Cost containment by peer prior authorization program for second line treatment in patients with retinal disease

Branch retinal vein occlusion treated with anti-VEGF: to switch or not to switch?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate visual outcomes after switching from bevacizumab to ranibizumab or aflibercept in patients with macular edema (ME) secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).

DESIGN

A retrospective, multi-center, observational study.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients diagnosed with BRVO and were treated with at least 3 bevacizumab injections, before anti VEGF switch.

METHODS

The follow-up period was 36 months, and the primary study outcomes assessed changes in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) after anti VEGF switch.

RESULTS

A total of 263 eyes of 263 patients with a mean age of 71.5 ± 11.2 years of which 50% were of male gender met the inclusion criteria. Of them, 175 eyes did not undergo switch, whereas 88 eyes underwent anti-VEGF switch. There was not a significant difference in mean age (p = 0.634) and gender (p = 0.269) between the groups. Baseline BCVA of the no-switch group was 0.47 ± 0.43 logMAR (20/59 Snellen) versus 0.6 ± 0.49 logMAR (20/79 Snellen) (p = 0.031) in the switch group, and at 36-months it was 0.41 ± 0.39 (20/51 Snellen) logMAR versus 0.54 ± 0.49 logMAR (20/69 Snellen) (p = 0.035), respectively. The difference between the rate of change in BCVA per year was insignificant between groups (p = 0.414). In multivariate analysis, baseline BCVA was the single significant predictor for switch (beta 0.137, p = 0.035). Patients with more than one anti-VEGF switch suffer from decrease in BCVA.

CONCLUSIONS

Worse baseline BCVA is a significant predictor for anti-VEGF switch execution, though the switch has no significant impact on the change in BCVA over time. Multiple anti-VEGF switch is not recommended.

Caring for the health and well-being of our learners in medicine as critical actions toward high-quality care

A recent paper has focused on residents' poor lifestyle habits and their potential negative impact on patients' lifestyles. This commentary argues that there are even greater reasons to be concerned about the health and well-being of residents and medical students and the resultant effects on patients throughout the careers of these learners. There is a "hidden curriculum", i.e., customs, rituals and norms of behavior, in medical education and in the training at the healthcare setting, often contradicts the formal curriculum and include messages that neglect the basic needs of the learners as well as the patients. Due to the impact of these messages on the professional identity formation of learners, including a deterioration in their own wellbeing as well as impairment of their ability to empathize with and care for patients, we must align our formal and hidden curricula to show dignity and caring for learners, colleagues, and patients. To do this well, we need to change our approach. We need to add processes for learners to support them in dealing with the stresses of their education and training and allow them to build their families and commit fully to medicine as a vocation, not just a job. We also must add faculty development processes to help align the formal and hidden curricula and help faculty empower and constructively assist their learners to handle challenging situations, e.g., where they see a resident struggling with patient care and day-to-day workload, through empathic feedback. When our learners are treated with kindness and respect they will lead more fulfilling lives and be better able to provide the high-quality care and caring all patients deserve.