Treatment Efficacy and Compliance in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema Treated with Ranibizumab in a Real-Life Setting

Real-World Outcomes of Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Treatment for Diabetic Macular Edema in Türkiye: MARMASIA Study Group Report No. 1

Objectives

This study aimed to report the demographic and clinical characteristics of diabetic macular edema (DME) patients treated with intravitreal injection (IVI) of anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (anti-VEGF) and provide an overview of outcomes during routine clinical practice in Türkiye.

Materials and Methods

This retrospective, real-world study included 1,372 eyes (854 patients) treated with a pro re nata protocol by 21 ophthalmologists from 8 tertiary clinics on the Asian side of the Marmara region of Türkiye (MARMASIA Study Group). Five cohort groups were established by collecting the patients' baseline and 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36-month follow-up data, where each subsequent cohort may include the previous. Changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA, approximate ETDRS letters) and central macular thickness (CMT, μm), number of visits and IVI, and rates of anti-VEGF switch and intravitreal dexamethasone implant (IDI) combination were evaluated.

Results

The 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36-month cohorts included 1372 (854), 1352 (838), 1185 (722), 972 (581), and 623 (361) eyes (patients), respectively. The mean baseline BCVA and CMT were 51.4±21.4 letters and 482.6±180.3 μm. The mean changes from baseline in BCVA were +7.6, +9.1, +8.0, +8.6, and +8.4 letters, and in CMT were -115.4, -140.0, -147.9, -167.3, and -215.4 μm at the 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36-month visits (p<0.001 for all). The median cumulative number of anti-VEGF IVI was 3.0, 3.0, 5.0, 7.0, and 9.0, respectively. The overall anti-VEGF switch and IDI combination rates were 18.5% (253/1372 eyes) and 35.0% (480/1372 eyes), respectively.

Conclusion

This largest real-life study of DME from Türkiye demonstrated BCVA gains inferior to randomized controlled trials, mainly due to the lower number of IVI. However, with the lower baseline BCVA and higher IDI combination rates in our cohorts, these gains were relatively superior to other real-life study counterparts.

Intravitreal DEX Implant for the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema: A Review of National Consensus

Diabetic macular edema (DME)'s therapeutic approach can frequently be challenging. The purpose of the review is to propose evidence-based recommendations on the employment of intravitreal dexamethasone implants (DEX) when approaching patients suffering from DME. Seven national consensuses redacted by different groups of retina specialists from Europe and Asia were examined and confronted. Each consensus was redacted utilizing a Delphi approach, in person meetings, or by reviewing the literature. DEX can be studied as a first-line strategy in individuals suffering from DME with inflammatory OCT biomarkers, in vitrectomized eyes, in patients with recent cardiovascular events, in pregnant women, in patients scheduled to undergo cataract surgery or with poor compliance. The other parameters considered were the indications to the DME treatment, when to switch to DEX, the definition of non-responder to anti-VEGFs agents and to the DEX implant, whether to combine DEX with laser photocoagulation, the association between glaucoma and DEX, and the management of DEX and the cataract. Although several years have passed since the introduction of DEX implants in the DME treatment, there is still not a unified agreement among retina specialists. This paper compares the approach in the DME treatment between countries from different continents and provides a broader and worldwide perspective of the topic.

Non-adherence and non-persistence to intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections play a key role in treating a range of macular diseases. The effectiveness of these therapies is dependent on patients' adherence (the extent to which a patient takes their medicines as per agreed recommendations from the healthcare provider) and persistence (continuation of the treatment for the prescribed duration) to their prescribed treatment regimens. The aim of this systematic review was to demonstrate the need for further investigation into the prevalence of, and factors contributing to, patient-led non-adherence and non-persistence, thus facilitating improved clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Systematic searches were conducted in Google Scholar, Web of Science, PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library. Studies in English conducted before February 2023 that reported the level of, and/or barriers to, non-adherence or non-persistence to intravitreal anti-VEGF ocular disease therapy were included. Duplicate papers, literature reviews, expert opinion articles, case studies, and case series were excluded following screening by two independent authors.

RESULTS

Data from a total of 409,215 patients across 52 studies were analysed. Treatment regimens included pro re nata, monthly and treat-and-extend protocols; study durations ranged from 4 months to 8 years. Of the 52 studies, 22 included a breakdown of reasons for patient non-adherence/non-persistence. Patient-led non-adherence varied between 17.5 and 35.0% depending on the definition used. Overall pooled prevalence of patient-led treatment non-persistence was 30.0% (P = 0.000). Reasons for non-adherence/non-persistence included dissatisfaction with treatment results (29.9%), financial burden (19%), older age/comorbidities (15.5%), difficulty booking appointments (8.5%), travel distance/social isolation (7.9%), lack of time (5.8%), satisfaction with the perceived improvement in their condition (4.4%), fear of injection (4.0%), loss of motivation (4.0%), apathy towards eyesight (2.5%), dissatisfaction with facilities 2.3%, and discomfort/pain (0.3%). Three studies found non-adherence rates between 51.6 and 68.8% during the COVID-19 pandemic, in part due to fear of exposure to COVID-19 and difficulties travelling during lockdown.

DISCUSSION

Results suggest high levels of patient-led non-adherence/non-persistence to anti-VEGF therapy, mostly due to dissatisfaction with treatment results, a combination of comorbidities, loss of motivation and the burden of travel. This study provides key information on prevalence and factors contributing to non-adherence/non-persistence in anti-VEGF treatment for macular diseases, aiding identification of at-risk individuals to improve real-world visual outcomes. Improvements in the literature can be achieved by establishing uniform definitions and standard timescales for what constitutes non-adherence/non-persistence.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020216205.

Evolving Treatment Patterns in Diabetic Macular Edema Between 2015 and 2020

Purpose: To explore the recent evolution of diabetic macular edema (DME) treatment practice patterns over 5 years among retina specialists in the United States. Methods: This retrospective analysis assessed 306 700 eyes with newly diagnosed DME from the Vestrum Health database between January 2015 and October 2020. The year-over-year and cumulative 5-year distributions of eyes treated with antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents, steroids, focal laser, or any combination and those of untreated eyes were calculated. Changes from baseline visual acuity were assessed. Results: Yearly treatment patterns changed significantly from 2015 (n = 18056) to 2020 (n = 11042). The proportion of untreated patients declined over time (32.7% vs 27.7%; P < .001), the use of anti-VEGF monotherapy increased (43.5% vs 61.8%; P < .001), the use of focal laser monotherapy declined (9.7% vs 3.0%; P < .001), and the use of steroid monotherapy remained stable (0.9% vs 0.7%; P = 1.000). Of eyes that maintained follow-up for 5 years (from 2015 to 2020), 16.3% were untreated while 77.5% were treated with anti-VEGF agents (as monotherapy or combination therapy). Vision gains in treated patients remained approximately stable from 2015 (3.6 letters) to 2020 (3.5 letters). Conclusions: From 2015 to 2020, treatment patterns for DME evolved toward greater anti-VEGF monotherapy, stable steroid monotherapy, less laser monotherapy, and fewer untreated eyes.

Real-World Outcomes of Anti-VEGF Therapy in Diabetic Macular Oedema: Barriers to Treatment Success and Implications for Low/Lower-Middle-Income Countries

Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is the leading cause of vision loss associated with diabetic eye disease. The exponential increase in the diabetic population and thus, of DMO is an impetus for optimizing the management of DMO. One major challenge in DMO management is the discrepancy between treatment outcomes seen in clinical trials and the real world. Contrary to the homogeneity, better patient motivation and shorter study durations seen in randomised control trials, routine clinical practice is fraught with more diverse populations, undertreatment and variable compliance with long-term therapy. Under both circumstances, this review aims to compare efficacy outcomes and adverse events of DMO therapies within the scope of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) medications, specifically the commonly used ones-bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept. Impediments and methods to achieve better treatment outcomes in the real world will be addressed to achieve better outcomes. Low- to lower-middle-income countries are faced with even more barriers which range from paucity of data on epidemiology and treatment response to scarce human and financial resources to poorer national level attention and then basic issues like transportation. Additionally, to address the lack of a global consensus in DMO treatment, this review generates and recommends, for clinical and research purposes, an up-to-date consensus algorithm for DMO management universally. Underpinned by results from clinical trials and recent guidelines, this therapeutic flowchart can be utilised in various resource settings including low- and lower-middle-income countries where affordability is a major deterrent to treatment access.

Determination of Factors Influencing the Health Belief Model (HBM) and Adherence to Intravitreal Anti-vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) Among Patients With Diabetic Macular Edema (DME)

Background Diabetic macular edema (DME) is becoming one of the leading causes of blindness worldwide with a significant impact on quality of life. The effectiveness of intravitreal (IVT) anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy has been established by clinical trials and has become the treatment of choice in the majority of DME patients in reducing macular edema and improving visual acuity. Frequent drop-out and discontinuation of treatment are major issues. Lack of compliance can lead to worsening outcomes and be a burden to patients and the healthcare system. Purpose The purpose of this study is to assess multiple factors that affect adherence to IVT anti-VEGF treatment among patients with DME, including socioeconomic causes and the Health Belief Model (HBM) domains, in addition to exploring the relationship between them. Methods This cross-sectional study was conducted among DME patients in Hospital Canselor Tuanku Muhriz, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, from December 2020 to June 2021. We identified eligible patients using a retrospective chart review of clinical findings and optical coherence tomography (OCT) findings. Included subjects were of Malaysian nationality, aged 18 years and above, who were initiated or re-initiated IVT anti-VEGF treatment regime and on follow-up for at least six months from initial injection from January 2019 onwards. A translated and validated self-administered questionnaire was given to the respondents. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0 (Released 2019; IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, United States). Demographics of the patient were summarized using descriptive statistics, independent sample t-test was used to compare the difference in components of the HBM questionnaire. Linear regression was further used to explore the relationship between patients' demographics and the HBM component. Results A total of 141 patients participated in this study, of whom 56.2% patients were adherent to treatment. The majority were aged 60 years and above (56.7%), male (52.5%), Malay (38.9%), and married (71.6%). There was a significant statistical difference in patients who were adherent to treatment, in terms of life entourage (p=0.004, Fisher Exact test). HBM domains that influenced adherence to treatment included perceived severity, perceived barriers, perceived benefits, cues to action, and self-efficacy (p<0.05, independent sample t-test). Further, multiple logistic regression tests on sociodemographic factors and HBM domains after eliminating confounding factors narrowed down the significant variables to perceived susceptibility (p= 0.023), perceived benefits (p< 0.001), and self-efficacy (p< 0.001). Conclusion Patients' adherence to IVT anti-VEGF is influenced by perceived susceptibility to complications from DME, perceived benefits to the treatment, and self-efficacy.

Expert recommendations for the management of diabetic macular edema with intravitreal dexamethasone implant: A Turkish Delphi study

PURPOSE

To provide consensus on the clinical use of intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) in Turkey.

METHODS

A panel of 22 retina experts prepared 77 statements of recommendation, and 80 retinal specialists practicing in Turkey were chosen to vote either in support or against each one. A Delphi-based method was used through which the ophthalmologists were able to view all of the results anonymously after two rounds and modify their subsequent answers. The survey was conducted via a mini website, and statements without consensus were resent to the specialists with the latest vote results a week later.

RESULTS

A total of 72 ophthalmologists answered the first and second round questions. After the first stage, consensus was achieved on 55 of the statements, leaving 22 without agreement. After the second stage, consensus was reached on 11 of the remaining statements. Strong consensus was achieved on statements regarding the etiopathogenesis of DME and the first-line indications and safety of the DEX implant procedure. The panel recommended the use of DEX implant for patients with an arterial thromboembolic event in the last three months and also agreed that pro re nata DEX implant treatment not only provides better outcomes for DME patients but also reduces the treatment burden for those who could not receive an adequate number of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections.

CONCLUSION

This study provides clinical consensus and recommendations about the use of DEX implant in the clinical practice of DME management in Turkey.

Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant (IDI) Alone and Combined with Navigated 577 nm Subthreshold Micropulse Laser (SML) for Diabetic Macular Oedema

Background: The anatomical and functional changes after intravitreal dexamethasone implant (IDI) alone and combined with navigated subthreshold micropulse laser (NSML) in diabetic macular oedema (DMO) were compared. Methods: Patients with a clinically confirmed diagnosis of non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) and DMO were enrolled in this prospective study and were randomly assigned to two different treatment groups: thirty patients were treated with IDI (IDI group), and the other 30 patients received IDI combined with NSML treatment (combined IDI/NSML group). All patients during a 6-month follow-up underwent best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) evaluation and spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD OCT). The main outcome measures were: BCVA, central macular thickness (CMT); (3) choroidal vascularity index (CVI), subfoveal choroidal thickness (SCHT); and time to retreatment between IDI at baseline and the second implant in both groups. Results: BCVA, CMT, and SCHT significantly decreased starting from the 1-month follow-up and CVI from 3 months in both groups. The between-group differences were significantly different from 1-month follow-up for BCVA, from 5-month follow-up for CMT and SCHT, and from 4-month follow-up for CVI. The Needed to Treat analysis indicated that six patients would have to be treated with SML after IDI in order for just one person to receive a benefit. Conclusions: the combined treatment showed good anatomical and functional outcomes for the treatment of DMO. In addition, IDI/SML seems to reduce injection frequency over time, improving patients’ quality of life and reducing the socio-economic burden.

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.

Recommendations for the management of diabetic macular oedema with intravitreal dexamethasone implant: A national Delphi consensus study

PURPOSE

The intravitreal dexamethasone implant (DEX-I) is an alternative to anti-VEGF for the first-line treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DME). However, several questions remain regarding its routine use and its place in certain situations not always specified in current recommendations. A national consensus approach was, therefore, initiated by French retinal experts.

METHODS

An iterative Delphi consensus approach was used. A steering committee (SC) of seven experts analysed data from the literature to formulate statements divided into five key areas of treatment. These statements were submitted to the independent and anonymous electronic vote of 87 French retina experts among whom 39 expressed their opinion and therefore constituted the voting panel.

RESULTS

After two rounds of voting, 22 and 7 of 38 statements received a strong consensus and a good consensus, respectively. The consensus level was higher for statements regarding first-line indications and safety of DEX-I compared to those regarding efficacy assessment, reprocessing time or pathophysiological biomarkers. The panellists recommended the preferential use of DEX-I for patients with limited availability for multiple injections, those who needed to undergo cataract surgery or who had a recent cardiovascular history, and as a therapeutic alternative to anti-VEGF in patients with a history of vitrectomy, retinal serous detachment, hyper-reflective points or dry exudates in optical coherence tomography (OCT). However, some statements proposed by SC experts were not validated.

CONCLUSION

This study provides some key recommendations to clinicians treating diabetic macular oedema, which may be useful when using intravitreal dexamethasone implants in daily practice.

Patient preferences in retinal drug delivery

Retinal vascular diseases (RVDs) are often treated with intravitreally (IVT) injected drugs, with relatively low patient compliance and potential risks. Ongoing research explores alternative RVD treatments, including eye drops and oral tablets. This study surveyed RVD patients treated with IVT injections to establish factors influencing low compliance rates while gauging treatment delivery method preferences. Demographics, perspectives, and treatment preferences were collected via IRB-approved, self-administered survey sent to Glick Eye Institute patients treated via IVT injections. Demographics, diagnoses, and treatments were ascertained from respondents’ medical records. Gender, age, and number of IVT injections received were used as stratifications. Five-level Likert-style scales and t-tests evaluated responses and stratification comparisons. The most common diagnoses in the respondent population (n = 54; response rate = 5%) were age-related macular degeneration, macular edema, and diabetic retinopathy. Respondents had varying levels of education, income, and age. Most (83%) admitted feeling anxious prior to their first IVT injection, but 80% reported willingness to receive IVT injections indefinitely, with a preference for ophthalmologist visits every 1–3 months. Eye drops would be preferred over IVT injections by 76% of respondents, while 65% preferred oral tablets, due to several perceived negative factors of IVT injections and positive factors for eye drops. Stratified groups did not differ in responses to survey questions. RVD patients will accept IVT injections for vision preservation, but alternative delivery methods like eye drops or oral tablets would be preferred. Thus, development of eye drop and oral therapeutics for RVD treatment is further emphasized by these findings.

[Real life retrospective study of 98 eyes treated with intravitreal dexamethasone or anti-VEGF injections for macular edema due to diabetes or retinal vein occlusion]

PURPOSE

To evaluate long term outcomes of patients presenting with diabetic macular edema (DME) or edema secondary to a retinal vein occlusion (RVO).

METHODS

This is a real world, retrospective, single-center study of 65 eyes of 47 patients treated for DME and 33 eyes of 33 patients with macular edema secondary to RVO between July 2012 and October 2018. The patients treated were treatment-naive and were followed for at least one year. We collected data such as visual acuity, central macular thickness, intravitreal injections (number/year, injection schedule, number of switches), number of visits and cases of vision loss.

RESULTS

DME: the mean age at inclusion was 65.9years with 60.4% women, and the mean follow-up was 28.5months. The mean gain in visual acuity after 1year of follow-up was 6.4 ETDRS letters for patients treated with anti-VEGF and 2.6 letters for patients treated with dexamethasone. The average number of intravitreal injections of anti-VEGF was 5.6/year, compared to 2.9/year for dexamethasone. Fourteen patients initially treated with anti-VEGF were switched to dexamethasone. RVO: the mean age at inclusion was 68.8years with 54.5% women and a mean follow-up of 31.1months. The mean gain in visual acuity after 1year of follow-up was 26.7 ETDRS letters for patients treated with anti-VEGF and 7.0 letters for patients treated with dexamethasone. The average number of intravitreal injections of anti-VEGF was 5.8/year, compared to 2.4/year for dexamethasone. Five patients initially treated with anti-VEGF were switched to dexamethasone in the first year of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

In this real-life retrospective study, we found good anatomical and functional results similar to those reported in other studies, remaining stable over time, for patients with DME or macular edema secondary to RVO.

ETOILE: Real-World Evidence of 24 Months of Ranibizumab 0.5 mg in Patients with Visual Impairment Due to Diabetic Macular Edema

Purpose

To evaluate the real-world effectiveness of intravitreal ranibizumab 0.5 mg (Lucentis) in improving visual acuity (VA) in adults with decreased VA due to diabetic macular edema (DME).

Patients and Methods

Real-world prospective observational 24-month study. Ranibizumab-naïve patients (n=116) were enrolled, treated and followed up according to investigators’ usual procedures. Outcomes included change from baseline to month 24 in best-corrected VA (BCVA; primary outcome), central retinal thickness (CRT), treatment exposure and safety.

Results

Overall, 62.9% of patients completed the study per protocol, 68.6% completed the induction phase (first three injections one month apart). On average, patients had 12.5 ophthalmologist visits and 5.74 injections in year 1, decreasing to 4.6 visits and 1.94 injections in year 2. Mean baseline BCVA was 58.4 letters, mean gain at M24 was +6.08 letters (95% CI: 2.95, 9.21). Gains were higher for patients who completed induction, and for patients who did not switch treatment. Mean CRT improved by 149.17 μm at M24. There were no new safety signals. BCVA variation of ≥6 letters by M3 was predictive of BCVA gains at M24 (p=0.007), as was hypertension medication at baseline (p=0.022).

Conclusion

Real-world ranibizumab treatment improved VA in DME patients, despite fewer injections than recommended.

Evaluation of Patients Receiving Intravitreal Antivascular Endothelial Growth Factor for Diabetic Macular Edema in Clinical Practice in the United States

Purpose

We assessed the effect of treatment frequency with intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents on visual acuity (VA) in diabetic macular edema (DME).

Methods

This retrospective analysis assessed electronic medical records of eyes newly diagnosed with DME and treated with an anti-VEGF agent at US clinics using the Vestrum Health (Naperville, Illinois) treatment and outcomes database. Eyes were divided into 2 injection frequency subcohorts (≤ 6 vs > 6 injections/y); treatment frequency and change in mean VA (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters) were evaluated.

Results

Among 155 240 eyes assessed, 3028 met inclusion criteria for analysis in year 1 and 1292 in year 2. During year 1 of treatment, 57% (n = 1725) received > 6 injections; most continued to receive the same injection frequency during year 2. Mean VA gain from baseline at year 1 was lower in the ≤ 6 than in the > 6 injections/year subcohort (3.7 vs 8.0 letters, respectively; P < .001). Mean VA change from the end of year 1 to year 2 for eyes receiving ≤ 6 injections in year 1 generally remained unchanged, irrespective of year 2 dosing frequency. In eyes that received > 6 injections in year 1, mean VA loss was significantly greater for eyes receiving less-frequent dosing in year 2 than in those maintained on > 6 injections.

Conclusions

More than 50% of eyes with DME in routine clinical practice that completed at least 1 year of follow-up received > 6 injections of an anti-VEGF agent during the first year, resulting in better VA gains than eyes treated less frequently.

Effectiveness of interventions to increase uptake and completion of treatment for diabetic retinopathy in low- and middle-income countries: a rapid review protocol

BACKGROUND

Vision loss due to diabetic retinopathy can largely be prevented or delayed through treatment. Patients with vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy are typically offered laser or intravitreal injections which often require more than one treatment cycle. However, treatment is not always initiated, or it is not completed, resulting in poor visual outcomes. Interventions aimed at improving the uptake or completion of treatment for diabetic retinopathy can potentially help prevent or delay visual loss in people with diabetes.

METHODS

We will search MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health and Cochrane Register of Studies for studies reporting interventions to improve the uptake of treatment for diabetic retinopathy (DR) and/or diabetic macular oedema (DMO), compared with usual care, in adults with diabetes. The review will include studies published in the last 20 years in the English language. We will include any study design that measured any of the following outcomes in relation to treatment uptake and completion for DR and/or DMO: (1) proportion of patients initiating treatment for DR and/or DMO among those to whom it is recommended, (2) proportion of patients completing treatment for DR and/or DMO among those to whom it is recommended, (3) proportion of patients completing treatment for DR and/or DMO among those initiating treatment and (4) number and proportion of DR and/or DMO rounds of treatment completed per patient, as dictated by the treatment protocol. For included studies, we will also report any measures of cost-effectiveness when available. Two reviewers will screen search results independently. Risk of bias assessment will be done by two reviewers, and data extraction will be done by one reviewer with verification of 10% of the papers by a second reviewer. The results will be synthesised narratively.

DISCUSSION

This rapid review aims to identify and synthesise the peer-reviewed literature on the effectiveness of interventions to increase uptake and completion of treatment for DR and/or DMO in LMICs. The rapid review methodology was chosen in order to rapidly synthesise the available evidence to support programme implementers and policy-makers in designing evidence-based health programmes and public health policy and inform the allocation of resources.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

OSF osf.io/h5wgr.

Visit adherence and visual acuity outcomes in patients with diabetic macular edema: a secondary analysis of DRCRnet Protocol T

PURPOSE

To quantify the association between visit adherence and visual acuity (VA) in diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

This secondary analysis of the 2-year DRCRnet Protocol T study of 656 patients required one visit every 4 weeks in the first year, then at variable 4-16-week intervals in the second year. Visit adherence measured as number of missed visits, average (avg days) and longest (max days) visit interval, average (avg missed days) and longest (max missed days) unintended visit interval, and visit constancy (percentage of 3-month periods with at least 1 visit). Avg and max missed days were categorized as on time (0 days), late (> 0-60 days), and very late (> 60 days). Primary outcome was change in ETDRS VA between baseline study visit and last attended visit, using multivariate linear regression models controlling for age, gender, race, ethnicity, treatment arm, baseline VA, hemoglobin A1c, insulin use, and number of lasers and injections.

RESULTS

Mean number of missed visits was 1.7. 616 (94%) patients had 100% visit constancy. A total of 331 (51%) patients were on time, 171 (26%) late, and 154 (23%) very late in avg missed days. Max missed days ranged 0-696 days. Adjusted, each missed visit was associated with 0.3-letter decrease (95%CI - 0.6, - 0.1, p = 0.02); being very late in avg and max missed days saw - 4.2 letters (95%CI - 6.4, - 2.0, p < 0.001) and - 4.0 letters (95%CI - 6.1, - 1.9, p < 0.001), respectively, than on time. Those that averaged > 4 days missed per attended visit saw 4.6 letters worse (95%CI - 7.3, - 2.0, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Visit adherence is associated with visual acuity outcomes in DME patients.

Real-World Outcomes after 36-Month Treatment with Ranibizumab 0.5 mg in Patients with Visual Impairment due to Diabetic Macular Edema (BOREAL-DME)

PURPOSE

To assess the efficacy, safety, and follow-up of 36-month treatment with ranibizumab in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) in real-life setting.

METHODS

This is a prospective phase 4 observational study. Between December 2013 and April 2015, 84 ophthalmologists enrolled a total of 290 adult patients initiating ranibizumab for visual impairment due to DME and treated them according to their routine practice. The primary outcome (mean change in best-corrected visual acuity [BCVA] after 12 months) was previously reported. Here, we present outcomes after 36 months of follow-up for BCVA and change in central subfield thickness (CSFT) and report how participating ophthalmologists treated DME over a 3-year period (number of visits and injections and evolution of treatment strategy).

RESULTS

Of the 290 patients enrolled, 187 (64.5%) completed the 36 months of the study (entire cohort). In the entire cohort, 97 patients were treated exclusively with ranibizumab throughout the study, and 90 patients switched to other intravitreal treatments. Mean BCVA was 64.2 (20.1) letters, representing a gain of +4.1 (19.9) letters from baseline to month 36 (M36). CSFT improved over the study, and by M36 had decreased by 127 (138) µm compared to baseline. Over the 36 months of follow-up, patients in the entire cohort paid their ophthalmologists a mean of 30.9 (12.2) visits and had a mean of 7.6 (5.2) any injections. Results for quality of life questionnaires NEI-VFQ25 and HUI-3 remained stable throughout the study. Multivariate analysis on the 145 patients with evaluable BCVA data at M36 found that male gender and milder baseline DME characteristics (BCVA ≥59 and CSFT <500 µm) were predictive factors for achieving a BCVA of ≥70 letters at M36. This study did not find any new safety signals, compared to the known profile of ranibizumab.

CONCLUSIONS

Gains in BCVA in this real-life study were lower than those observed in randomized clinical trials with ranibizumab, mainly due to undertreatment. Safety analysis of ranibizumab did not yield any new safety concerns.

Expectations and fears of patients with diabetes and macular edema treated by intravitreal injections

AIMS

Clinical outcomes of diabetic macular edema (DME) have been widely described, but data on diabetic retinopathy perceptions by diabetes patients are limited. The aim of this survey was to explore the lived experience, knowledge, fears and expectations about disease, and treatment in patients with diabetes and macular edema treated with intravitreal injections (IVTI) and to characterize patient profiles.

METHODS

Cross-sectional survey including a preliminary qualitative phase (20 patients with DME, treated or treatment-naive, 5 female and 15 male, age 36-74 years) followed by a quantitative survey (116 patients treated with IVTI for DME). Data ASKIA Analyze (version 5.3.3.5) was used for descriptive statistics, and R software (version 3.4.1) for multiple correspondence analysis.

RESULTS

The qualitative phase identified the wording used by patients and information helpful to propose modalities of response in the quantitative phase. In the quantitative survey (116 patients, mean age 66.6 years), most patients were treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor. Overall, 71.9% reported that the disease negatively affected their daily activities and 33.1% considered that regular visits to the ophthalmologist were disrupting their life. Treatment expectations differed significantly between patients in terms of disease experience (visit and injection schedules), fears and feelings, and relationship with physicians, allowing three patient profiles to be identified: "Worried" patients (n = 45) felt isolated and were worried about the need for repeated treatment and possible side effects. They were mainly active men aged < 60 with type I diabetes (T1D) and DME diagnosed for > 2 years; "Curious" patients (n = 21) experienced insufficient support and requested more information on their disease and existing treatments. They were mainly single women aged 60-69 years; "Passive" patients (n = 50) felt sufficiently informed by their ophthalmologist and were not concerned by DME. They were older (mean age: 70 years) and mainly type 2 diabetic men.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with diabetes and macular edema treated with IVTI form a heterogeneous group regarding fears and expectations. Different patient profiles were identified and need to be confirmed in larger studies. A better understanding of psychological profiles may optimize compliance of diabetic patients.

Adherence of patients with diabetic macular oedema to intravitreal injections: A systematic review

The purpose of this study was to review adherence rates to intravitreal injections in the treatment of diabetic macula oedema and to identify factors associated with adherence. A systematic search of Embase, Medline, PsycINFO and CINAHL was conducted up to May 2020. Two authors independently screened, selected and appraised the studies. Seven articles on anti-VEGF treatment were found to meet the inclusion criteria. No studies were found on intravitreal corticosteroids or dexamethasone implants. Attendance rates varied between studies from 35% to 85%. The rate of missed or delayed attendance ranged from 14% to 51%, whereas 25% of patients were lost to follow-up at 12 months. Non-adherence was found to be multifactorial and included patient related reasons, demographic characteristics and clinical factors. Enablers to adherence included patient understanding of the disease and treatment. Further research in this area is warranted in order to better understand adherence in these patients and to improve patient outcomes.

An open-source data set of anti-VEGF therapy in diabetic macular oedema patients over 4 years and their visual acuity outcomes

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this paper is to evaluate visual acuity (VA) outcomes of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in diabetic macular oedema (DMO).

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, electronic medical records for all patients undergoing intravitreal injections in a tertiary referral centre between March 2013 and October 2018 were analysed. Treatment response in terms of VA outcomes was reported for all eyes over a 4-year observation period.

RESULTS

Our cohort includes 2614 DMO eyes of 1964 patients over 48 months. Cox proportional-hazards modelling identified injection number (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.18), male gender (HR = 1.13) and baseline VA (HR = 1.09) as independent predictors to reach a favourable visual outcome of more than 70 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters. Half of our cohort reached 70 letters 1.9 months after starting anti-VEGF therapy. Of those that reached 70 letters, 50% fell below 70 letters by 14.7 months.

CONCLUSION

To date, this is the largest single centre cohort study and over the longest observation period reporting on real-life outcomes of anti-VEGF in DMO. We have made an anonymised version of our data set available on an open-source data repository as a resource for clinical researchers globally.

Efficacy and follow-up of anti-VEGF injections in diabetic macular edema in real-life practice at the Dijon university medical centre through the Save Sight Registries

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections (IVT) in diabetic macular edema (DME) in real-life practice using the Save Sight Registries (SSR).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted an observational, single-centre, retrospective study in the department of ophthalmology of the Dijon University Hospital. We included treatment-naive patients who presented with DME between January 2016 and December 2017. Demographic and clinical data, follow-up visits, and treatments administered were entered into the SSR, an international online ophthalmic registry. Primary endpoints were the change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central subfield thickness (CST) from baseline to 12 and 24 months.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight eyes of 43 patients with a mean [standard deviation (SD)] age of 67.1 [9.5] years were included. Forty-one eyes completed 12 months of follow-up, and 17 eyes completed 24 months of follow up. Median [SD] baseline BCVA was 56.1 [22.9] ETDRS letters and the median [95% confidence interval (95% CI)] baseline CST was 447.9 [161.0] micrometers (μm). Median [95% CI] improvement in BCVA from baseline to months 12 and 24 were respectively, +5.6 [+0.5; +10.7] ETDRS letters and +7.7 [-2.8; +18.2] ETDRS letters. The median [95% CI] decrease in CST from baseline to months 12 and 24 were respectively, -110.9 [-154.5; -67.3] μm and -125.5 [-198.0; -53.0] μm.

CONCLUSION

Our clinical practice can be evaluated easily with the SSR system. In real life, anti-VEGF IVT are an effective treatment for DME, which result in improved BCVA and decreased CST.

Factors Affecting Compliance to Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema in a Cohort of Jordanian Patients

Purpose

To determine compliance rates and characteristics and to investigate factors affecting patients’ adherence to treatment with anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (anti-VEGFs) for diabetic macular edema (DME) in a cohort of Jordanian patients.

Methods

A retrospective case series wherein the files of DME patients treated with anti-VEGFs were reviewed and analyzed for factors affecting treatment compliance was undertaken. Demographic, clinical and ocular characteristics were recorded. All patients were also interviewed by phone using a structured questionnaire. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine factors associated with compliance.

Results

A total of 117 patients (65 males 52 females) were included in this study with a mean age of 62.93 years (±9.75). Approximately, 85% of patients were compliant to their treatment and follow-up plan during the first year of management. Subjective perception of visual improvement after receiving three loading doses was the only independent variable with a unique statistically significant contribution to compliance. All other studied factors in this group of patients were not significantly associated with patient compliance.

Conclusion

VEGF suppression via the intravitreal route to treat DME is a long-term process that requires caregiver dedication but also proper patient compliance. Addressing real-life barriers in those patients may help guide future strategies to improve the treatment experience, lower the financial burden and contribute to better outcomes. Patients' perceptions of possible treatment outcomes at the short term may influence their long-term commitment to therapy.

Anti-VEGF Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema: Two-Year Visual Outcomes in Routine Clinical Practice

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate 2-year visual outcomes in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) treated with anti-VEGF agents in a routine clinical setting.

Methods

The medical records of patients treated with ranibizumab or aflibercept due to DME at the Eye Hospital, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Slovenia, between January 2016 and March 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 123 patients (123 eyes) were included in the study.

Results

Baseline visual acuity (VA) was 60.9 ± 15.2 letters (median 63; range 7-85). Baseline central retinal subfield thickness (CRT) was 440.7 ± 132.5 μm (median 430; range 114-1000). No significant change in VA over 2 years was found (mean change +2.1 ± 16.8 letters (median 2; range -53-52)). However, there was a significant change in VA in the subgroup with baseline VA <70 letters (mean change +5.7 ± 17.9 letters (median 5; range -52-52)). VA gains of ≥15 letters were achieved in 25 eyes (20.3%). Changes in CRT were significant over 2 years. Patients received 4.5 ± 2.1 (median 5, range 1-9) and 2.6 ± 2.3 (median 2, range 0-8) injections in the first and second years, respectively.

Conclusions

The two-year visual outcomes in this retrospective analysis appear to be comparable to previously reported outcomes in routine clinical practice. Our analysis provides some information about the effectiveness of anti-VEGF treatment in routine clinical practice in Slovenia. More intensive treatment should be implemented in the management of patients in order to achieve better visual outcomes.

Two Year Visual Acuity and Structural Outcomes in Patients with Diabetic Macular Oedema Treated with Intravitreal Aflibercept - A Retrospective Cohort Study

Purpose

To assess visual and anatomical outcomes of intravitreal aflibercept for clinically significant diabetic macular oedema (DME).

Methods

For this retrospective single-center cohort study at a tertiary referral center, we performed a data warehouse query to identify 117 treatment-naive patients (139 eyes) undergoing intravitreal treatment with aflibercept for DME between January 2014 and May 2018. Changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) values (as measured with ETDRS letters), central retinal thickness (CRT) and total macular volume (TVOL) are reported over a two-year period at various time-points.

Results

The total number of injections per study eye was 5.5 ± 1.4 after one and 8.7 ± 2.2 injections after two years. Baseline visual acuity (VA) was 60.1 ± 14.5 letters. A gain of 4.8 and 9.2 letters from baseline was observed after one and two years, respectively (both p ≤ 0.01). In comparison to the mean CRT at baseline (419 ± 174 µm), a CRT decrease was observed after one and two years of treatment (298 ± 115 µm and 319 ± 119 µm, respectively; both p ≤ 0.01). Similarly, TVOL decreased from 10.12 ± 2.05 mm³ to 8.96 ± 0.96 mm³ and 9.01 ± 1.29 mm³ (both p ≤ 0.01).

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that treating DME with intravitreal aflibercept yields positive functional and structural outcomes over a two-year period. However, we observed fewer injection numbers, along with inferior VA and structural outcomes than has been reported in randomized clinical trials. Our results show similar results as in patients treated with ranibizumab due to DME in real-life settings.

The Outcomes of Switching from Short- to Long-Term Intravitreal Corticosteroid Implant Therapy in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema

BACKGROUND

First-line treatment for diabetic macular edema (DME) is usually with antivascular endothelial growth factor agents, followed by intravitreal corticosteroids as a second-line treatment option. Long-term corticosteroids may offer quality of life and effectiveness benefits over short-term implants.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate outcomes of patients with persistent or recurrent DME who switched from a short-term (dexamethasone) to a long-term (fluocinolone acetonide, FAc) corticosteroid intravitreal implant in a real-world setting.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study in 9 Portuguese centers. An FAc intravitreal implant was administered according to product labeling. Effectiveness outcomes were mean change in visual acuity (VA; ETDRS letters), central retinal thickness (CRT; µm), and macular volume (MV; mm3). The safety outcome was mean change in intraocular pressure (IOP; mm Hg). All were analyzed at months 1 and 3, and then quarterly until month 24 after implantation.

RESULTS

Forty-four eyes from 36 patients were analyzed. Mean duration of DME was 3.3 ± 1.9 years, and mean follow-up was 8 months. From baseline following FAc implantation, VA increased significantly at months 1 and 6 (mean +6.82 and +13.02 letters, respectively; p = 0.005), and last observation carried forward (LOCF; mean +8.3 letters; p = 0.002). CRT improved significantly at months 1 and 6 (mean -71.81 and -170.77 µm, respectively; p = 0.001), and LOCF (mean -121.46 µm; p = 0.001). MV was consistently, but not significantly, decreased from baseline to LOCF (mean -0.69 mm3; p = 0.062). The mean change in IOP was -0.25 and +0.88 mm Hg at months 1 and 6, respectively (p = 0.268), and +1.86 mm Hg at LOCF (p = 0.036). Increases were controlled with topical medication in most cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The FAc intravitreal implant is effective in patients previously treated with short-term corticosteroid implants. Thus, after a suboptimal response to antiangiogenics or a short-term corticosteroid, a single FAc implant may be considered an effective and tolerable treatment that can improve long-term outcomes for patients with sight-threatening DME.

Use of intravitreal dexamethasone implants in the treatment of diabetic macular edema: Expert recommendations using a Delphi approach

Objective:

The aim of this study is to develop guidance on the use of intravitreal dexamethasone implants in the treatment of diabetic macular edema.

Method:

The study was performed using the modified Delphi method to obtain a consensus among a panel of experts on management of patients with diabetic macular edema and use of intravitreal dexamethasone implants in clinical practice. Thirty-seven panel members, experts on retina, from different Spanish centers were invited to participate. Individual and anonymous opinions were asked by answering a 76-item questionnaire across 11 topic areas (two rounds were done). Level of agreement was assessed using a Likert-type scale of 9 points.

Results:

Agreement on “consensus” was reached during the first round in 63 items. The 13 remaining items underwent a second round of voting. After the second round, agreement on “consensus” was reached on five items. Finally, eight items remained without consensus.

Conclusion:

Intravitreal dexamethasone implants are useful in the treatment of patients with diabetic macular edema with different profiles, for example, pseudophakic, poor-adherents, vitrectomized, candidates for cataract surgery, patients with high inflammatory component, and with a history of cardiovascular events. The use of intravitreal dexamethasone reduces the number of visits and facilitates compliance. Experts thought that the switch from anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy to intravitreal dexamethasone implants should be done preferably after three injections. Also, pro re nata treatment provides better results in diabetic macular edema patients as it helps to prevent undertreatment. Finally, experts concluded that clinical guidelines and treatment protocols for diabetic macular edema need to be updated.