Next Article in Journal
Inhibition of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Proliferation and Survival by Rosemary Extract Is Associated with Activation of ERK and AMPK
Next Article in Special Issue
Retinal Disease and Metabolism
Previous Article in Journal
B Chromosomes’ Sequences in Yellow-Necked Mice Apodemus flavicollis—Exploring the Transcription
Previous Article in Special Issue
Caveolin-1 Down-Regulation Reduces VEGF-A Secretion Induced by IGF-1 in ARPE-19 Cells
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Life
Volume 12
Issue 1
10.3390/life12010051
life-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Impact of Injection Protocol Selection by Retina Specialists on Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema

by
Anika Tanwani
1,†,
Nida Safdar
1,†,
Amir Ali
1,
Cina Karimaghaei
1,
Mary Schmitz-Brown
2,
Ahmad Rehmani
2 and
Praveena K. Gupta
2,*
1
School of Medicine, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX 77550, USA
2
Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX 77550, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Life 2022, 12(1), 51; https://doi.org/10.3390/life12010051
Submission received: 14 November 2021 / Revised: 22 December 2021 / Accepted: 25 December 2021 / Published: 31 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Collection Retinal Disease and Metabolism)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Intravitreal anti-VEGF injections are the current gold standard for treating diabetic macular edema (DME). However, injection practice patterns of retina specialists have varied markedly based on physician discretion. This retrospective study analyzes the impact of injection protocol selection on change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) in 170 eyes treated by 4 retina specialists practicing a pro re nata (PRN) strategy between 2010 and 2020. DME patients received an average of 7.25 injections every 6.24 weeks over 56.6 weeks. There were significant differences between retina specialists in mean number of injections (p = 0.0001) and mean length of treatment (p = 0.0007) but not in mean interval between injections. Over the treatment period, average change in BCVA was −0.053 logMAR, and average change in CMT was −51.1 µm, neither of which had significant differences between retina specialists. BCVA and CMT at initial visit were found to be significantly associated with improved BCVA and CMT over the treatment period (p < 0.001). Number of injections administered and interval between injections were not found to be significant factors affecting change in BCVA or CMT. Despite significant differences in injection dosing regimen, retina specialists achieved similar outcomes in change in BCVA and CMT over the treatment period.

1. Introduction

Diabetes mellitus (DM) currently affects 463 million adults worldwide, with an expected rise to 700 million by the year 2045 [1]. DM may have many ocular manifestations including diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema (DME). DME is the leading cause of vision loss in working age adults with DM [2]. Chronic hyperglycemia instigates microangiopathy and degenerative neuroretinopathy through weakening of the blood-retinal barrier from pericyte loss [3]. The resulting endothelial dysfunction leads to release of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which in turn incites capillary leakage resulting in a collection of extracellular fluid in the macula, or DME [4,5,6,7]. Historically, diabetic macular edema has been treated with laser photocoagulation [8]. However, advancements in pharmacological therapies, particularly intravitreal VEGF inhibitors, have exhibited significant improvements in macular edema anatomically as well as visual recovery [9]. Hence, anti-VEGF therapy has become the gold standard treatment for most patients with DME. The three specific anti-VEGF drugs commonly used for treatment of DME include bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept. Ranibizumab and aflibercept are both FDA approved while bevacizumab is used off-label for treatment of DME. Despite these differences, the three anti-VEGF therapies have demonstrated similar efficacy on reduction of retinal thickness and improvement of visual acuity in DME patients with mild vision loss [10].
Because patients with DME represent a heterogeneous group that have varied responses to anti-VEGF therapy, there are no established guidelines on standardized injection protocols for retina specialists to follow. The common clinical injection protocols practiced are fixed monthly injections for the first three months followed by either continuation pro re nata (PRN), in which patients are treated as-needed, or with a treat-and-extend (T&E) strategy, in which treatment interval is incrementally increased until maximal length of quiescence of disease is achieved [11]. In recent years, T&E has been heavily researched in hopes to implement a strict plan for the longest interval without compromising progression of the disease and thereby decreasing the number the number of injections [12,13]. A head-to-head study showed that patients under a PRN regimen received significantly fewer injections than those under a T&E regimen, suggesting PRN strategies may be better for reducing patient burden [14]. However, another study indicated that T&E strategies lead to high patient adherence and visual acuity gains [15]. Both studies reveal that there is a need to standardize intravitreal injection protocols among retina specialists to reduce patient and physician burden.
Frequent intravitreal injections not only carry ophthalmological risks but may also negatively affect the quality of life of the patient. Patients have to worry about practical inconveniences, such as cost of injections, absences from work, and reliance on family members and caregivers to accompany them to the frequent visits, as well as emotional stressors of frustration, treatment anxiety, and needle phobia [16]. Increasing number of injections also poses a risk for adverse physical effects such as endophthalmitis, intraocular inflammation, intraocular pressure elevation, or ocular hemorrhage [17]. DM itself is already associated with additional comorbidities such as hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, chronic kidney disease, and ischemic heart disease. These may lead to additional burdensome complications such as undergoing limb amputation or regular dialysis treatment that further exacerbate the emotional stress and treatment fatigue felt by DME patients [18].
Injection protocols of retina specialists have varied markedly based on physician discretion, patient preference, and treatment outcomes. Because of this, there are no established clinical practice guidelines in place for treatment of DME patients. Such heterogeneity in the DME patient population along with large variance among treatment regimens between physicians has led to ambiguity in how to best treat patients. Although multiple studies have analyzed the effects of differences in anti-VEGF drugs on clinical outcomes, the impact of specific injection protocol selection of individual retina specialists has not been studied [9,10,19,20,21,22,23]. This retrospective chart review investigated the efficacy of individualized injection protocols of four different retina specialists utilizing anti-VEGF PRN injection therapy with respect to visual outcome and anatomical changes in the macula. Specifically, the two main outcomes assessed were improvement in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and decrease in central macular thickness (CMT) which are clinical markers used to assess progression of DME.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Ethics

Ethical approval was obtained the Institutional Review Board of University of Texas Medical Branch in accordance with the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.

2.2. Study Design

A retrospective chart review using Epic Systems Electronic Medical Records were used to identify patients with ICD codes E11.321, E11.331, E11.341, and E11.351 for clinically diagnosed DME with visits between January 2010 and July 2020 by retina specialists practicing at University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston. All practicing retina specialists were trained in Retina Fellowships with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accreditation in the United States.
Patient inclusion criteria included diagnosis of DME, age 18–100 years, and administration of aflibercept, ranibizumab, and bevacizumab in a PRN pattern. Exclusion criteria included patients with coexisting conditions that complicated the evaluation of DME, including wet AMD, retinal artery occlusion, retinal vein occlusion, high myopia (>6 diopters), trauma, and history of anti-VEGF injections or laser photocoagulation. Patients with no CMT data available during the treatment period, patients who switched between retina specialists, and patients whose physicians treated fewer than five patients over the treatment period were also excluded. Each qualified eye was counted separately for analysis.
All patients initially received loading doses of monthly anti-VEGF injections for three consecutive months after which retina specialists proceeded with an individualized PRN regimen. Patient demographics, comorbid conditions, total number of injections, time interval between injections, and BCVA and CMT at each injection visit were collected. The mean CMT obtained from Heidelberg Spectralis ocular coherence tomography (OCT) for each eye was retrieved up to 30 days before and after starting treatment for each eye. CMT is defined as the mean thickness measured at the point of intersection of the 6 radial scans on optical coherence tomography. Comorbid conditions including smoking history, chronic kidney disease, hyperlipidemia, hypertensive retinopathy, and pseudophakia were also collected for each patient. BCVA was recorded as lines from Snellen chart and converted to logMAR. Changes in BCVA and CMT over the treatment period were calculated as the difference between these values from the first and last injection (last injection–first injection).

2.3. Statistical Analyses

Statistical analyses were performed to determine the relationship between physician injection protocols and changes in BCVA and CMT over the treatment period using Chi-square tests for categorical data and Kruskal–Wallis tests for continuous data. Multivariate generalized linear modeling was utilized to determine factors associated with achieved difference in visual acuity and macular thickness over course of injection treatment.

3. Results

Epic Systems EMR identified 176 clinically diagnosed DME patients that met the inclusion criteria seen between January 2010 and July 2020 by 8 identified retina specialists. Out of 176 patients, 52 patients were excluded due to being treated by multiple retina specialists. Four retina specialists were excluded because they had fewer than five DME patients over the time frame, which subsequently resulted in the exclusion of 2 additional patients from the study. A total of 170 eyes from 122 DME patients between 4 retina specialists labeled as A, B, C, and D were included in the data analysis.

3.1. Demographics

The mean age of the 122 included DME patients was 62.2 ± 11.3 years, who were equally divided in gender with 61 males (50%) and 61 females (50%). As far as racial distribution, 83 patients (68.03%) were Caucasian, 38 (31.15%) were African American, and 1 (0.82%) was Asian. Assessment of comorbidities and medical history revealed 35 (28.69%) were smokers, 62 (50.82%) had chronic kidney disease, 92 (75.41%) had hyperlipidemia, and 38 (31.15%) had hypertensive retinopathy (Table 1).

3.2. Injection Protocol Selection in PRN Treatment Regimens among Retina Specialists

Looking at anti-VEGF drug preferences, 1 drug was used in 83.3, 90.9, 78.4 and 96.8% of patients for retina specialists A, B, C, and D respectively (p = 0.07). The remaining patients received a combination of 2 or 3 drugs in no defined pattern. With respect to choice of specific anti-VEGF drug, for retina specialists A, B, C, and D, respectively, bevacizumab was used most frequently in 100, 95.5, 100 and 100% of patients (p = 0.08), followed by aflibercept for 16.7, 4.6, 20.7 and 3.2% of patients (p = 0.046), and ranibizumab least frequently for 0, 9.1, 2.7 and 0% of patients (p = 0.26) (Table 2).
As far as distribution of treated eyes, retina specialist A treated 6 eyes, retina specialist B treated 22 eyes, retina specialist C treated 111 eyes, and retina specialist D treated 31 eyes. The mean number of injections given per eye was 4.0 ± 1.44, 4.6 ± 0.69, 9.0 ± 0.71, and 3.5 ± 0.34 for retina specialists A, B, C, and D, respectively, with an overall average of 7.25 injections (p = 0.036). The mean length of injection treatment in weeks was 17.57 ± 7.67, 34.00 ± 9.33, 71.29 ± 6.94, and 27.57 ± 5.31 for retina specialists A, B, C, and D, respectively, with an overall average of 56.6 weeks (p = 0.0007). The mean interval period between injections in weeks was 3.7 ± 0.89, 5.29 ± 1.21, 6.67 ± 0.47, and 5.87 ± 1.03 for retina specialists A, B, C, and D, respectively with an overall average of 6.24 weeks; however, these differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.381) (Table 3, Figure 1).

3.3. Primary Outcome—Change in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA)

The change in BCVA from first to last injection visit was the primary outcome used to assess treatment efficacy. The mean BCVA at first treatment in logMAR units was 0.66 ± 0.2, 0.73 ± 0.12, 0.59 ± 0.05, and 0.92 ± 0.12 for retina specialists A, B, C, and D, respectively, with an overall average of 0.67 logMAR, which significantly differed between retina specialists (p = 0.036). However, the mean difference in BCVA from first to last injection measured in logMAR units was −0.08 ± 0.07, 0.005 ± 0.09, −0.05 ± 0.04, and −0.1 ± 0.11 for retina specialists A, B, C, and D, respectively, with an overall average of −0.053 logMAR, and differences were found not to be significant (p = 0.226) (Table 4, Figure 2).
Multivariate generalized linear modeling was used to assess which factors played a significant role in change in BCVA from first to last visit. Factors included in analysis were BCVA at first visit, retina specialist, age, sex, race, smoking status, number of injections, interval between injections, hyperlipidemia, and hypertensive retinopathy. Retina specialist B was used as the reference to highlight differences compared to other retina specialists which will be discussed in the next section. The analysis showed that the only factor that played a significant role in change in BCVA was BCVA at first visit, which had an estimated effect size of −0.32 (p < 0.001) (Table 5).

3.4. Secondary Outcome—Change in Central Macular Thickness (CMT)

The secondary outcome used to assess treatment efficacy was change in CMT from first to last injection visit. The mean CMT at first visit was 342.5 ± 62 μm, 416 ± 63.1 μm, 327 ± 18.2 μm, and 429 ± 50.4 μm for retina specialists A, B, C, and D, respectively, with an overall average of 357.5 μm and was not significantly different among retina specialists (p = 0.131). Mean difference in CMT from first to last injection visit was 9.3 ± 35.1 μm, −165.8 ± 63.2 μm, −26.0 ± 22.5 μm, and −71.4 ± 51.9 µm for retina specialists A, B, C, and D, respectively, with an overall average of 51.1 µm and was also not significantly different amongst the four retina specialists (p = 0.06) (Table 6, Figure 3).
Multivariate generalized linear modeling was additionally used to determine which factors played a significant role in change in CMT from first to last visit. Factors included in analysis were CMT at first visit, retina specialist, age, sex, race, smoking status, injection number, interval between injections, hyperlipidemia, and hypertensive retinopathy. Retina specialist B was made to be the reference to highlight significant differences compared to the other retina specialists. The analysis showed that compared to retina specialist B, retina specialists A, C, and D showed significant differences in terms of their effect on change in CMT with effect estimates of 151.34, 81.65, and 114.20 and p of 0.03, 0.03, and 0.01, respectively. Caucasian race is also a factor shown to be significant in this model with an effect estimate of 58.38 (p = 0.05) when compared to other races as the reference (Table 7).

4. Discussion

We provide a comparison of anti-VEGF PRN treatment regimens between four retina specialists with respect to change in BCVA and CMT in DME patients. While there are multiple published studies comparing the efficacy of the different anti-VEGF drugs on the treatment of DME, a “head-to-head” comparison of injection protocols between retina specialists has never been done [9,10,19,20,21,22,23]. The lack of “generalized practice guidelines” in intravitreal injection protocol among retina specialists could be due to the heterogenous multifactorial nature of the biology of DME manifestations and industry standard controls of different anti-VEGF drugs.
This study first categorically compared treatment regimens with respect to the choice of anti- VEGF drug, the number of anti-VEGF injections, and the intervals between injections used by retina specialists. Of note, there was a significant difference in aflibercept use between the retina specialists; however, bevacizumab and ranibizumab were administered similarly (Table 2). This differential utilization of aflibercept use may be because this drug was not approved for the treatment of DME until July 2014 instead of practitioner preference for this drug in DME treatment [24]. Conventionally, bevacizumab is used as initial therapy and is subsequently switched to ranibizumab or aflibercept for patients with refractory disease, which could also explain a differential choice in use of anti-VEGFs by the retina specialists [25]. These differences in use of aflibercept may also lead to differences in improvements in BCVA as some patients have been shown to have larger gains in vision with aflibercept than with bevacizumab or ranibizumab treatment, particularly patients with worse starting BCVA [10]. Evidence also suggests that ranibizumab has shown the same or better efficacy than bevacizumab in the treatment of DME [25,26]. Significant differences were also found when comparing mean number of intravitreal injections per eye and the mean length from first to last injection between the retina specialists. However, the mean interval between intravitreal injections was found to be statistically similar between retina specialists (Table 3, Figure 1). This shows that there are differences in some facets of the treatment regimens between the retina specialists.
We further explored whether the injection protocols used by the retina specialists impacted changes in BCVA and CMT in clinical outcome of DME management. At baseline before anti-VEGF treatment was initiated, visual acuities of the DME patients were significantly different among the four physicians. However, baseline CMTs of patients were statistically similar amongst the four retina specialists suggesting an anatomical consensus in when to initiate treatment. Despite differences in protocols of treatment regimens and initial BCVA, both mean changes in BCVA and CMT from first to last injection were statistically similar amongst the retina specialists (Table 4 and Table 6, Figure 2 and Figure 3). Such findings are corroborated by ECHO study report 1 which found that an increased number of injections did not necessarily lead to improvements in BCVA, and although central retinal thickness (CRT), defined as retinal thickness in the central subfield, appeared to improve somewhat at first, continual improvement in mean CRT with more injections was not seen [27]. After conversion to ETDRS (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study) scale, the combined average change in BCVA amongst all four retina specialists was +2.653 letters. This value was lower than previously published data in trials such as RISE, RIDE, DRCR.net Protocol I, RESTORE, RESOLVE, and Protocol T that demonstrated BCVA gains ranging from +6.1 to +13.3 letters in one year [10,20,22,23,28,29]. Additionally, in the RISE and RIDE trials, mean CRT continually improved through 12 months of monthly ranibizumab injections [22]. This contrasts with results from our study, which has an average CMT improvement of 51.1 μm with no significant differences in CMT changes between providers despite differences in number of injections. Differences might be explained by the strict monitoring of adherence that is required by clinical trials which leads to increased patient compliance when compared to the real-world. As a result, these trials may fail to represent actual clinical practice well enough to be generalizable to large populations [30]. Comparative discrepancies in results may occur as a result of study design, inclusion-exclusion criteria, anti-VEGF choices, and provider-patient compliance.
Based on the multivariate analysis, BCVA at first visit was the only variable that played a significant role in affecting change in BCVA over the treatment period. CMT at first visit, retina specialist, and race demonstrated significance in determining change in CMT over the treatment period. In agreement with previously published work, this study demonstrates that worse vision and thicker central macula at baseline is associated with more improvement in BCVA and CMT over time [31,32]. This is likely due to the ceiling effect, which occurs when an independent variable no longer affects the dependent variable [19]. Of note, the number of injections and intervals between injections were not found to be significant in determining the final change in BCVA or CMT. In evaluating race, Caucasian patients were shown to have significantly worse outcomes in CMT improvement, which contrasts with previous analyses that have revealed that there were no statistically significant differences in reduction of CMT between race groups [33]. This finding may be due to certain subsections of Caucasian patients suffering from more advanced disease causing further ophthalmologic impairment. However, future analysis will need to be conducted to ascertain whether this hypothesis holds true.
Although patients treated by retina specialist B demonstrated the greatest improvement in CMT, they saw no improvement in BCVA on average. Other investigations have found that reduction of CMT has an inconsistent and weak association with outcome of BCVA; specifically, studies have shown a lag in potential visual improvement behind resolution of macular edema [28,29,34]. Inversely, other studies have also shown that visual gain does not consistently equate with anatomical recovery in the macula due to secondary causes, such as structural defects of photoreceptors, chronic ischemia-induced malfunction of the blood–brain barrier, neural apoptosis, and glial reactivity which may worsen anatomy but not vision [35]. This aligns with what was seen with retina specialist A who exhibited improvement in BCVA but not in CMT.
Administration of intravitreal injections poses significant clinical, humanistic, and economic burden on patients. Each recommended monthly visit requires a comprehensive ophthalmic exam, fundoscopy, OCT imaging, and intravitreal injections [36]. Patients reported spending an average of 12.5 h per month, or 150 h annually, on appointments [37]. Diabetic patients already require on average more than 25 outpatient visits a year with a large majority of these being non-ophthalmologic, so additional monthly appointments for intravitreal injections further increase this burden [38]. These visits are also anxiety-provoking as understandably many patients are fearful of needle penetration into the eye, further exacerbated by travel time and long waits in clinics [39]. Financially, aflibercept and ranibizumab range from 1800–2000 USD per injection, and bevacizumab is about 50 USD per injection [40]. This does not take into account costs of appointments and diagnostic tests. Many patients already experience loss of income due to the visual handicaps that are accompanied by DME, so high treatment costs can be detrimental. Reduction in the frequency of injections could not only diminish the burden of therapy but also increase compliance rates. A survey study focusing on DME patients found that 95% of respondents felt that lessening frequency of injections and appointments in general for equivalent visual results would be the most efficacious change for reducing their treatment burden [37]. Recent studies have shown that patient compliance with anti-VEGF treatment is likely not as regular or frequent as suggested by standards established by clinical trial data [41,42,43,44]. Since DME patients already have a significant healthcare burden due to their diabetes, considering intensity of treatment is critical when creating a therapeutic plan. Thus, this study highlights that interval of injections can be standardized with the intention of keeping longer intervals between injections without affecting patient outcomes. These changes would lower injection burden to patients, caregivers, and healthcare institutions, an important consideration as the prevalence of DM continues to rise.
Like any other retrospective study, there are some limitations in study design. Small sample size, unequal subject distribution, retrospective nature, and missing data points may have influenced our observation in treatment outcomes. Furthermore, the sample size of retina specialists was also small with unequal patient distribution amongst retina specialists, likely leading to variances in data. Confounding variables that may have affected outcomes such as use of intravitreal steroids or poor systemic control and duration of diabetes were not considered and should be included in future studies. However, the strength of our study is the availability of four retina specialists in a single hospital-based setting where intravitreal injection clinics are controlled by the university’s strict guidelines. Therefore, every retina specialist abided by the same compliance policy with minimum influence from payors.
In summary, this study revealed that despite significant differences in number of anti-VEGF injections administered and overall length of treatment of DME patients, all four retina specialists had similar outcomes with respect to changes in BCVA and CMT. Additionally, both baseline BCVA and CMT were found to be significant in determining change in BCVA and CMT, respectively, while number of injections and interval between injections were not. An extended large scale prospective study with incorporation of other co-factors that could affect clinical decision making of intravitreal injections may help to explore further possibility of having a standardized intravitreal injection regimen for DME treatment.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.K.G.; methodology, P.K.G. and M.S.-B.; formal analysis, A.T.; investigation, resources, data curation, A.T., N.S., A.A. and C.K.; writing—original draft preparation, A.T., N.S., A.A. and C.K.; writing—review and editing, A.R., P.K.G. and A.T.; supervision, P.K.G.; funding acquisition, P.K.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received funding from the Robertson–Poth Distinguished Chair in Ophthalmology Endowment grant.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the University of Texas Medical Branch’s Human Research Institutional Review Board (IRB 17-0065).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to Efstathia Polychronopoulou for her invaluable contributions in statistical analysis of data.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Saeedi, P.; Petersohn, I.; Salpea, P.; Malanda, B.; Karuranga, S.; Unwin, N.; Colagiuri, S.; Guariguata, L.; Motala, A.A.; Ogurtsova, K.; et al. Global and regional diabetes prevalence estimates for 2019 and projections for 2030 and 2045: Results from the International Diabetes Federation Diabetes Atlas, 9th edition. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 2019, 157, 107843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Arevalo, J.F. Diabetic macular edema: Current management 2013. World J. Diabetes 2013, 4, 231–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Miller, K.; Fortun, J.A. Diabetic Macular Edema: Current Understanding, Pharmacologic Treatment Options, and Developing Therapies. Asia Pac. J. Ophthalmol. (Phila.) 2018, 7, 28–35. [Google Scholar]
  4. Urias, E.A.; Urias, G.A.; Monickaraj, F.; McGuire, P.; Das, A. Novel therapeutic targets in diabetic macular edema: Beyond VEGF. Vis. Res. 2017, 139, 221–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kim, E.J.; Lin, W.V.; Rodriguez, S.M.; Chen, A.; Loya, A.; Weng, C.Y. Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema. Curr. Diab. Rep. 2019, 19, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Romero-Aroca, P.; Baget-Bernaldiz, M.; Pareja-Rios, A.; Lopez-Galvez, M.; Navarro-Gil, R.; Verges, R. Diabetic Macular Edema Pathophysiology: Vasogenic versus Inflammatory. J. Diabetes Res. 2016, 2016, 2156273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Browning, D.J.; Stewart, M.W.; Lee, C. Diabetic macular edema: Evidence-based management. Indian J. Ophthalmol. 2018, 66, 1736–1750. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  8. Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research Group. Photocoagulation for Diabetic Macular Edema: Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Report Number 1. Arch Ophthalmol. 1985, 103, 1796–1806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Virgili, G.; Parravano, M.; Evans, J.R.; Gordon, I.; Lucenteforte, E. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for diabetic macular oedema: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2017, 6, Cd007419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network; Wells, J.A.; Glassman, A.R.; Ayala, A.R.; Jampol, L.M.; Aiello, L.P.; Antoszyk, A.N.; Arnold-Bush, B.; Baker, C.W.; Bressler, N.M.; et al. Aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015, 372, 1193–1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  11. Curry, B.A.; Sanfilippo, P.G.; Chan, S.; Hewitt, A.W.; Verma, N. Clinical Outcomes of a Treat and Extend Regimen with Intravitreal Aflibercept Injections in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema: Experience in Clinical Practice. Ophthalmol. Ther. 2020, 9, 87–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Prünte, C.; Fajnkuchen, F.; Mahmood, S.; Ricci, F.; Hatz, K.; Studnička, J.; Bezlyak, V.; Parikh, S.; Stubbings, W.J.; Wenzel, A.; et al. Ranibizumab 0.5 mg treat-and-extend regimen for diabetic macular oedema: the RETAIN study. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2016, 100, 787–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Elsebaey, A.E.; Ibrahim, A.M.; Elshaarawy, E.A. Treat-and-extend vs. pro re nata regimens of aflibercept in diabetic macular edema. Menoufia Med. J. 2020, 33, 1144–1149. [Google Scholar]
  14. Ebneter, A.; Waldmeier, D.; Zysset-Burri, D.C.; Wolf, S.; Zinkernagel, M.S. Comparison of two individualized treatment regimens with ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema. Graefes Arch. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 2017, 255, 549–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Volkmann, I.; Knoll, K.; Wiezorrek, M.; Greb, O.; Framme, C. Individualized treat-and-extend regime for optimization of real-world vision outcome and improved patients’ persistence. BMC Ophthalmol. 2020, 20, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sivaprasad, S.; Oyetunde, S. Impact of injection therapy on retinal patients with diabetic macular edema or retinal vein occlusion. Clin. Ophthalmol. (Auckl. NZ) 2016, 10, 939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Falavarjani, K.G.; Nguyen, Q.D. Adverse events and complications associated with intravitreal injection of anti-VEGF agents: a review of literature. Eye (Lond.) 2013, 27, 787–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Farrell, C.; Moran, J. Comparison of comorbidities in patients with pre-diabetes to those with diabetes mellitus type 2. Ir. Med. J. 2014, 107, 72–74. [Google Scholar]
  19. Urbančič, M.; Klobučar, P.; Zupan, M.; Urbančič, K.; Lavrič, A. Anti-VEGF Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema: Two-Year Visual Outcomes in Routine Clinical Practice. J. Ophthalmol. 2020, 2020, 6979758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mitchell, P.; Bandello, F.; Schmidt-Erfurth, U.; Lang, G.E.; Massin, P.; Schlingemann, R.O.; Sutter, F.; Simader, C.; Burian, G.; Gerstner, O. The RESTORE study: ranibizumab monotherapy or combined with laser versus laser monotherapy for diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology 2011, 118, 615–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Brown, D.M.; Schmidt-Erfurth, U.; Do, D.V.; Holz, F.G.; Boyer, D.S.; Midena, E.; Heier, J.S.; Terasaki, H.; Kaiser, P.K.; Marcus, D.M.; et al. Intravitreal Aflibercept for Diabetic Macular Edema: 100-Week Results From the VISTA and VIVID Studies. Ophthalmology 2015, 122, 2044–2052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Nguyen, Q.D.; Brown, D.M.; Marcus, D.M.; Boyer, D.S.; Patel, S.; Feiner, L.; Gibson, A.; Sy, J.; Rundle, A.C.; Hopkins, J.J.; et al. Ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema: results from 2 phase III randomized trials: RISE and RIDE. Ophthalmology 2012, 119, 789–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Massin, P.; Bandello, F.; Garweg, J.G.; Hansen, L.L.; Harding, S.P.; Larsen, M.; Mitchell, P.; Sharp, D.; Wolf-Schnurrbusch, U.E.; Gekkieva, M.; et al. Safety and efficacy of ranibizumab in diabetic macular edema (RESOLVE Study): a 12-month, randomized, controlled, double-masked, multicenter phase II study. Diabetes Care 2010, 33, 2399–2405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Holfinger, S.; Miller, A.G.; Rao, L.J.; Rowland, D.Y.; Hornik, J.H.; Miller, D.G. Effect of Regulatory Requirement for Patient-Specific Prescriptions for Off-Label Medications on the Use of Intravitreal Bevacizumab. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016, 134, 45–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ehrlich, R.; Dan, I.; Deitch, I.; Axer-Siegel, R.; Mimouni, K. The Effectiveness of Intravitreal Ranibizumab in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema Who Have Failed to Respond to Intravitreal Bevacizumab. Ophthalmology 2016, 235, 133–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Wiley, H.E.; Thompson, D.J.; Bailey, C.; Chew, E.Y.; Cukras, C.A.; Jaffe, G.J.; Lee, R.W.; Loken, E.K.; Meyerle, C.B.; Wong, W. A Crossover Design for Comparative Efficacy: A 36-Week Randomized Trial of Bevacizumab and Ranibizumab for Diabetic Macular Edema. Ophthalmology 2016, 123, 841–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Blinder, K.J.; Dugel, P.U.; Chen, S.; Jumper, J.M.; Walt, J.G.; Hollander, D.A.; Scott, L.C. Anti-VEGF treatment of diabetic macular edema in clinical practice: effectiveness and patterns of use (ECHO Study Report 1). Clin. Ophthalmol. 2017, 11, 393–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Gonzalez, V.H.; Campbell, J.; Holekamp, N.M.; Kiss, S.; Loewenstein, A.; Augustin, A.J.; Ma, J.; Ho, A.C.; Patel, V.; Whitcup, S.M. Early and Long-Term Responses to Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy in Diabetic Macular Edema: Analysis of Protocol I Data. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2016, 172, 72–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Dugel, P.U.; Campbell, J.H.; Kiss, S.; Loewenstein, A.; Shih, V.; Xu, X.; Holekamp, N.M.; Augustin, A.J.; Ho, A.C.; Gonzalez, V.H.; et al. Association Between Early Anatomic Response to Anti-vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy and Long-term Outcome in Diabetic Macular Edema: An Independent Analysis of Protocol i Study Data. Retina 2019, 39, 88–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kim, H.S.; Lee, S.; Kim, J.H. Real-world Evidence versus Randomized Controlled Trial: Clinical Research Based on Electronic Medical Records. J. Korean Med. Sci. 2018, 33, e213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Nguyen, Q.D.; Shah, S.M.; Khwaja, A.A.; Channa, R.; Hatef, E.; Do, D.V.; Boyer, D.; Heier, J.S.; Abraham, P.; Thach, A.B.; et al. Two-year outcomes of the ranibizumab for edema of the mAcula in diabetes (READ-2) study. Ophthalmology 2010, 117, 2146–2151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Dugel, P.U.; Hillenkamp, J.; Sivaprasad, S.; Vögeler, J.; Mousseau, M.C.; Wenzel, A.; Margaron, P.; Hashmonay, R.; Massin, P. Baseline visual acuity strongly predicts visual acuity gain in patients with diabetic macular edema following anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment across trials. Clin. Ophthalmol. 2016, 10, 1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Osathanugrah, P.; Sanjiv, N.; Siegel, N.H.; Ness, S.; Chen, X.; Subramanian, M.L. The Impact of Race on Short-term Treatment Response to Bevacizumab in Diabetic Macular Edema. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2021, 222, 310–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sorour, O.A.; Liu, K.; Mehta, N.; Braun, P.; Gendelman, I.; Nassar, E.; Baumal, C.R.; Witkin, A.J.; Duker, J.S.; Waheed, N.K. Visual and anatomic outcomes of sustained single agent anti-VEGF treatment versus double anti-VEGF switching in the treatment of persistent diabetic macular edema. Int. J. Retin. Vitr. 2020, 6, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Mrugacz, M.; Bryl, A.; Zorena, K. Retinal Vascular Endothelial Cell Dysfunction and Neuroretinal Degeneration in Diabetic Patients. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Bucolo, C.; Gozzo, L.; Longo, L.; Mansueto, S.; Vitale, D.C.; Drago, F. Long-term efficacy and safety profile of multiple injections of intravitreal dexamethasone implant to manage diabetic macular edema: A systematic review of real-world studies. J. Pharmacol. Sci. 2018, 138, 219–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Spooner, K.L.; Guinan, G.; Koller, S.; Hong, T.; Chang, A.A. Burden of Treatment Among Patients Undergoing Intravitreal Injections For Diabetic Macular Oedema In Australia. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. Obes. 2019, 12, 1913–1921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Wallick, C.J.; Hansen, R.N.; Campbell, J.; Kiss, S.; Kowalski, J.W.; Sullivan, S.D. Comorbidity and Health Care Resource Use Among Commercially Insured Non-Elderly Patients With Diabetic Macular Edema. Ophthalmic Surg. Lasers Imaging Retin. 2015, 46, 744–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Herranz-Heras, J.C.; de-Pablo-Cabrera, A.; Alonso-Martín, B.; de-Lucas-Viejo, B.; de-Castro-Liébana, M.; Mencía-Gutiérrez, E.; Ferro-Osuna, M.J.; Romero, C.; Sambricio, J. Evaluation of Anxiety Levels in Patients Undergoing Intravitreal Injections and Associated Risk Factors Related to the Disease. J. Ophthalmol. 2020, 2020, 4375390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ohr, M.; Kaiser, P.K. Intravitreal aflibercept injection for neovascular (wet) age-related macular degeneration. Expert Opin. Pharmacother. 2012, 13, 585–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tapp, R.J.; Shaw, J.E.; Harper, C.A.; de Courten, M.P.; Balkau, B.; McCarty, D.J.; Taylor, H.R.; Welborn, T.A.; Zimmet, P.Z.; AusDiab Study Group. The prevalence of and factors associated with diabetic retinopathy in the Australian population. Diabetes Care 2003, 26, 1731–1737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Polat, O.; İnan, S.; Özcan, S.; Doğan, M.; Küsbeci, T.; Yavaş, G.F.; İnan, Ü.Ü. Factors Affecting Compliance to Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy in Patients with Age-Related Macular Degeneration. Turk. J. Ophthalmol. 2017, 47, 205–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Stewart, M.W. Individualized Treatment of Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: What are Patients Gaining? Or Losing? J. Clin. Med. 2015, 4, 1079–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Gupta, O.P.; Shienbaum, G.; Patel, A.H.; Fecarotta, C.; Kaiser, R.S.; Regillo, C.D. A treat and extend regimen using ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration clinical and economic impact. Ophthalmology 2010, 117, 2134–2140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Life 12 00051 g001 550
Figure 1. Graphical representation of intravitreal injection protocols between retina specialists.
Figure 1. Graphical representation of intravitreal injection protocols between retina specialists.
Life 12 00051 g001
Life 12 00051 g002 550
Figure 2. Graphical representation of mean change in BCVA over treatment period per retina specialist.
Figure 2. Graphical representation of mean change in BCVA over treatment period per retina specialist.
Life 12 00051 g002
Life 12 00051 g003 550
Figure 3. Graphical representation of mean change in CMT over treatment period per retina specialist.
Figure 3. Graphical representation of mean change in CMT over treatment period per retina specialist.
Life 12 00051 g003
Table
Table 1. Baseline patient demographics and medical history.
Table 1. Baseline patient demographics and medical history.
CharacteristicsCategoryValue (%)
Age 62.2 (11.3)
SexFemale61 (50)
Male61 (50)
RaceAmerican Indian/Alaskan Native0 (0)
Asian1 (0.82)
Black/African American38 (31.15)
Caucasian/White83 (68.03)
Smoking 35 (28.69)
CKD 62 (50.82)
Hyperlipidemia 92 (75.41)
Hypertensive retinopathy 38 (31.15)
Data are presented as mean (SD) for continuous data and N (%) for categorical data.
Table
Table 2. Choice of anti-VEGF drug among retina specialists.
Table 2. Choice of anti-VEGF drug among retina specialists.
Specialist A
N = 6		Specialist B
N = 22		Specialist C
N = 111		Specialist D
N = 31		p-Value
1 drug5 (83.3)20 (90.9)87 (78.4)30 (96.8)0.07
2 or 3 drugs1 (16.7)2 (9.1)24 (21.6)1 (3.2)
Bevacizumab6 (100)21 (95.5)111 (100)31 (100)0.08
Aflibercept1 (16.7)1 (4.6)23 (20.7)1 (3.2)0.046 *
Ranibizumab02 (9.1)3 (2.7)00.26
Data are presented as N (%); * for p < 0.05.
Table
Table 3. Intravitreal injection practice patterns among retina specialists.
Table 3. Intravitreal injection practice patterns among retina specialists.
Specialist A
N = 6		Specialist B
N = 22		Specialist C
N = 111		Specialist D
N = 31		Overall Averagep-Value
Mean number of injections per eye4 (1.44)4.6 (0.69)9.0 (0.71)3.5 (0.34)7.250.0001 ***
Mean length from first to last injection per eye (in weeks)17.57 (7.67)34 (9.33)71.29 (6.94)27.57 (5.31)56.600.0007 ***
Mean interval between injections per eye (in weeks)3.7 (0.89)5.29 (1.21)6.67 (0.47)5.87 (1.03)6.240.381
Data are presented as mean (SD), *** for p < 0.001.
Table
Table 4. Visual acuity outcomes quantified by BCVA among retina specialists.
Table 4. Visual acuity outcomes quantified by BCVA among retina specialists.
Specialist A
N = 6		Specialist B
N = 22		Specialist C
N = 111		Specialist D
N = 31		Overall Averagep-Value
Mean BCVA at first treatment (logMAR)0.66 (0.2)0.73 (0.12)0.59 (0.05)0.92 (0.12)0.670.036 *
Mean change in BCVA over treatment period (logMAR)−0.08 (0.07)0.005 (0.09)−0.05 (0.04)−0.1 (0.1)−0.0530.226
Data are presented as mean (SD), * for p < 0.05.
Table
Table 5. Multivariate linear regression analysis showing role of different factors on change in BCVA over the treatment period.
Table 5. Multivariate linear regression analysis showing role of different factors on change in BCVA over the treatment period.
VariableCategoryEstimatep-Value
BCVA at first visit −0.32<0.001 ***
Retina specialistA−0.080.68
C−0.080.47
D−0.070.58
Brefref
Age 0.000.47
SexFemale−0.010.87
Malerefref
RaceCaucasian−0.010.89
Otherrefref
SmokingYes−0.010.92
Norefref
Injection number −0.010.18
Interval between injections 0.000.17
HyperlipidemiaYes−0.060.43
Norefref
Hypertensive retinopathyYes−0.010.85
Norefref
*** for p < 0.001.
Table
Table 6. Anatomical outcomes quantified by CMT among retina specialists.
Table 6. Anatomical outcomes quantified by CMT among retina specialists.
Specialist A
N = 6		Specialist B
N = 22		Specialist C
N =111		Specialist D
N = 31		Overall Averagep-Value
Mean CMT at first measurement (µm)342.5 (62)416 (63.1)327 (18.2)429 (50.4)357.70.131
Mean change in CMT over treatment period (µm)9.3 (35.1)−165.8 (63.2)−26.0 (22.5)−71.4 (51.9)−51.10.06
Data are presented as mean (SD).
Table
Table 7. Multivariate linear regression analysis showing role of different factors on change in CMT over the treatment period.
Table 7. Multivariate linear regression analysis showing role of different factors on change in CMT over the treatment period.
VariableCategoryEstimatep-Value
CMT at first visit −0.88737<0.001 ***
Retina specialistA151.340.03 *
C81.650.03 *
D114.200.01 **
Brefref
Age 0.060.96
SexFemale22.060.43
Malerefref
RaceCaucasian58.380.05 *
Otherrefref
SmokingYes−19.210.51
Norefref
Injection number 0.260.92
Interval between injections −0.460.19
HyperlipidemiaYes−16.390.57
Norefref
Hypertensive retinopathyYes−20.410.46
Norefref
* for p < 0.05, ** for p < 0.01, *** for p < 0.001.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tanwani, A.; Safdar, N.; Ali, A.; Karimaghaei, C.; Schmitz-Brown, M.; Rehmani, A.; Gupta, P.K. Impact of Injection Protocol Selection by Retina Specialists on Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema. Life 2022, 12, 51. https://doi.org/10.3390/life12010051

AMA Style

Tanwani A, Safdar N, Ali A, Karimaghaei C, Schmitz-Brown M, Rehmani A, Gupta PK. Impact of Injection Protocol Selection by Retina Specialists on Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema. Life. 2022; 12(1):51. https://doi.org/10.3390/life12010051

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tanwani, Anika, Nida Safdar, Amir Ali, Cina Karimaghaei, Mary Schmitz-Brown, Ahmad Rehmani, and Praveena K. Gupta. 2022. "Impact of Injection Protocol Selection by Retina Specialists on Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema" Life 12, no. 1: 51. https://doi.org/10.3390/life12010051

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop