Review of Studies Comparing Panretinal Photocoagulation and Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy in the Treatment of Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy

Insights Into Visual Rehabilitation: Pan-Retinal Photocoagulation for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy

This review comprehensively explores pan-retinal photocoagulation (PRP) as a pivotal intervention in visually rehabilitating individuals afflicted with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). The review begins by elucidating the significance of PDR within the spectrum of diabetic retinopathy (DR), emphasizing the progressive nature of the disease and the consequential impact on visual health. A detailed analysis of PRP follows, encompassing its definition, purpose, and historical development, shedding light on the procedural intricacies and mechanisms of action. The postoperative care and follow-up section underscores the necessity of vigilant monitoring for complications, visual recovery, and the importance of regular ophthalmic check-ups. The subsequent discussion delves into patient education and counseling, stressing the need to manage expectations, encourage lifestyle modifications, and highlight the significance of follow-up appointments. The review concludes with insights into future directions, including advancements in laser technology and emerging therapies, offering a glimpse into the evolving landscape of DR management. By addressing ongoing challenges and embracing innovative approaches, this review provides a comprehensive guide for clinicians, researchers, and healthcare practitioners who visually rehabilitate individuals struggling with PDR.

Cost-effectiveness of the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor intravitreal injection and panretinal photocoagulation for patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy in South Korea

BACKGROUND

We determined the cost-effectiveness of the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) intravitreal injection versus panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) for patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) in South Korea.

METHODS

We simulated four treatment strategies using PRP and the anti-VEGF injection by constructing a Markov model for a hypothetical cohort of 50-year-old PDR patients: (1) PRP only; (2) anti-VEGF injection only; (3) PRP first; and (4) anti-VEGF injection first.

RESULTS

In this cost-effectiveness analysis, compared with only-PRP, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $95,456 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for PRP first, $34,375 per QALY for anti-VEGF injection first, and $33,405 per QALY for anti-VEGF injection only from a healthcare perspective. From the societal and payer perspective, strategy (2) was more cost-saving and effective than (1). In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, only-PRP was cost-effective up to the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of about $42,000, while anti-VEGF injection only was cost-effective from a healthcare perspective. From the societal and payer perspectives, regardless of the value of WTP, anti-VEGF injection only was the most cost-effective strategy.

CONCLUSION

In our study, the anti-VEGF injection for PDR was cost-effective from the payer and societal perspectives.

A hypothetical therapeutic effect of light peripheral panretinal photocoagulation in neovascular age-related macular degeneration

Background

Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is a significant modulator of ocular angiogenesis, including that of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). Intravitreal injection of anti-VEGF is the benchmark treatment for most retinal vascular diseases, including nAMD, diabetic maculopathy, and macular edema secondary to retinal venous occlusion. Anti-VEGF treatment is a high-frequency, time-consuming, non-cost-effective therapy, especially in countries and regions with limited resources. This treatment is easily restricted, and in practice, maintaining long-term periodic care is challenging for patients.

Hypothesis

Light peripheral panretinal photocoagulation (PPRP) is applied in a mild form (barely visible mild light gray mark) anterior to the equator so as not to jeopardize the visual field. PPRP lessens the ischemia that causes neovascularization and decreases the metabolic demand in the peripheral retina. PPRP reduces serum angiopoietin-2 and VEGF levels in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with proliferative diabetic retinopathy. We propose using light PPRP to suppress VEGF secretion, aiming to attenuate the VEGF drive and halt choroidal neovascular growth in eyes with nAMD. Our regimen is based on two concepts: first, nAMD is a diffuse or generalized disease that affects the posterior segment; and second, PPRP is very effective in regressing diabetic retinopathy. PPRP has reportedly been successful in cases of macular edema (diabetic or following venous occlusion) resistant to VEGF antagonists. Light PPRP may be used as prophylaxis, adjunctive treatment, or monotherapy in nAMD when intravitreal injections of VEGF antagonists are not feasible.

Conclusions

The established light PPRP therapy could be promising as a one-time, cost-effective therapy or prophylaxis in patients with nAMD or at high risk. This proposed modality could be suitable for patients who have injection phobia or prefer a one-time affordable therapy to the long-term monthly visits to retinologists. Future trials are necessary to verify the safety and efficacy of this proposed treatment modality in selected patients with nAMD.