[A "fast track" to improve management of neovascular age related macular degeneration]

Understanding Loss to Follow-Up in AMD Patients Receiving VEGF Inhibitor Therapy: Associated Factors and Underlying Reasons

BACKGROUND

In patients with wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD), loss to follow-up (LTFU) leads to unplanned interruptions in therapy and the risk of visual loss.

METHODS

This retrospective and prospective case-control cohort study compared AMD patients with (LTFU YES) and without (LTFU NO) LTFU during anti-VEGF treatment over 12 years. LTFU was defined as missing any treatment or monitoring visits, or not scheduling follow-ups for six months.

RESULTS

Significant differences between LTFU NO (n = 298) and LTFU YES (n = 174) groups were age, treatment phase, baseline and final best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), type of anti-VEGF drug, treatment switch, commuting distance, and escort during commuting. A multivariate logistic regression analysis identified the need for an escort during the commuting and treatment phase as the only significant difference. The four most common reasons for LTFU were general health worsening (21.8%), patient-missed appointments (16.7%), COVID-19-related issues (14.9%), and treatment dissatisfaction (8.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

The factors associated with increased LTFU rates were older age, inactive treatment phase, lower baseline and final BCVA, bevacizumab treatment, monotherapy, longer travelling distance, and commuting with an escort. According to the multivariate logistic regression analysis, only the escort during the commuting and treatment phases was significant. These findings could direct research to explore social support in treatment adherence and highlight the importance of treatment phases in practice.

The negative impact of COVID-19 pandemic on age-related macular degeneration patients treated with intravitreal bevacizumab injections

Purpose

COVID-19 emerged in the end of 2019 and was declared a worldwide pandemic shortly after. Social distancing and lockdowns resulted in lower compliance in intravitreal injections and office visits. We aimed to assess clinical outcomes among patients who missed these visits compared to those who arrived as planned.

Methods

Patients who missed or were late to office visits or intravitreal injections were defined as non-adherent and were compared to adherent patients. Our main outcomes were the need for subsequent injections, mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and central macular thickness (CMT).

Results

This study included 77 patients (24 adherent and 53 non-adherent). The mean BCVA remained stable during the study period for the adherent group (p = 0.159) and worsened in the non-adherent group (p < 0.001). Changes in CMT and maximum thickness were not significant for either group. A higher proportion of patients in the non-adherent group needed subsequent intravitreal injections (49% vs 20%, p = 0.014).

Conclusion

The findings demonstrate the negative implications of the COVID-19 pandemic and the effect of deferring bevacizumab injections among individuals with age-related macular degeneration. This emphasizes the importance of a scheduled follow-up, also during a pandemic.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10792-022-02337-y.

Defining Nonadherence and Nonpersistence to Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapies in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration

Importance

Poor adherence or persistence to treatment can be a barrier to optimizing clinical practice (real-world) outcomes to intravitreal injection therapy in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). Currently, there is a lack of consensus on the definition and classification of adherence specific to this context.

Objective

To describe the development and validation of terminology on patient nonadherence and nonpersistence to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Following a systematic review of currently used terminology in the literature, a subcommittee panel of retinal experts developed a set of definitions and classification for validation. Definitions were restricted to use in patients with nAMD requiring intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy. Validation by the full nAMD Barometer Leadership Coalition was established using a modified Delphi approach, with predetermined mean scores of 7.5 or more signifying consensus. Subsequent endorsement of the definitions was provided from a second set of retinal experts, with more than 50% members agreeing or strongly agreeing with all definitions.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Development of consensus definitions for the terms adherence and persistence and a classification system for the factors associated with treatment nonadherence or nonpersistence in patients with nAMD.

Results

Nonadherence was defined as missing 2 or more treatment or monitoring visits over a period of 12 months, with a visit considered missed if it exceeded more than 2 weeks from the recommended date. Nonpersistence was defined by nonattendance or an appointment not scheduled within the last 6 months. The additional terms planned discontinuation and transfer of care were also established. Reasons for treatment nonadherence and nonpersistence were classified into 6 dimensions: (1) patient associated, (2) condition associated, (3) therapy associated, (4) health system and health care team associated, (5) social/economic, and (6) other, with subcategories specific to treatment for nAMD.

Conclusions and Relevance

This classification system provides a framework for assessing treatment nonadherence and nonpersistence over time and across different health settings in the treatment of nAMD with current intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatments. This may have additional importance, given the potential association of the coronavirus pandemic on adherence to treatment in patients with nAMD.

Acceptability of intravitreal injections in geographic atrophy: protocol for a mixed-methods pilot study

INTRODUCTION

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a common cause of visual impairment, affecting central vision. Geographic atrophy (GA) is an advanced form of the non-neovascular (dry) type of AMD. Late-stage clinical trials suggest that intravitreal injections of novel therapeutics may slow down the rate of GA progression by up to 30% in 1 year, thus allowing people with GA to preserve central vision for a longer period. While intravitreal injections have become an established treatment modality for neovascular (wet) AMD, it is unknown whether patients with (more gradually progressing) GA would accept regular injections that slow down, but do not stop or reverse, vision loss. Therefore, this mixed-methods pilot study will aim to explore whether regular intravitreal injections will be acceptable as treatment for patients with GA, and the factors that may affect treatment acceptability.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A mixed-methods survey has been designed in collaboration with a GA patient advisory group. The survey comprises of structured questionnaires, semi-structured interview questions regarding patients' perceptions of intravitreal injections and the burden of treatment, and a task eliciting preferences between different potential treatments. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, this study will be conducted remotely by telephone. Thirty individuals will be recruited from NHS Medical Retina clinics at Central Middlesex Hospital, London. Half of the participants will be naïve to intravitreal injections, while half will have previous experience of intravitreal injections for neovascular (wet) AMD. Qualitative data analysis will be conducted using the Framework Method of analysis to identify key themes from participants' accounts.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study received Health Research Authority approval on 23 March 2021 (IRAS Project ID: 287824). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations to the medical retina community, as well as through dialogue with patients and macular disease charities.

Nonadherence or Nonpersistence to Intravitreal Injection Therapy for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review

TOPIC

Systematic review of risk factors for nonadherence and nonpersistence to intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injection therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Lack of adherence (nonadherence) or undertreatment (nonpersistence) with respect to evidence from clinical trials remains a significant barrier to optimizing real-world outcomes for patients with nAMD. Contributing factors and strategies to address this are poorly understood.

METHODS

Studies that reported factors for nonadherence and nonpersistence to anti-VEGF therapy as well as studies examining strategies to improve this were included. Trial eligibility and data extraction were conducted according to Cochrane review methods. Risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Method Assessment Tool and certainty of evidence evaluated according to the GRADE Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research tool. Data were collated descriptively.

RESULTS

Of the 1284 abstract results screened, 124 articles were assessed in full and 37 studies met the inclusion criteria. Definitions of nonadherence and nonpersistence varied or were not reported. Nonpersistence occurred early, with up to 50% of patients stopping treatment by 24 months. High rates of nonadherence were similarly reported, occurring in 32% to 95% of patients. Certainty of this finding was downgraded to a moderate level because of the heterogeneity in definitions used across studies. Multiple factors determine nonadherence and nonpersistence, including at the condition, therapy, patient, social/economic, and health systems/healthcare team levels. Moderate quality evidence points to lower baseline vision and poorer response to treatment as condition-related variables. The effects of other factors were of lower certainty, predominantly due to small numbers and potential biases in retrospective assessment. Although many factors are not modifiable (e.g., patient comorbidity), other factors are potentially correctable (e.g., lack of transport or mismatched patient expectations). Evidence on strategies to improve adherence and persistence is limited, but where available, these have proven effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Awareness of factors related to poor patient adherence and persistence in nAMD could help identify at-risk populations and improve real-world outcomes. Further work is required to develop uniform definitions and establish high-quality evidence on interventions that can be easily implemented.