Cost-Utility of Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Treatment for Macular Edema Secondary to Central Retinal Vein Occlusion

Case series of retinal vein occlusions showing early recovery using oral l-methylfolate

This case series describes the aggregate rate of recovery in five consecutive subjects (six eyes) with retinal vein occlusion (RVO) who received l-methylfolate and other vitamins via Ocufolin®, a medical food. Subjects were followed for 10-33 months by a single ophthalmologist. Ocufolin® was prescribed at the time of diagnosis and subjects remained on the regimen throughout the time of observation. Examinations were performed in an un-masked fashion at 3-month intervals with recording of best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), average retinal nerve fiber layer (ARNFL) and central macular thickness (CMT), and fundus (examination of the retina, macula, optic nerve, and vessels) photography. Testing was done for vitamin deficiencies, vascular and coagulable risk factors, and methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) polymorphisms. Vitamin deficiencies and vascular risk factors were found in all subjects, and all four tested subjects carried at least one MTHFR polymorphism. By the end of the study period BCVA in all subjects was 20/25 or better. Cystoid macular edema was identified and measured by optical coherence tomography (OCT). The percent change was calculated and plotted at 3-month intervals using the percent change in thickness from the time of diagnosis and percent change toward normative values for ARNFL and CMT. The total reduction in thickness of ARNFL and CMT from time of diagnosis was 44.19% and 30.27%, respectively. The comparison to normative data shows a reduction of ARNFL from 164.2% to 94% and CMT from 154.4% to 112.7% of normal thickness (100%). Plots showed the aggregate recovery was most rapid over the first 3 months and slowed over the next 3 months with most of the recovery taking place within 6 months of treatment. The rate of improvement in BCVA and resolution of retinal thickening was found to be better than predicted on historical grounds. No subjects progressed from nonischemic to ischemic RVO. Vitamin deficiencies, vascular risk factors, and genetic predisposition to oxidative stress were common in this RVO series. It appears that addressing these factors with Ocufolin® had a salutary effect on recovery.

Loss-balanced parallel decoding network for retinal fluid segmentation in OCT

As a leading cause of blindness worldwide, macular edema (ME) is mainly determined by sub-retinal fluid (SRF), intraretinal fluid (IRF), and pigment epithelial detachment (PED) accumulation, and therefore, the characterization of SRF, IRF, and PED, which is also known as ME segmentation, has become a crucial issue in ophthalmology. Due to the subjective and time-consuming nature of ME segmentation in retinal optical coherence tomography (OCT) images, automatic computer-aided systems are highly desired in clinical practice. This paper proposes a novel loss-balanced parallel decoding network, namely PadNet, for ME segmentation. Specifically, PadNet mainly consists of an encoder and three parallel decoder modules, which serve as segmentation, contour, and diffusion branches, and they are employed to extract the ME's characteristics, the contour area features, and to expand the ME area from the center to edge, respectively. A new loss-balanced joint-loss function with three components corresponding to each of the three parallel decoding branches is also devised for training. Experiments are conducted with three public datasets to verify the effectiveness of PadNet, and the performances of PadNet are compared with those of five state-of-the-art methods. Results show that PadNet improves ME segmentation accuracy by 8.1%, 11.1%, 0.6%, 1.4% and 8.3%, as compared with UNet, sASPP, MsTGANet, YNet, RetiFluidNet, respectively, which convincingly demonstrates that the proposed PadNet is robust and effective in ME segmentation in different cases.

Intravitreal Ziv-Aflibercept versus Bevacizumab for Naïve Central Retinal Vein Occlusion with Macular Edema: An Interim Analysis of a Randomized Non-Inferiority Trial

Purpose

To compare the efficacy of intravitreal ziv-aflibercept (IVZ) and bevacizumab (IVB) injections for the treatment of macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion.

Methods

Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 3 monthly IVZ (1.25 mg/0.05 mL) or IVB (1.25 mg/0.05 mL) followed by the pro-re-nata protocol for persistent or recurrent macular edema. The primary outcomes were best-corrected visual acuity and central subfield thickness. An interim analysis was planned when half of the participants completed the follow-up.

Results

Twenty-four participants were recruited. At 6 months, mean best-corrected visual acuity in the IVB and IVZ groups improved from 1.23 ± 0.64 to 0.76 ± 0.56 logMAR (p = 0.003) and from 1.13 ± 0.59 to 0.53 ± 0.26 logMAR (p = 0.003), respectively. The percentage of visual improvement and reduction in central subfield thickness in the IVZ group were insignificantly better than those in the IVB group (44.41 ± 26.72 vs 39.64 ± 24.22%; p = 0.65) and (51.94 ± 20.35 vs 45.78 ± 24.71%; p = 0.51), respectively. Although the mean number of injections was lower in the IVZ group (4.55 ± 1.29 vs 4.82 ±1.33), the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.68). No ocular or systemic adverse events were observed.

Conclusion

The interim analysis demonstrated that the visual and anatomical results of IVZ were insignificantly better than those of IVB at 6 months of follow-up. The results also showed that IVZ was non-inferior to IVB for anatomical improvement but inconclusive for visual improvement.

Clinical Trial Registration

(identifier: TCTR20191205008).

Cost-Utility Comparison of Bevacizumab and Aflibercept in the Treatment of Central or Hemiretinal Vein Occlusion in the SCORE2 Trial

Importance

Retinal vein occlusion is the second most common retinal vascular disease. Bevacizumab was demonstrated in the Study of Comparative Treatments for Retinal Vein Occlusion 2 (SCORE2) to be noninferior to aflibercept with respect to visual acuity in study participants with macular edema due to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) or hemiretinal vein occlusion (HRVO) following 6 months of therapy. In this study, the cost-utility of bevacizumab vs aflibercept for treatment of CRVO is evaluated.

Objective

To investigate the relative cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab vs aflibercept for treatment of macular edema associated with CRVO or HRVO.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This economic evaluation study used a microsimulation cohort of patients with clinical and demographic characteristics similar to those of SCORE2 participants and a Markov process. Parameters were estimated and validated using a split-sample approach of the SCORE2 population. The simulated cohort included 5000 patients who were evaluated 100 times, each with a different set of characteristics randomly selected based on the SCORE2 trial. SCORE2 data were collected from September 2014 October 2019, and data were analyzed from October 2019 to July 2021.

Interventions

Bevacizumab (followed by aflibercept among patients with a protocol-defined poor or marginal response to bevacizumab at month 6) vs aflibercept (followed by a dexamethasone implant among patients with a protocol-defined poor or marginal response to aflibercept at month 6).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Incremental cost-utility ratio.

Results

The simulation demonstrated that patients treated with aflibercept will have an expected cost $18 127 greater than those treated with bevacizumab in the year following initiation. When coupled with the lack of clinical superiority over bevacizumab (ie, patients treated with bevacizumab had a gain over aflibercept in visual acuity letter score of 4 in the treated eye and 2 in the fellow eye), these results demonstrate that first-line treatment with bevacizumab dominated aflibercept in the simulated cohort of SCORE2 participants. At current price levels, aflibercept would be considered the preferred cost-effective option only if treatment restored the patient to nearly perfect health.

Conclusions and Relevance

While there will be some patients with CRVO-associated or HRVO-associated macular edema who will benefit from first-line treatment with aflibercept rather than bevacizumab, given the minimal differences in visual acuity outcomes and large cost differences for bevacizumab vs aflibercept, first-line treatment with bevacizumab is cost-effective for this condition.

Focal Photocoagulation as an Adjunctive Therapy to Reduce the Burden of Intravitreal Injections in Macula Edema Patients, the LyoMAC2 Study

AIM

To assess the efficacy of focal photocoagulation of capillary macroaneurysms (CMA) to reduce the burden of intravitreal injections (IVI) in patients with macular edema (ME).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective multicenter study in patients with diabetic ME or ME secondary to retinal vein occlusion (ME-RVO). CMA associated with ME were selectively photocoagulated. Patients were followed for one year after photocoagulation.

RESULTS

93 eyes of 76 patients were included in this study. At 6 months after the laser (n = 93), there was a significant decrease in mean macular thickness (from 354 µm to 314 µm, p < 0.001) and in mean IVI number (from 2.52 to 1.52 at 6 months, p < 0.001). The mean BCVA remained stable (0.32 and 0.31 logMAR at baseline and 6 months, p = 0.95). At 12 months (n = 81/93), there was a significant decrease in mean macular thickness (from 354 µm to 314 µm, p < 0.001) and in mean IVI number (from 4.44 to 2.95 at 12 months, p < 0.001), while the mean BCVA remained stable (0.32 and 0.30 logMAR at baseline and 12 months, p = 0.16).

CONCLUSION

Focal laser photocoagulation of CMA seems to be effective and safe for reducing the burden of IVI in patients with ME. Their screening during the follow-up should be considered closely.

Anti-VEGF reduces inflammatory features in macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion

AIM

To investigate the anti-inflammatory effect of intravitreal injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) in patients with macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO-ME).

METHODS

Twenty-eight eyes from twenty-eight treatment-naïve patients (14 males and 14 females) with RVO-ME were included in this retrospective study. The retinal vein occlusion (RVO) was comprised of both central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO, n=14) and branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO, n=14). Intravitreal injection of anti-VEGF reagents were administered monthly for three consecutive months, in which 18 patients were injected with ranibizumab and 10 patients were injected with conbercept. All eyes were imaged with optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) at baseline and 1wk after monthly intravitreal anti-VEGF injection. The visual acuity (VA), central macular thickness (CMT), the number of hyperreflective foci (HRF) recognized as an inflammatory sign in OCT images, and non-perfusion area (NPA), were compared before and after anti-VEGF treatments.

RESULTS

The mean interval between baseline and follow-up was 29.4±0.79 (range, 27-48)d. Compared with the baseline, the VA improved (logMAR 1.5±0.1 vs 0.8±0.1, P<0.05) and CMT decreased (460±34.0 µm vs 268.8±12.0 µm, P<0.05), significantly, after anti-VEGF treatment. The number of HRF was decreased significantly (76.5±4.8 vs 47.8±4.3, P<0.05) after anti-VEGF treatment.

CONCLUSION

Anti-VEGF therapy is effective in treating RVO-ME. The mechanisms for the decreased HRF and the reduction of NPA by anti-VEGF therapy merits further exploration.

Quality-adjusted life years in macular oedema due to age-related macular degeneration, diabetes and central retinal vein occlusion: the impact of anti-VEGF agents in a tertiary centre in Greece

INTRODUCTION

Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), diabetic macular oedema (DME), and macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) are leading causes of vision loss, currently managed with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections (anti-VEGF). The aim of this study was to calculate QALYs in patients with nAMD, DME, and CRVO treated with anti-VEGF agents (QALYs⁺) in a Greek tertiary hospital setting and compare them to theoretical QALYs that the patients would have without treatment (QALYs^-).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study included 143 treatment-naive patients with macular oedema due to nAMD (n = 79), DME (n = 57), and CRVO (n = 7), who received anti-VEGF injections as monotherapy according to the Treat-and-Extend (T&E) protocol. The anti-VEGF agents were ranibizumab and aflibercept in equivalent fractions. QALYs where calculated by the formula QALY = Utility Value × Time, where "Time" refers to the follow-up period of the study. For QALYs^-, we assumed that visual acuity remained unchanged during this period.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up time was 1.3 ± 1.2 years in the nAMD group, 1 ± 1.3 years in the DME group, and 0.5 ± 1 years in the CRVO group. There was no statistically significant difference between QALYs^- and QALYs⁺ in all three ocular pathologies for the study period (p > 0.05 for each of the three statistical tests performed).

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

Possible explanations for the lack of significant difference between QALYs - and QALYs + in nAMD, DME, and CRVO groups, may be the short time horizon used in this analysis, the inclusion of data from the better-seeing eye (BSE) and the specific socio-economic, geographical and health care characteristics of this rural Greek area.

Five-year outcomes after intravitreal bevacizumab of treatment-naive eyes with macular edema secondary to CRVO in routine clinical practice: Results of the Pan-American Collaborative Retina Study (PACORES) group

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to report the 5-year outcomes of treatment-naive eyes with cystoid macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion treated with intravitreal bevacizumab in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

We conducted multicenter retrospective non-comparative case series of 102 eyes. The main outcome measured was the change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 5 years. Secondary outcomes included the number of injections and the change in CMT at 5 years.

RESULTS

At 5 years, the mean BCVA improved from 1.22 ± 0.58 (Snellen 20/428) at baseline to 1.00 ± 0.68 logMAR (Snellen 20/200; p < 0.0001). At 5 years, 48 (47%) eyes had a gain of ≥ 3 lines, 41 (40.2%) eyes remained within 3 lines and 13 (12.7%) eyes had a loss of ≥ 3 lines of BCVA. The CMT improved from 740 ± 243 to 322 ± 179 µm (p < 0.0001). At 5 years, 59 (57.8%) eyes had a completely dry SD-OCT. Patients received a total of 10.6 ± 6.1 (range 6-27) injections. Baseline BCVA (p < 0.0001) and the duration of symptoms prior to initial anti-VEGF injection (p = 0.0274) were the only predictive factors for BCVA at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

After 5 years with an average of 10.6 injections, there was a mean gain of 0.22 logMAR. In addition, more eyes achieved a BCVA of ≥ 20/40, gained ≥ 3 lines and less patients had a BCVA ≤ 20/200. Eyes with a better baseline BCVA and a shorter duration of symptoms were more likely to achieve better BCVA at 5 years.

A Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Intravitreal Aflibercept for the Prevention of Progressive Diabetic Retinopathy

PURPOSE

To calculate costs required to prevent center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME) or proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR), and to improve the diabetic retinopathy severity score (DRSS) with intravitreal anti-VEGF injections as reported for aflibercept in two randomized control trials.

DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness analysis modeling based on published data SUBJECTS: None METHODS: Results from PANORAMA and the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network (DRCR.net) Protocol W were analyzed. Parameters collected included DRSS score, risk reduction of PDR, risk reduction of CI-DME, and number of treatments required. Costs were modeled based on 2020 Medicare reimbursement data practice settings of hospital-based facility and non-facility.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Cost to prevent case of PDR and CI-DME, and to improve DRSS stage RESULTS: Over 2 years in Protocol W, the cost required to prevent 1 case of PDR was $83,000 ($72,400) in the facility (non-facility) setting; in PANORAMA, the corresponding 2 year costs were $89,400 ($75,000) for the 2Q16 arm, and $91,200 ($89,900) for the 2Q8PRN arm. To prevent 1 case of CI-DME with vision loss in Protocol W, the cost was $154,000 ($133,000). For all CI-DME, with and without vision loss; in PANORAMA, the costs to prevent a case were $70,900 ($59,500) for the 2Q16 arm, and $90,000 ($88,800) for the 2Q8PRN arm. In Protocol W, the overall accumulated total for cost /DRSS unit change at the 2 year point for facility (non-facility) setting was $2700 ($2400)/DRSS. In the first year alone, it was $2100 ($1800)/DRSS and in the second year alone, $6100 ($5300)/DRSS.

CONCLUSION

There is a considerable cost associated with the prevention of PDR and CI-DME with intravitreal aflibercept injections. A price per unit of change in diabetic retinopathy severity score is a new parameter which might serve as a benchmark in future utility analyses that could be used to bring perspective to cost-utility considerations.