Ranibizumab or Aflibercept Monotherapies in Treatment-Naive Eyes with Diabetic Macular Edema: A Head-to-Head Comparison in Real-Life Experience

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.