TREATMENT OF NEOVASCULAR AGE-RELATED MACULAR DEGENERATION PATIENTS WITH VASCULAR ENDOTHELIAL GROWTH FACTOR INHIBITORS IN EVERYDAY PRACTICE: Identification of Health Care Constraints in Germany-The PONS Study

[Prospective noninterventional BLUE SKY study evaluating the efficacy of brolucizumab in treatment-naïve and previously treated patients with neovascular AMD]

Intravitreal injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is the standard treatment for patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). In addition to the approved substances ranibizumab (Lucentis®, Novartis) and aflibercept (Eylea®, Bayer), bevacizumab (Avastin®, Roche) is also available. Furthermore, brolucizumab (Beovu®, Novartis) has been approved and has been available in Germany since April 2020. The multicenter, noninterventional prospective BLUE SKY study investigates brolucizumab treatment with different schemes in 600 treatment-naive and pretreated nAMD patients in routine clinical practice over a 24-month period. Besides general patient data, visual acuity and treatment data will be documented. Fluorescein angiography, fundus photography, spectral domain optical coherence tomography and swept-source optical coherence tomography angiography will be performed and analyzed by reading centers. The focus of the analysis will be on the intraretinal and subretinal fluid distribution as well as morphological MNV changes and injection frequency. Also, safety and adverse drug effects of brolucizumab, with a specific focus on inflammatory complications, particularly retinal (occlusive) vasculitis will be evaluated.

IMPACT study: Impact of adherence to anti-VEGF intravitreal injections for macular disease during COVID 19-related confinement in France

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of adherence to French coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19)-related guidelines for intravitreal injection (IVI) practice on the visual outcomes of patients treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents for macular diseases during the first lockdown period.

METHODS

Observational multicentre study including all patients from 18 centres with an IVI initially planned during the lockdown. Visual acuity (VA, ETDRS) was recorded at 1 and 4 months after lockdown. French COVID 19-related guidelines recommended maintaining IVI practice. We defined three groups of patients: A, adherent to guidelines; NA+, non-adherent with delayed IVIs; and NA-, non-adherent without IVIs performed during the lockdown. Risk factors for non-adherence and visual loss were studied.

RESULTS

A total of 3020 eyes of 3020 patients, aged 77.8 ± 11.6 years, 59.8% women, were included. 59.3% were non-adherent(46.7% NA+, 12.6% NA-). A smaller decrease in VA at 4 months was observed in the A group than the NA+ and NA- group (-0.2 ± 6.7, -0.3 ± 6.9 and -1.5 ± 6.9, respectively [p < 0.001]). Factors associated with non-adherence were in multivariable analysis, older age, hospital practice, low-density population areas, high viral incidence areas, longer intervals between injection and treat and extent protocol. Factors associated with visual loss at 4 months in multivariable analysis were, being in the NA- group, older age, T&E and fixed regimens.

CONCLUSION

Strict adherence to guidelines was associated with better visual outcome, although most of our patients did not attend as planned. Identification of patients at risk could help in the future in case of a new pandemic lockdown.

Importance of Treatment Duration: Unmasking Barriers and Discovering the Reasons for Undertreatment of Anti-VEGF Agents in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration

Purpose

Since non-adherence (NA) to intravitreal therapy with VEGF drugs is one of the most important modifiable factors compromising treatment outcome of nAMD, the purpose of this study was to investigate the contributing factors and barriers during long-term nAMD treatment.

Methods

Barriers and potential reasons for NA were prospectively measured using the Adherence Barriers Questionnaire Intravitreal Therapy (ABQ-IVT). A random sample of patients receiving intravitreal therapy was drawn based on data for different treatment periods. Three age-sex matched groups included the treatment periods of ≤30 months (group 1), between >30 months and ≤60 months (group 2), and >60 months (group 3). The occurrence of gaps between treatments and/or OCT visits was evaluated.

Results

NA with gaps of >56 days after the scheduled appointment was detected in 39%, 89%, and 100% of patients in group 1, 2, and 3, respectively (groups 1 and 2 vs group 3, p < 0.001). Two or more of such gaps were observed in 6%, 72%, and 94% of patients in group 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The overall ABQ-IVT score showed corresponding differences between the groups: 25.89 ± 7.68 (group 1, 95% CI 22.07–29.71), 34.72 ± 10.32 (group 2, 95% CI: 29.59–38.86), and 33.28 ± 9.04 (group 3, 95% CI 28.78–37.77). Accordingly, the score was inversely correlated with the number of regular follow-up visits in groups 2 and 3 (Pearson correlation coefficient r = −0.65 (p = 0.003) and r = −0.5 (p = 0.034), respectively). Within the groups of longer treatment duration, univariate logistic regression analysis showed higher odds of time commitment and challenge accompanying person to be relevant barriers.

Conclusion

NA is an arising problem with increasing duration of intravitreal therapy. Treatment barriers, detected by the ABQ-IVT, might change or increase during the course of the treatment.

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.

[Adherence to anti-VEGF treatment-Considerations and practical recommendations]

BACKGROUND

Numerous studies have identified a lack of treatment adherence as an important factor that often conflicts with the necessary number of anti-VEGF injections and therefore a better functional result.

OBJECTIVE

This article discusses approaches and possible measures to reduce the risk of late and infrequent intravitreal injections leading to the major issue of undertreatment.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

In the course of an expert dialogue, relevant parameters of treatment adherence and variables were identified. Meaningful processes were structured and assigned to organizational areas.

RESULTS

The compilation of meaningful measures enables practitioners to optimize their own implementation in different areas. Regular monitoring measures can identify the extent of treatment interruption and discontinuation. For specific indicators (treatments per time interval, longest pause interval, minimum coverage per unit time, delay) an effect on the development of visual function was demonstrated. Organizational measures, training of teams and referring physicians, redundant and iterative information transfer to patients have been proven in the experience of experts. The firm integration of these processes into the structures is facilitated by working with checklists.

CONCLUSION

An optimization of the processes is possible to improve the adherence and the functional results; however, interventional studies showing how adherence and persistence can be increased in the German treatment setting are still lacking.

Comparison of intravitreal injections of Ranibizumab and Aflibercept in neovascular age related macular degeneration

Clinical relevance: Pivotal studies are based on strict treatment regimens of vascular endothelial growth factor blocking drugs in neovascular age-related macular degeneration. However, looser regimens with poorer results have been reported in real-world studies with various outcomes. This results in a search of more precise data to rely on in the management of patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration.Background: The aim of this study is to analyse the real-world outcome of vascular endothelial growth factor blocking agents in neovascular age-related macular degeneration.Methods: This is a retrospective comparative study of treatment-naïve patients who received intravitreal aflibercept or ranibizumab administration for neovascular age-related macular degeneration for at least 12 months on an as needed regimen following a loading phase of three-monthly injections. Full eye examination and optical coherence tomography scans were provided at all visits. The drugs were compared on the basis of visual acuity, central macular thickness, and subfoveal choroidal thickness. The baseline optical coherence tomography features were analysed seeking a correlation with the outcome.Results: One hundred and forty-one eyes were enrolled. The mean age was 71.7 ± 8.5 years. Sixty-eight (48.2%) patients received aflibercept and 73 (51.8%) received ranibizumab injections. The mean number of injections was 6.5 ± 2.5. The mean number of injections were also similar between groups (6.4 ± 2.5 vs. 6.5 ± 2.6, respectively, p = 0.783). At one year, both drugs caused significant increase in visual acuity and decrease in central macular thickness and subfoveal choroidal thickness.Conclusion: In a real-world setting, aflibercept and ranibizumab yielded similar results at one year in the management of neovascular age-related macular degeneration.

PERSEUS 24-month analysis: a prospective non-interventional study to assess the effectiveness of intravitreal aflibercept in routine clinical practice in Germany in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration

PURPOSE

To evaluate the real-world effectiveness of intravitreal aflibercept injections in Germany in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration over 24 months.

METHODS

PERSEUS was a prospective, non-interventional cohort study. The primary endpoint was the mean change in visual acuity (VA) from baseline. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of patients with a VA gain or loss of ≥ 15 letters and the frequency of injections and examinations. Patients with regular (bimonthly after 3 monthly injections during year 1 and ≥ 4 injections in year 2) and irregular (any other) treatment were analyzed. The last observation carried forward (LOCF) and the observed cases (OC) approach was applied for primary endpoint analysis to account for missing data.

RESULTS

803 patients were considered for effectivity analysis. At month 24, only 38% of the patients were still under observation. The LOCF population included 727, the OC population 279 patients. Treatment-naïve patients improved by 6.3 (LOCF)/8.1 (OC) letters with regular treatment over 24 months but only by 3.3 (LOCF)/3.1 (OC) letters with irregular treatment. The proportion of treatment-naïve patients achieving a VA improvement of ≥ 15 letters was similar between regularly and irregularly treated cohorts. However, considerably more patients in the irregular cohorts experienced a VA worsening of ≥ 15 letters than in the regular cohorts (LOCF: 18.7% vs. 7.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Regular IVT-AFL treatment resulted in better VA outcomes than irregular treatment at month 24. However, only a minority of patients received regular treatment over a 2-year period.

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.

Importance of continuous treatment with intravitreal aflibercept injections in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration-12-month post hoc analysis of the PERSEUS real-world evidence study

PURPOSE

To investigate the influence of treatment regularity with intravitreal aflibercept injections (IVT-AFL injections) on visual acuity (VA) outcomes in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) enrolled in the PERSEUS trial who received at least 7 IVT-AFL injections during the first year.

METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis of the PERSEUS trial, a prospective, non-interventional, multicenter cohort study, and included 370 patients with nAMD who had received ≥ 7 IVT-AFL injections during year 1. In addition to the prespecified subgroups of treatment-naïve and previously treated patients, results were compared between patients with regular (n = 209) and irregular (n = 161) treatment. Regular treatment was defined as initial dosing with monthly IVT-AFL injections for 3 months, then bimonthly IVT-AFL injections until month 12. Irregular treatment was defined as any deviation from regular treatment (provided ≥ 7 injections were received). The outcome of primary interest was the mean change in VA from baseline after 12 months. Further outcomes of interest included VA gain or loss, proportion of patients achieving reading vision, and percentage of patients with fluid.

RESULTS

At month 12, the mean (± standard deviation, SD) VA improvement from baseline was 6.1 ± 15.6 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters in the regular cohort and 2.5 ± 16.7 letters in the irregular cohort with ≥ 7 IVT-AFL injections (P = 0.0514). Best results were obtained in the treatment-naïve regular sub-cohort with a mean ± SD VA improvement of 8.0 ± 17.7 letters, whereas treatment-naïve patients with irregular treatment experienced a considerably lower VA gain (2.8 ± 20.0 letters). Irregular treatment consistently correlated with inferior results in treatment-naïve patients. At month 12, the proportion of treatment-naïve patients who had experienced a worsening of ≥ 5 letters was 29.6% in the irregular sub-cohort versus 13.6% in the regular sub-cohort (P = 0.0049). However, among the treatment-naïve patients, the mean number of injections was significantly higher in the irregular than in the regular sub-cohort (8.0 ± 1.2 vs. 7.4 ± 0.6; P = 0.0001). Furthermore, compared with the treatment-naïve, regular sub-cohort, patients in the irregular sub-cohort had more visits (19.1 ± 8.6 vs. 16.1 ± 5.7), VA tests (14.2 ± 6.9 vs. 12.0 ± 4.6), and optical coherence tomography examinations (5.1 ± 3.7 vs. 3.4.0 ± 3.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Although irregularly treated patients received more injections and more monitoring visits during the first year of IVT-AFL treatment, they experienced worse VA outcomes than regularly treated patients.

Systematic review: non-adherence and non-persistence in intravitreal treatment

Purpose

Intravitreal injection of VEGF inhibitors has become the standard of care for different macular diseases within the last years resulting in improved visual outcomes. Under real-life conditions, however, the necessity for frequent retreatments and reexaminations poses a burden for patients and treatment centers. Non-adherence and non-persistence to intravitreal treatment may lead to inferior clinical outcomes, and knowledge of contributing factors is crucial to improve adherence. This systematic review analyzes current literature for potential factors involved in non-adherence and non-persistence.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and Embase including three different aspects of intravitreal injection therapy: (1) diseases with intravitreal injections as treatment, (2) intravitreal injection, and (3) aspects of therapy adherence or therapy persistence. Data from identified quantitative studies were further extracted and grouped according to WHO criteria (condition, socio-economy, therapy, patient, and health system). The methodological quality of identified studies was graded. Identified qualitative studies (i.e., interviews) were descriptively analyzed and their findings narratively reported.

Results

Twenty-four publications were included. In 16 of those publications, a quantitative data analysis was conducted, analyzing factors associated with non-adherence. Worse visual acuity at baseline and unfavorable development of visual acuity, higher age, and greater distance to the treatment center were associated with non-adherence, while there was inconsistent evidence for an association of comorbidity. In qualitative studies, high follow-up/treatment burden, fear and anxiety, disappointed patient expectations, and lack of motivation to continue treatment were reported as reasons for non-persistence.

Conclusions

Knowledge of potential barriers in IVT treatment may improve adherence and potentially clinical results. Improvements can be achieved particularly in the healthcare complex (organizational improvements) and the “patient” complex by establishing realistic expectations. Recurrent education of the patient may be necessary.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00417-020-04798-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

[IVOM quality assurance in Westfalen-Lippe : Structure of quality assurance and results of the pilot study Q-VERA]

BACKGROUND

The KVWL-QS assists ophthalmologists in the transfer for good clinical praxis into real life. In addition the QS-commission initiated a pilotstudy "Qualitäts-Versorgung bei AMD" (Q‑VERA) in order to test new instruments for improvements. It was analized, if Reading Center (RC) based controls in combination with specific case-management modules can improve the results of IVOM treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In 5 treatment centers 878 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed AMD (Neu-Patienten) were included, who were treated with the IVAN-scheme. Initial FA and OCT images were transferred electronically to the RC. Also 781 retreatment patients (mean 20.7 IVOM before) with retreatment due to lesion activity were observed.

RESULTS

In 5% of the 878 newly treated patients a discrepancy between RC and treatment center was recorded. In this group the 481 patients, who finished up to the analysis date the 12-month follow-up, the visual function (increase in BCVA) and SD-OCT (reduction in central retinal thickness) results were comparable with large prospective cohorts. This was achieved with 6.5 injections and 10.6 visits over 12 months. In the group of 781 patients with repeated injections the number of injections over 12 months was 7.7 and the number of visits 11.6.

CONCLUSION

Quality assessment can improve the efficacy of IVOM therapy for AMD patients in real life. In addition to existing structures, electronical exchange by a RC assisted evaluation can further improve the quality by reducing the number of unnecessary treatment visits. The case-management with adherence control, re-call-system and specific information for patients and relatives can specifically increase the long-term adherence and thus the success of the therapy.

[ANDROMEDA-an investigation of factors influencing the adherence of patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration using the newly developed patient questionnaire LAF-IVT]

BACKGROUND

Lack of adherence to treatment is a widespread problem in the anti-VEGF (Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor) treatment of patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). In contrast to the extent of the lack of treatment adherence, there is so far insufficient evidence for elucidating the causes of nonadherence. The ANDROMEDA study was initiated to investigate the influencing factors on the adherence of nAMD patients to treatment. The focus of the study was on patient reported endpoints, as the perceptions and experiences of the patients are of enormous importance for the investigation of the various aspects of adherence to treatment.

OBJECTIVE

This publication presents the design of the ANDROMEDA study as well as the development of a new patient questionnaire for the assessment of barriers to treatment within the design of the study.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This prospective noninterventional observational study to assess the compliance of patients with nAMD and anti-VEGF treatment was started at the end of January 2019. It is planned to include 1000 patients in 120 study centers throughout Germany with an observational period of 24 months. Patient interviews on general and vision-related quality of life, treatment satisfaction and possible barriers to treatment will be conducted at the beginning and after 4, 12 and 24 months. All patient visits will be documented by the study centers as part of the clinical routine. To date, there has been no suitable instrument for recording patient-related circumstances and potential barriers to anti-VEGF treatment. Therefore, a specific patient questionnaire for longitudinal assessment of adherence factors to intravitreal (anti-VEGF) therapy (LAF-IVT) was developed as part of the study concept. The questionnaire, developed by an expert panel, was tested via qualitative interviews for its cognitive characteristics ahead of its use.

RESULTS

The results of the study are expected in early 2023. The cognitive examination of the LAF-IVT confirmed the feasibility of the new questionnaire. The practicability and significance of the new instrument can be assessed after completion of the quantitative data collection.

CONCLUSION

The symptoms, barriers, burdens and quality of life effects experienced by patients influence the adherence to treatment and thus the outcome. A better understanding of the patient's views and experiences is the basis for long-term optimization of care.

[Analysis of the "Portal" Care Model - Examination of the Outcome Quality of IVOM Therapy with Regard to Latency Periods in Exudative AMD]

BACKGROUND

For many maculopathies, the management of intravitreal injection (IVOM) presents a logistical challenge. To ensure contemporary and timely treatment, patients have to organise their rides to the surgery, and the clinic has to provide enough short term resources. The objective of this study is an evaluation of the IVOM therapy for patients with exudative AMD according to four quality indicators a) latency time within the treatment and monitoring cycle, b) the treatment and monitoring frequency, c) the adherence and d) the medical outcome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For more than seven years, patients with exudative AMD have been treated by many ophthalmologists using a networked portal system. Therefore, conservative doctors and surgical eye centres exchange treatment-relevant data. In total there are documented 2283 eyes of 1850 patients. We evaluate these electronic medical records retrospectively according to the mentioned quality indicators.

RESULTS

This evaluation results in a latency time from OCT monitoring and the start of a new IVOM series of 8.1 working days. Within the first two treatment years, we achieve 10.5 injections and 8.2 monitoring visits in average. After two years, 72.9% of the cases were still in treatment or monitoring. We observed stabilisation of mean visual accuracy of about 0.05 logMAR.

CONCLUSIONS

To improve the visual acuity, it is essential to achieve consistent therapy over a long period of time, especially in the case of treatment-relevant exudative AMD. The evaluation of our treatment system demonstrated that the PRN-scheme can be implemented by a cooperatively organised IVOM therapy. It is possible to achieve rapid retreatment and good adherence over many treatment years. For treatment-relevant exudative AMD it is essential for the improvement of the visual accuracy to implement consistent therapy over a long period of time. The evaluation of our treatment system demonstrates that the PRN scheme can be implemented in a cooperatively organised IVOM therapy. It is possible to achieve rapid retreatment and good patients' adherence over many treatment years.

[Treatment reality with ranibizumab in clinical routine use for patients with diabetic macular edema : 1‑year results of the German POLARIS cohort]

BACKGROUND

Currently only few data are available on the treatment reality with ranibizumab in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

POLARIS is an international observational study which included 983 patients who were treated with ranibizumab due to DME. The primary objective of the study was to investigate the influence of treatment and control intervals as well as resource utilization on the mean change in visual acuity. Secondary endpoints included the collation of disease activity monitoring in the clinical practice. This article describes the results of the German POLARIS population. The study was conducted in 8 European countries from October 2012 to January 2015.

RESULTS

In Germany 220 patients were included in the study. Visual acuity improved by 4.3 letters within the first 3 months of treatment. At 12 months, visual acuity increased on average by 4.1 (SD ± 12.4) letters (approximately 1 line) for 168 patients enrolled in the efficacy analysis. Patients received an average of 4.5 (SD ± 1.9) injections, 10.3 (SD ± 6.3) visual acuity tests and 3.3 (SD ± 3.1) optical coherence tomography (OCT) examinations during the first year. Patients with ≤3 injections showed an average improvement in visual acuity by 2.7 letters which was less improvement compared to patients with >3 injections, who achieved an average improvement of 5.4 letters. There was a correlation between the number of injections and the visual acuity achieved.

DISCUSSION

For Germany, the results of the POLARIS study indicate that despite a high number of visits, patients with DME are undertreated in clinical routine practice. The injection frequency in Germany was lower than in randomized clinical trials. Almost half of the patients received less than 4 injections in the first year of treatment and thus showed an undertreatment compared to the recommendations of German and international medical societies.

Subjective evaluation of visual acuity is not reliable to detect disease activity in different exudative maculopathies

BACKGROUND

Patients with exudative maculopathies (neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), diabetic macular edema (DME), and retinal vein occlusion (RVO)) are faced with a high burden of examinations and treatments. This study was conceived to analyze the accuracy of a subjective evaluation of visual acuity (VA) and metamorphopsia to detect disease reactivation, compared to morphological signs of reactivation assessed by means of SD-OCT.

METHODS

Retrospective study of 888 patients treated for nAMD (n = 638), DME (84), BRVO (110), and CRVO (56) was conducted. Subjective evaluation of the patient at an examination (i.e., change of VA and/or metamorphopsia) was compared to clinical evaluation of disease activity as assessed by SD-OCT. Sensitivity and specificity, negative and positive predictive values (PPV/NPV) for detection of active disease were calculated. Factors associated with false-negative subjective evaluation were analyzed by regression analysis.

RESULTS

The sensitivity of the subjective evaluation to detect disease reactivation was < 0.50 in all exudative maculopathies. Sensitivity was increased to ≥ 0.60 by combining subjective worsening with loss of 1 line in the VA test in RVO, but not in DME and nAMD. The specificity was > 0.85 in all patients. PPV was > 0.85 in patients with RVO. Regression analysis did not reveal any factors that could reliably identify patient subgroups in which OCT could be omitted, though CRVO patients with a visual acuity of < 0.3 logMAR had an odds ratio of 0.20 for false-negative subjective evaluation (p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

The accuracy of subjective evaluation to discriminate disease activity in patients with different exudative maculopathies was low and cannot substitute for frequent SD-OCT exams. Routinely assessed clinical parameters such as age, visual acuity, or treatment experience were of no use to predict the validity of subjective evaluation of disease activity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered at the DRKS (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien, drks.de; No 00006851) prior to the inclusion of the first patient.

Association of treatment adherence with real-life VA outcomes in AMD, DME, and BRVO patients

Purpose

Real-life clinical outcomes of patients treated with anti-VEGF drugs for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), diabetic macular edema (DME), or macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) are often inferior to results from randomized clinical trials. This observational cohort study investigates treatment adherence and real-life clinical outcomes within the first year of treatment.

Patients and methods

A total of 708 treatment-naïve patients (466 nAMD, 134 DME, and 108 BRVO) were included. Patients were followed with a PRN treatment protocol with three intravitreal injections (IVIs) and a series of 3 monthly injections in case of persistent or recurrent disease activity, as determined by monthly follow-up exams including optical coherence tomographies. Occurrence of gaps of >56 days between treatments or follow-up (nonadherence [NA]) and the reasons for NA (patient- or center-associated) as well as disease activity within the first 12 months of treatment were analyzed. Visual acuity (VA) as well as numbers and dates of optical coherence tomography and IVI were extracted from medical records.

Results

NA occurred significantly more often in patients with DME (44%) than nAMD (32%) or BRVO (25%, p<0.01 between groups). NA was mainly patient-associated (nAMD: 80.0%, DME: 83.1%, BRVO: 70.4%, p=0.38 between groups). Patients with nAMD and DME and appropriate treatment/follow-up adherence had a better chance of significantly gaining or maintaining VA, respectively (19.9% vs 12.0% with 3-line-gain in nAMD and 1.3% vs 15.3% 3-line loss in DME; each p<0.05). NA did not correlate with VA outcomes in BRVO (3-line gain 30.9% vs 48.1% and 3-line loss 8.6% vs 7.4%; p>0.05).

Conclusion

NA to treatment and follow-up regimens is a common problem in the management of patients with AMD and DME and limits clinical treatment outcomes under real-life conditions. Patients with DME have the highest risk of patient-associated NA, associated with a higher risk for significant VA loss.