Treatment outcomes and predicting factors for diabetic macular edema treated with ranibizumab - One-year real-life results in Taiwan

Long-term Treatment Patterns for Diabetic Macular Edema: Up to 6-Year Follow-up in the IRIS® Registry

OBJECTIVE

To characterize anti-VEGF intravitreal therapy (IVT) patterns and long-term visual outcomes among patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) in routine clinical practice in the United States.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of the American Academy of Ophthalmology's IRIS® (Intelligent Research in Sight) Registry.

PARTICIPANTS

Treatment-naïve patients with DME (no previous IVT in the past 12 months) initiating anti-VEGF IVT from January 1, 2015, to March 31, 2021.

METHODS

Baseline characteristics, treatment patterns, and long-term visual acuity (VA) outcomes were reported for up to 6 years of follow-up.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes included the annualized number of injections, change in VA, and anti-VEGF agents.

RESULTS

A total of 190 345 eyes met the inclusion criteria. After 1 year of anti-VEGF IVT initiation, eyes received a mean of 3.9 (±2.8) injections and gained +3.2 (±16.4) letters of vision. Of the 1236 eyes with year 6 data, eyes received a mean of 2.9 (±2.1) injections in year 6 and gained +0.5 (±19.7) letters from baseline. The number of injections decreased, and injection intervals increased year over year up to 6 years regardless of baseline VA initiation. The average injection interval was 10 weeks in year 1 and increased to 13.2 weeks in year 2 before plateauing in years 3 to 6 (12.6, 12.3, 12.2, and 12.3 weeks, respectively). Improvements in VA from baseline were greatest in eyes that received 5 or more injections each year. At the end of follow-up, eyes with good baseline vision (>20/25) lost vision, whereas those with worse baseline vision (<20/25) gained vision. Although 51.7% of patients with DME discontinued IVT after a mean of 6 months, 32.8% reinitiated anti-VEGF IVT. Worse VA outcomes were associated with patients of Hispanic ethnicity (-1.08; 95% confidence interval: -1.34, -0.83] compared with non-Hispanic), Medicaid insurance (-1.15; 95% confidence interval: -1.48, -0.81 compared with commercial), and older age (-0.06; 95% confidence interval: -0.07, -0.05] each additional year).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with DME in routine clinical settings receive fewer injections than those in clinical trials and fewer than recommended per the label of US Food and Drug Administration-approved anti-VEGF IVT.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Management of treatment-naïve diabetic macular edema patients: Review of real-world clinical data

The high prevalence of Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a real global health problem. Its complex pathophysiology involves different pathways. Over the last decade, the introduction of intravitreal treatments has dramatically changed the management and prognosis of DME. Among the different treatment options, inhibitors of vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) and intravitreal steroids implants represent the first-line therapy of DME. We conducted a review of electronic databases to compile the available evidence about the clinical management of DME in a clinical setting, with a special focus on treatment-naïve patients. Anti-VEGF therapies represent a valuable option for treating DME patients. However, many patients do not respond properly to this treatment and, due to its administration regimen, many patients receive suboptimal treatment in real life. Current evidence demonstrated that in patients with DME, DEX-i improved significantly both anatomic and visual outcomes. Besides eyes with insufficient anti-VEGF respond or recalcitrant DME cases, DEX-i can be effectively and safely used in treatment-naïve DME patients as first line therapy. DEX-i may be considered first line therapy in different clinical scenarios, such as DME eyes with a greater inflammatory component, patients with cardiovascular events, vitrectomized eyes, or those requiring cataract surgery. In conclusion, there are still many points for improvement pending in the clinical management of the patient with DME. Since DME treatment must follow a patient-tailored approach, selecting the best therapeutic approach for each patient requires a good understanding of the pathophysiology of DME.

Exploring the role of retinal fluid as a biomarker for the management of diabetic macular oedema

Anti-VEGF therapies are associated with significant gains in visual acuity and fluid resolution in the treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DMO) and have become the standard of care. However, despite their efficacy, outcomes can be unpredictable, vary widely between individual eyes, and a large proportion of patients have persistent fluid following initial treatment, with a negative impact on visual outcomes. Anatomical parameters measured by optical coherence tomography (OCT), in addition to visual acuity, are key to monitoring treatment effectiveness and guiding retreatment decisions; however, existing guidelines on the management of DMO lack clear recommendations for interpretation of OCT parameters, or proposed thresholds of various markers to guide retreatment decisions. Although central subfield thickness (CSFT) has been widely used as a marker for retreatment decisions in clinical trials in DMO, and a reduction in CSFT has generally been shown to accompany improvements in best-corrected visual acuity with treatment, analyses of the relationship between these parameters show that the correlation is small to moderate. A more direct relationship can be seen between an increased magnitude of CSFT fluctuations over time and poorer visual acuity, suggesting that control of CSFT could be important in maximising visual outcomes. The relationship between visual outcomes and qualitatively assessed intraretinal fluid and subretinal fluid is also unclear, although quantitative assessments of fluid parameters suggest that untreated intraretinal fluid and subretinal fluid negatively impact visual outcomes. These findings highlight a need for clearer guidelines on the management of retinal fluid to improve visual outcomes for patients with DMO.

Predictive factors for treatment outcomes with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections in diabetic macular edema in clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections are the standard of care for diabetic macular edema (DME), a common complication of diabetes. This study aimed to identify factors influencing DME intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment outcomes in real-world practice.

METHODS

This was a multi-center retrospective observational study using medical chart review of participants receiving anti-VEGF injections for DME (N = 248). Demographic and clinical variables were assessed for association with best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) outcomes using regression models.

RESULTS

There was a significant improvement in BCVA (p < 0.001) and CMT (p < 0.001) after 12 months of treatment, although 21% of participants had decreased BCVA, and 41% had a < 10% CMT reduction at 12 months. Higher baseline BCVA (p = 0.022, OR=-0.024, 95% CI=-0.046,-0.004) and longer duration of diabetic retinopathy (p = 0.048, OR=-0.064, 95% CI=-0.129,-0.001) were negative predictors for BCVA response, whereas Aflibercept treatment (p = 0.017, OR = 1.107, 95% CI = 0.220,2.051) compared with other drugs and a positive "early functional response" (p < 0.001, OR=-1.393, 95% CI=-1.946,-0.857) were positive predictors. A higher baseline CMT (p < 0.001, OR = 0.019, 95% CI = 0.012,0.0261) and an "early anatomical response", (p < 0.001, OR=-1.677, 95% CI=-2.456, -0.943) were predictors for greater reduction in CMT. Overall, the variables could predict only 23% of BCVA and 52% of CMT response.

CONCLUSIONS

The study shows a significant proportion of DME patients do not respond to anti-VEGF therapy and identifies several clinical predictors for treatment outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was approved through the Human Research Ethics Committee, University of Tasmania (approval number H0012902), and the Southern Adelaide Clinical Human Research Ethics Committee (approval number 86 - 067).

Factors affecting central macular thickness of diabetic macular oedema patients after an induction treatment of intravitreal ranibizumab

OBJECTIVE

Intravitreal ranibizumab is one of the anti-vascular endothelial growth factors used for the treatment of diabetic macular oedema, not always successfully. We aimed to identify the factors affecting the changes of central macular thickness after induction treatment with intravitreal ranibizumab, to predict the treatment effect and facilitate early treatment decisions.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study involving a retrospective record review of diabetic macular oedema patients who received an induction treatment of three monthly 0.5 mg intravitreal ranibizumab injections between 2016 and 2019. Central macular thickness was measured at baseline and 3 months post-treatment. Linear regression was applied to identify the factors associated with the changes of central macular thickness.

RESULTS

A total of 153 diabetic macular oedema patients were involved in this study. Their mean age was 57.5 ± 7.7 years, 54.9% were female. The mean change of central macular thickness from baseline to 3 months after completed induction treatment of intravitreal ranibizumab was 155.5 ± 137.8 μm. Factors significantly associated with changes of central macular thickness were baseline central macular thickness [b = 0.73; 95% (CI): 0.63, 0.84; p = <0.001] and presence of subretinal fluid [b = 35.43; 95% CI: 3.70, 67.16; p = 0.029].

CONCLUSION

Thicker baseline central macular thickness and presence of subretinal fluid were the factors significantly associated with greater changes of central macular thickness in diabetic macular oedema patients after receiving three injections of intravitreal ranibizumab.

Relationship Between Macular Thickness and Visual Acuity in the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema With Anti-VEGF Therapy: Systematic Review

Purpose:

To examine the relationship between central macular thickness (CMT) measured by optical coherence tomography (OCT) and visual acuity (VA) in patients with center-involving diabetic macular edema (DME) receiving antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment.

Methods:

Peer-reviewed articles from 2016 to 2020 reporting intravitreal injections of bevacizumab, ranibizumab, or aflibercept that provided data on pretreatment (baseline) and final retinal thickness (CMT) and visual acuity (VA) were identified. The relationship between relative changes was assessed via a linear random-effects regression model controlling for treatment group.

Results:

No significant association between the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) VA and CMT was found in 41 eligible studies evaluating 2667 eyes. The observed effect estimate was a 0.12 increase (95% CI, −0.124 to 2.47) in logMAR VA per 100 µm reduction in CMT after treatment change. There were no significant differences in logMAR VA between the anti-VEGF treatment groups.

Conclusions:

There was no statistically significant relationship between the change in logMAR VA and change in CMT as well as no significant effect of the type of anti-VEGF treatment on the change in logMAR VA. Although OCT analysis, including measurements of CMT, will continue to be an integral part of the management of DME, further exploration is needed on additional anatomic factors that might contribute to visual outcomes.

Real-World Evidence in the Management of Diabetic Macular Edema with Intravitreal Anti-VEGFs in Asia: A Systematic Literature Review

Purpose

To evaluate the visual outcomes and safety profile of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy in the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) in real-world studies in Asian countries.

Methods

A systematic review of electronic literature databases (Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Library from January 1, 2010, to March 16, 2021) was conducted to identify observational studies that reported clinical and safety outcomes of anti-VEGF treatments for DME in Asia. We analyzed baseline patient characteristics, treatment patterns, mean number of injections, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), retinal thickness, and safety outcomes.

Results

Seventy-one studies were included in this review. Most studies reported treatment of DME with ranibizumab (n = 33), followed by aflibercept (n = 13), bevacizumab (n = 28), and conbercept (n = 9). At 12 months, the cumulative mean number of injections for ranibizumab, aflibercept, and conbercept was 5.2, 4.6, and 6, respectively. At the 12-month follow-up, the cumulative mean BCVA gain was 6.8 letters (ranibizumab), 4.6 letters (aflibercept), 4.9 letters (bevacizumab), and 8.3 letters (conbercept). The cumulative mean reduction in retinal thickness at 12 months was 116.9 μm (ranibizumab), 105.9 μm (aflibercept), 81.7 μm (bevacizumab), and 135.2 μm (conbercept). A strong positive correlation (r = 0.78) was observed between mean number of injections and change in BCVA at 12 months. A moderate positive correlation (r = 0.54) was observed between mean number of injections and mean reduction in retinal thickness at 12 months. A weak positive correlation was observed between baseline retinal thickness and visual acuity at 12 months. Baseline BCVA and mean number of injections were predictors of BCVA at 12 months.

Conclusion

All anti-VEGFs were effective in the treatment of DME in Asia. The data suggest that a greater number of anti-VEGF injections was associated with better improvement in BCVA and moderate reduction in retinal thickness at the 1-year follow-up.

One-year outcomes of the treat-and-extend regimen using aflibercept for the treatment of diabetic macular edema

BACKGROUND

Optimal regimen using intravitreal aflibercept injections for diabetic macular edema (DME) in clinical practice remains to be elucidated. The purpose of this study is to evaluate a treat-and-extend (TAE) approach using intravitreal aflibercept in participants with center-involved DME.

METHODS

A 52-week open-label, prospective, multicenter, interventional study was conducted between August 2015 and November 2017 in Taiwan. Adults with diabetes mellitus and center-involved DME who have best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 73 to 24 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters and central retinal thickness (CRT) >300 μm were included. Participants received five monthly loading doses of 2 mg intravitreal aflibercept, followed by a TAE regimen with a four-week increment/decrement interval over 48 weeks; the maximum interval was 12 weeks. Main outcomes included changes in BCVA and CRT from baseline to week 52, additional anatomical outcomes, and treatment burden parameters.

RESULTS

Forty-five participants with mean (SD) age of 63.7 (8.3) years were analyzed. At baseline, mean (SD) BCVA and CRT were 58.3 (11.9) letters and 434.4 (116.8) μm, respectively. Changes from baseline in BCVA and CRT were +8.3 (9.3) letters and -138.2 (150.0) μm (both p < 0.001) at week 52, respectively. In addition, 22% (10/45) of patients gained ≥15 letters, 14% (6/44) of participants achieved ≥2-level improvement in diabetic retinopathy severity, and 51% (23/45) demonstrated dry retina at week 52 compared with 13% (6/45) at baseline. In total, 87% (39/45) of patients reached disease stability, entering TAE at week 20. Subsequently, 89% (40/45) of patients reached maximum interval at week 52. Mean (SD) number of injections was 7.7 (1.5) over a period of 52 weeks.

CONCLUSION

This straightforward and practical TAE regimen using intravitreal aflibercept injections resulted in favorable clinical outcomes with minimal treatment burden for DME at week 52.

Treat-and-Extend vs. Pro Re Nata Regimen of Ranibizumab for Diabetic Macular Edema—A Two-Year Matched Comparative Study

Purpose

To compare 2-year treatment outcomes of ranibizumab using treat-and-extend (T&E) or pro re nata (PRN) regimens for diabetic macular edema (DME) in clinical settings.

Methods

We retrospectively enrolled 34 patients (34 eyes) with DME treated with ranibizumab using the T&E regimen, and 34 patients (34 eyes) treated with ranibizumab using the PRN regimen and matched to cases in the treat-and-extend group by baseline best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central foveal thickness (CFT). BCVA and CFT changes, number of injections and recurrence of macular edema over 2 years were compared between the groups.

Results

The average BCVA gain in the T&E and PRN groups was 16.2 and 7.6 ETDRS letters at 2 years (p = 0.011), respectively. The mean CFT reduction was 145.5 ± 127.3 and 97.3 ± 152.5 μm in the T&E and PRN groups at 2 years (p = 0.035), respectively. The T&E group had a higher proportion of patients with BCVA gain ≥ 15 letters at months 18 (p = 0.015) and 24 (p = 0.029) than the PRN group. During the 2-year treatment periods, the T&E group received more injections than the PRN group (11.0 ± 3.2 vs. 6.2 ± 2.0; p < 0.001), while the PRN group had more recurrence of macular edema than the T&E group (71 vs. 41%; p = 0.015).

Conclusions

After 2-year ranibizumab treatment for DME, better visual and anatomical improvement and less recurrence of macular edema were achieved in the T&E group, with more injections administered.

Diabetic macular edema and proliferative diabetic retinopathy treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor under the reimbursement policy in Taiwan

The purpose of this retrospective interventional case series is to compare the functional and anatomical outcomes in eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME) and proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) treated intravitreally with aflibercept or ranibizumab under the Taiwan National Insurance Bureau reimbursement policy. 84 eyes were collected and all eyes were imaged with spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT), color fundus photographs (CFPs), and fluorescein angiography (FA). At 24 months after therapy initiation, the logMAR BCVA improved from 0.58 ± 0.33 to 0.47 ± 0.38 (p < 0.01), the CRT decreased from 423.92 ± 135.84 to 316.36 ± 90.02 (p < 0.01), and the number of microaneurysms decreased from 142.14 ± 57.23 to 75.32 ± 43.86 (p < 0.01). The mean injection count was 11.74 ± 5.44. There was no intergroup difference in logMAR BCVA (p = 0.96), CRT (p = 0.69), or injection count (p = 0.81). However, the mean number of microaneurysms was marginally reduced (p = 0.06) in eyes treated with aflibercept at the end of the follow-up, and the incidence rates of supplementary panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) (p = 0.04) and subthreshold micropulse laser (SMPL) therapy sessions (p = 0.01) were also reduced. Multivariate analysis revealed that only initial logMAR BCVA influenced the final VA improvements (odds ratio (OR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 ~ 0.93, p < 0.01); in contrast, age (OR − 0.38, 95% CI − 6.97 ~ − 1.85, p < 0.01) and initial CRT (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34 ~ 0.84, p < 0.01) both influenced the final CRT reduction at 24 months. To sum up, both aflibercept and ranibizumab are effective in managing DME with PDR in terms of VA, CRT and MA count. Eyes receiving aflibercept required less supplementary PRP and SMPL treatment than those receiving ranibizumab. The initial VA influenced the final VA improvements at 24 months, while age and initial CRT were prognostic predictors of 24-month CRT reduction.

Comparison of Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant and Ranibizumab in Vitrectomized Eyes with Diabetic Macular Edema

Purpose

This retrospective study aimed to compare the efficacy of intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) and intravitreal dexamethasone implant (IDI) for pseudophakic vitrectomized eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME) in a single institution.

Methods

Pseudophakic vitrectomized eyes with treatment-naïve center-involved DME were enrolled, with one eye in each patient. They were divided into two groups: one group receiving IDI every 3 to 4 months and another group receiving IVR using 3 monthly plus treat-and-extend injections, all with monthly follow-up for 6 months. Switch of intravitreal drugs or deferred macular laser was not allowed. Primary outcome measures included change in central foveal thickness (CFT) in 1 mm by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at Month 6.

Results

Twenty-two eyes were included in the IDI group and 26 eyes in the IVR group. The baseline demographics, glycosylated hemoglobin level, intraocular pressure (IOP), BCVA, and CFT did not significantly differ (p > 0.05). Compared to baseline data, CFT decreased and BCVA improved significantly after either IDI or IVR at Month 6 (p < 0.05). Significantly better mean final BCVA (0.38 logMAR vs. 0.62 logMAR, p=0.04), more mean visual gain (−0.30 logMAR vs. −0.15 logMAR, p=0.02), lower mean final CFT (310.9 μm vs. 384.2 μm, p=0.04), and larger mean CFT decrease (−150.0 μm vs. −60.1 μm, p=0.03) were found in the IDI group compared to those in the IVR group. A smaller mean treatment number (2.6 vs. 5.6, p < 0.001) and higher rate of postinjection ocular hypertension requiring topical hypotensive agent therapy (27.3% vs. 0%, p=0.0002) were demonstrated in the IDI group than those in the IVR group.

Conclusion

We concluded that IDI and IVR can both effectively treat vitrectomized eyes with DME. Dexamethasone implants had significantly better visual/anatomical improvement, smaller treatment number, and higher rate of elevated IOP after injection than IVR in pseudophakic vitrectomized eyes with DME in a 6-month period.

Age, Initial Central Retinal Thickness, and OCT Biomarkers Have an Influence on the Outcome of Diabetic Macular Edema Treated With Ranibizumab- Tri-center 12-Month Treat-and-Extend Study

Objective: We report the tri-center 1-year outcomes of a treat-and-extend (T&E) regimen in four-week intervals with ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema (DME).

Methods: In this retrospective study, all eyes received 3 monthly loading injections of 0.5 mg ranibizumab, followed by a T&E regimen for DME. Regression models were used to evaluate the associating factors for visual and anatomical outcomes.

Results: Ninety one eyes from 64 patients were enrolled. Mean LogMAR best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improved from 0.58 at baseline to 0.36 at month 12 and mean central retinal thickness (CRT) decreased from 411 μm at baseline to 290 μm at month 12. Younger age and eyes having thinner baseline CRT, with ellipsoid zone disruption (EZD), and without epiretinal membrane (ERM) were associated with better final CRT. Moreover, eyes with thicker baseline CRT tend to receive more injections. Among the parameters, only having ERM or EZD was associated with significant BCVA recovery.

Conclusions: A T&E regimen with ranibizumab by 4-week intervals is effective in improving BCVA and reducing CRT with efficacy notable starting from the third month. Clinical parameters including age, initial CRT, and presence of ERM or EZD significantly influenced therapeutic outcomes. Moreover, the presence of ERM should not preclude DME patients from receiving anti-VEGF therapy. Future studies with larger cohorts are warranted.

Hyperreflective foci in predicting the treatment outcomes of diabetic macular oedema after anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy

This retrospective study evaluated the association of hyperreflective foci (HRF) with treatment response in diabetic macular oedema (DME) after anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy. The medical records, including of ophthalmologic examinations and optical coherence tomography (OCT) images, of 106 patients with DME treated with either intravitreal ranibizumab or aflibercept were reviewed. The correlations between best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) changes and HRF along with other OCT biomarkers were analysed. The mean logMAR BCVA improved from 0.696 to 0.461 after an average of 6.2 injections in 1 year under real-world conditions. Greater visual-acuity gain was noted in patients with a greater number of HRF in the outer retina at baseline (p = 0.037), along with other factors such as poor baseline vision (p < 0.001), absence of epiretinal membrane (p = 0.048), and presence of subretinal fluid at baseline (p = 0.001). The number of HRF after treatment was correlated with the presence of hard exudate (p < 0.001) and baseline haemoglobin A1C (p = 0.001). Patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy had greater HRF reduction after treatment (p = 0.018). The number of HRF in the outer retina, in addition to other baseline OCT biomarkers, could be used to predict the treatment response in DME after anti-VEGF treatment.

Managing Diabetic Macular Edema in Clinical Practice: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Current Strategies and Treatment Options

Purpose

This meta-analysis aims to summarize 12-month best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) outcomes in response to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy and dexamethasone implant for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) and to identify factors affecting treatment response using evidence generated from meta-regression.

Methods

A systematic review of electronic databases was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-life/observational studies that reported 12-month changes in BCVA in patients with DME on anti-VEGF or dexamethasone implant treatment in monotherapy. Study factors that were analyzed are baseline patient characteristics, study type, drug employed, number of injections and 12-month change in BCVA. Data were pooled in a random-effects meta-analysis with BCVA change as the main outcome. Meta-regression was conducted to assess the impact of multiple covariates.

Results

One-hundred-five heterogeneous study populations (45,032 eyes) were identified and included in the analysis. The use of anti-VEGFs and dexamethasone implant induced an overall increase of +8.13 ETDRS letters in BCVA at 12 months of follow-up. Meta-regression provided evidence that mean BCVA change using anti-VEGFs was not statistically higher for RCTs (p=0.35) compared to observational studies. Dexamethasone implant showed a trend for better results in observational studies over RCTs. Populations following a fixed aflibercept regimen performed better than those following a reactive treatment regimen. Mean BCVA gain was higher in younger populations (p<0.001), with lower baseline BCVA (p<0.0001) and longer diabetes duration (p<0.0001), receiving a higher number of injections (p<0.0001).

Conclusion

Intravitreal therapy with anti-VEGFs or dexamethasone implant produces a significant improvement in BCVA at 12 months in patients with DME. Meta-regression identified the modifiable covariates that can be targeted in order to maximize functional results.

Real-World Injection Frequency and Cost of Ranibizumab and Aflibercept for the Treatment of Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration and Diabetic Macular Edema

BACKGROUND

Ranibizumab and aflibercept are FDA-approved treatments for patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) and diabetic macular edema (DME). Although these agents differ in cost and labeled dosing, it is unclear whether these differences are reflected in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the real-world frequency and cost of ranibizumab and aflibercept injections among treatment-naive and previously treated patients with nAMD and DME.

METHODS

Claims data from MarketScan Research Databases were retrospectively reviewed to identify treatment-naive patients with nAMD who initiated intravitreal ranibizumab or aflibercept between January 1, 2014, and January 1, 2016, and treatment-naive patients with DME who initiated intravitreal ranibizumab or aflibercept between July 29, 2014, and July 1, 2016. Patients who switched to subsequent-line aflibercept or ranibizumab during the study period were eligible to enter previously treated subgroups. Multivariable regression models were derived to compare the per-patient frequency and cost of injections between ranibizumab- and aflibercept-treated patients with nAMD over 12 months (treatment-naive: n = 1,087 and n = 1,578; previously treated: n = 221 and n = 751) and 24 months (treatment-naive: n = 454 and n = 568; previously treated: n = 93 and n = 284) and in patients with DME over 6 months (treatment-naive: n = 507 and n = 681; previously treated: n = 53 and n = 223) and 12 months (treatment-naive: n = 326 and n = 382; previously treated: n = 24 and n = 122).

RESULTS

After adjusting for patient demographics and clinical characteristics, per-patient injection frequency and cost were not significantly different between treatment-naive patients with nAMD who received ranibizumab versus aflibercept over 12 months (5.62 vs. 5.54; P = 0.52, and $11,351 vs. $10,702; P = 0.06, respectively) and 24 months (7.86 vs. 8.37; P = 0.16, and $16,286 vs. $16,666; P = 0.69, respectively). In previously treated patients with nAMD, injection frequency was significantly lower among ranibizumab- versus aflibercept-treated patients over 24 months (7.98 vs. 9.63; P = 0.03), whereas treatment costs were comparable over 12 months ($11,512 vs. $12,050; P = 0.44) and 24 months ($16,303 vs. $19,361; P = 0.13). In treatment-naive patients with DME, ranibizumab was associated with significantly fewer injections and lower costs than aflibercept over 6 months (2.60 vs. 2.92 and $3,379 vs. $5,925, respectively; both P < 0.001) and 12 months (3.33 vs. 3.87 and $4,136 vs. $7,656, respectively; both P < 0.001). Similar cost savings were observed among previously treated patients with DME who received ranibizumab over 6 months ($3,834 vs. $6,775 for aflibercept; P = 0.0001) and 12 months ($4,606 vs. $9,190; P = 0.02), despite nonsignificant differences in injection frequency during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the frequency and cost of ranibizumab and aflibercept injections were generally comparable among patients treated for nAMD, ranibizumab was associated with estimated per-patient-per-year cost savings of $3,500-$4,500 in those treated for DME. Most patients received fewer injections than any FDA-indicated dosing schedule, suggesting potential undertreatment that may result in suboptimal vision outcomes.

DISCLOSURES

Study funding was provided by Genentech, a member of the Roche Group. The sponsor participated in the design of the study; collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation of the manuscript; and the decision to submit the article for publication. Kiss has been a consultant for and received honoraria from Alcon, Alimera, Allergan, BioMarin, Novartis, and Spark; has been on the advisory board for, a consultant for, received honoraria from, and held stock options in Adverum and Regenxbio; has been a consultant for, received honoraria from, and held stock/stock options in Fortress; has been on the advisory board for, a consultant and investigator for, and received grants and honoraria from Genentech and Regeneron; and has been on the advisory board for, a consultant for, and received grants and honoraria from Optos. Malangone-Monaco, Wilson, Varker, Stetsovsky, and Smith are employees of IBM Watson Health, which received funding from Genentech to undertake this study. Garmo is an employee of Genentech. Data reported in this manuscript were presented in part at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) Managed Care and Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting; April 23-26, 2018; Boston, MA.

Use of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drugs for eye disease in Tuscany: Development and test of indicators of treatment intensity

PURPOSE

We aimed to develop indicators based on electronic administrative data to compare treatment intensity at a hospital level in Tuscany, Italy.

METHODS

Data from 3 university hospitals (UHs), 11 local hospitals (LHs) and 2 private hospitals were analysed. Patients newly treated with an intravitreal injection were followed up for 365 days. Indicator #1 concerned hospitals with >80% of injections linked to a drug and patients with all injections linked to a drug. Indicator #2 included patients who received ⩾3 injections during the first 90 days, regardless of injection-drug linkage.

RESULTS

Indicator #1 was computed on four hospitals and included 3210 patients (48.3%). The average number of injections was 3.24 in the largest UH1. Compared to the latter, indicator #1 was significantly lower in UH2 and UH3 (-0.47 and -0.58, respectively; p < 0.001). Indicator #2 was computed on all hospitals and included 2789 patients (41.9%). UH1 delivered about 4.33 injections. Compared to the latter, LH4 delivered +0.62 injections (p < 0.001) and nine other hospitals delivered between -0.22 and -0.94 injections (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The two indicators proved to have the potential for supporting clinicians and policy makers in promoting the appropriate treatment intensity with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drugs.