for refractory macular edema in children. Can J Ophthalmol. Jun 2015; 50(3): 236-41. PMID 26040225
76. Loutfi M, Papathomas T, Kamal A. Macular oedema related to idiopathic macular telangiectasia type 1 treated with dexamethasone intravitreal implant (ozurdex). Case Rep Ophthalmol Med. 2014; 2014: 231913. PMID 25045562
77. Holló G, Aung T, Cantor LB, et al. Cystoid macular edema related to cataract surgery and topical prostaglandin analogs: Mechanism, diagnosis, and management. Surv Ophthalmol. 2020; 65(5): 496-512. PMID 32092363
78. Grzybowski A, Sikorski BL, Ascaso FJ, et al. Pseudophakic cystoid macular edema: update 2016. Clin Interv Aging. 2016; 11: 1221-1229. PMID 27672316
79. Mylonas G, Georgopoulos M, Malamos P, et al. Comparison of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant with Conventional Triamcinolone in Patients with Postoperative Cystoid Macular Edema. Curr Eye Res. Apr 2017; 42(4): 648-652. PMID 27612922
80. Dang Y, Mu Y, Li L, et al. Comparison of dexamethasone intravitreal implant and intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide for the treatment of pseudophakic cystoid macular edema in diabetic patients. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2014; 8: 1441-9. PMID 25258512
81. Guclu H, Pelitli Gurlu V. Comparison of topical nepafenac 0.1% with intravitreal dexamethasone implant for the treatment of Irvine-Gass syndrome. Int J Ophthalmol. 2019; 12(2): 258-267. PMID 30809482
82. Klamann A, Böttcher K, Ackermann P, et al. Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant for the Treatment of Postoperative Macular Edema. Ophthalmologica. 2016; 236(4): 181-185. PMID 27915343
83. Sudhalkar A, Chhablani J, Vasavada A, et al. Intravitreal dexamethasone implant for recurrent cystoid macular edema due to Irvine-Gass syndrome: a prospective case series. Eye (Lond). Dec 2016; 30(12): 1549-1557. PMID 27858937
84. Keilani C, Halalchi A, Wakpi Djeugue D, et al. Evaluation of best corrected visual acuity and central macular thickness after intravitreal dexamethasone implant injections in patients with Irvine-Gass syndrome: A retrospective study of six cases. Therapie. Oct 2016; 71(5): 457-465. PMID 27203164
85. Mayer WJ, Kurz S, Wolf A, et al. Dexamethasone implant as an effective treatment option for macular edema due to Irvine-Gass syndrome. J Cataract Refract Surg. Sep 2015; 41(9): 1954-61. PMID 26603404
86. Landré C, Zourdani A, Gastaud P, et al. [Treatment of postoperative cystoid macular edema (Irvine-Gass syndrome) with dexamethasone 0.7 mg intravitreal implant]. J Fr Ophtalmol. Jan 2016; 39(1): 5-11. PMID 26520410
87. Degoumois A, Akesbi J, Laurens C, et al. [Efficacy of intravitreal dexamethasone implants in macular edema excluding venous occlusions: results for a cohort of 80 patients]. J Fr Ophtalmol. Feb 2015; 38(2): 126-33. PMID 25592383
88. Dutra Medeiros M, Navarro R, Garcia-Arumí J, et al. Dexamethasone intravitreal implant for treatment of patients with recalcitrant macular edema resulting from Irvine-Gass syndrome. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. May 07 2013; 54(5): 3320-4. PMID 23599334
89. Freissinger S, Vounotrypidis E, Wolf A, et al. Evaluation of Functional Outcomes and OCT-Biomarkers after Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant for Postoperative Cystoid Macular Edema in Vitrectomized Eyes. J Ophthalmol. 2020; 2020: 3946531. PMID 32411428
90. Bellocq D, Pierre-Kahn V, Matonti F, et al. Effectiveness and safety of dexamethasone implants for postsurgical macular oedema including Irvine-Gass syndrome: the EPISODIC-2 study. Br J Ophthalmol. Mar 2017; 101(3): 333-341. PMID 27190126
91. Bazin L, Gambrelle J. [Combined treatment with photodynamic therapy and intravitreal dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex(^®)) for circumscribed choroidal hemangioma]. J Fr Ophtalmol. Dec 2012; 35(10): 798-802. PMID 23040445
92. Sherif M, Wolfensberger TJ. Intraocular Dexamethasone Implant as Adjunct to Silicone Oil Tamponade for Proliferative Vitreoretinopathy. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. Apr 2017; 234(4): 501-504. PMID 28147403
93. Reibaldi M, Russo A, Longo A, et al. Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment with a High Risk of Proliferative Vitreoretinopathy Treated with Episcleral Surgery and an Intravitreal Dexamethasone 0.7-mg Implant. Case Rep Ophthalmol. Jan 2013; 4(1): 79-83. PMID 23687501
94. Caminal JM, Flores-Moreno I, Arias L, et al. Intravitreal dexamethasone implant for radiation maculopathy secondary to plaque brachytherapy in choroidal melanoma. Retina. Sep 2015; 35(9): 1890-7. PMID 26035401
95. Bui KM, Chow CC, Mieler WF. Treatment of recalcitrant radiation maculopathy using intravitreal dexamethasone (Ozurdex) implant. Retin Cases Brief Rep. 2014; 8(3): 167-70. PMID 25372430
96. Baillif S, Maschi C, Gastaud P, et al. Intravitreal dexamethasone 0.7-mg implant for radiation macular edema after proton beam therapy for choroidal melanoma. Retina. Oct 2013; 33(9): 1784-90. PMID 23652581
97. Tyson SL, Bafna S, Gira JP, et al. Multicenter randomized phase 3 study of a sustained-release intracanalicular dexamethasone insert for treatment of ocular inflammation and pain after cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. Feb 2019; 45(2): 204-212. PMID 30367938
98. Walters T, Bafna S, Vold S, Wortz G, Harton P, et al. (2016) Efficacy and Safety of Sustained Release Dexamethasone for the Treatment of Ocular Pain and Inflammation after Cataract Surgery: Results from Two Phase 3 Studies. J Clin Exp Ophthalmol 7:1000572. doi: 10.4172/2155-9570.1000572
99. Sudhalkar A, Vasavada A, Bhojwani D, et al. Intravitreal dexamethasone implant as an alternative to systemic steroids as prophylaxis for uveitic cataract surgery: a randomized trial. Eye (Lond). Mar 2020; 34(3): 491-498. PMID 31320735
100. Alsudais AS, Alshehri WM, Alrehaili AM, et al. The Efficacy and Safety of Dexamethasone Intracanalicular Insert Use in Patients with Chronic Seasonal/Perennial Allergic Conjunctivitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin Ophthalmol. 2024; 18: 2657-2666. PMID 39323726
101. Ocular Therapeutix, Inc. Dextenza (dexamethasone ophthalmic insert) 0.4 mg: Prescribing Label. 2025;
102. McLaurin EB, Evans D, Repke CS, et al. Phase 3 Randomized Study of Efficacy and Safety of a Dexamethasone Intracanalicular Insert in Patients With Allergic Conjunctivitis. Am J Ophthalmol. Sep 2021; 229: 288-300. PMID 33773984
103. Kenyon K, McLaurin EB, Silverstein SM, et al. A Randomized, Multicenter Phase 3 Clinical Trial Evaluating Intracanalicular Dexamethasone Insert for the Treatment of Allergic Conjunctivitis. Clin Ophthalmol. 2024; 18: 2671-2684. PMID 39328900
104. Lim JI, Kim SJ, Bailey ST, et al. Diabetic Retinopathy Preferred Practice Pattern^®. Ophthalmology. Apr 2025; 132(4): P75-P162. PMID 39918521
105. Kovach JL, Bailey ST, Kim SJ, et al. Retinal Vein Occlusions Preferred Practice Pattern^®. Ophthalmology. Apr 2025; 132(4): P303-P343. PMID 39918523
106. Vemulakonda GA, Bailey ST, Kim SJ, et al. Age-Related Macular Degeneration Preferred Practice Pattern^®. Ophthalmology. Apr 2025; 132(4): P1-P74. PMID 39918524
107. Cheung AY, Choi DS, Ahmad S, et al. Conjunctivitis Preferred Practice Pattern. Ophthalmology. Apr 2024; 131(4): P134-P204. PMID 38349304
108. Smith JR, Thorne JE, Flaxel CJ, et al. Treatment of Noninfectious Uveitic Macular Edema with Periocular and Intraocular Corticosteroid Therapies: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. Sep 2024; 131(9): 1107-1120. PMID 38647511
109. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant for treating chronic diabetic macular oedema TA953. 2024;
110. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant for treating recurrent non-infectious uveitis Technology appraisal guidance [TA590] 2019;
111. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Adalimumab and dexamethasone for treating non- infectious uveitis [TA460]. 2017;
112. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Dexamethasone intravitreal implant for the treatment of macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion [TA229]. 2011;
113. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Dexamethasone intravitreal implant for treating diabetic macular oedema [TA349]. 2022;