Demographic and Socioeconomic Factors in Prospective Retina-Focused Clinical Trial Screening and Enrollment.

Historically marginalized populations are disproportionately affected by many diseases that commonly affect the retina, yet they have been traditionally underrepresented in prospective clinical trials. This study explores whether this disparity affects the clinical trial enrollment process in the retina field and aims to inform future trial recruitment and enrollment. Age, gender, race, ethnicity, preferred language, insurance status, social security number (SSN) status, and median household income (estimated using street address and zip code) for patients referred to at least one prospective, retina-focused clinical trial at a large, urban, retina-based practice were retrospectively extracted using electronic medical records. Data were collected for the 12-month period from 1 January 2022, through 31 December 2022. Recruitment status was categorized as Enrolled, Declined, Communication (defined as patients who were not contacted, were contacted with no response, were waiting for a follow-up, or were scheduled for screening following a clinical trial referral.), and Did Not Qualify (DNQ). Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to determine significant relationships between the Enrolled and Declined groups. Among the 1477 patients, the mean age was 68.5 years old, 647 (43.9%) were male, 900 (61.7%) were White, 139 (9.5%) were Black, and 275 (18.7%) were Hispanic. The distribution of recruitment status was: 635 (43.0%) Enrolled, 232 (15.7%) Declined, 290 (19.6%) Communication, and 320 (21.7%) DNQ. In comparing socioeconomic factors between the Enrolled and Declined groups, significant odds ratios were observed for age (p < 0.02, odds ratio (OR) = 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.97, 1.00]), and between patients who preferred English versus Spanish (p = 0.004, OR = 0.35, 95% CI [0.17, 0.72]. Significant differences between the Enrolled and Declined groups were also observed for age (p < 0.05), ethnicity (p = 0.01), preferred language (p < 0.05), insurance status (p = 0.001), and SSN status (p < 0.001). These factors may contribute to patient participation in retina-focused clinical trials. An awareness of these demographic and socioeconomic disparities may be valuable to consider when attempting to make clinical trial enrollment an equitable process for all patients, and strategies may be useful to help address these challenges.

INTRAVITREAL ANTI-VASCULAR ENDOTHELIAL GROWTH FACTOR PHARMACEUTICAL UTILIZATION AND FINANCIAL IMPACT IN A VALUE-BASED CARE PROGRAM.

PURPOSE: To investigate trends and the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the utilization of intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) pharmaceuticals in an accountable care organization (ACO). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services beneficiary claims for all patients in the Houston Methodist Coordinated Care ACO registry during the years 2018, 2019, and 2020. RESULTS: Across the 3 years studied, a mean of 708 patients received anti-VEGF injections per year. The percentage of patients who received anti-VEGF injections decreased in each sequential year, with a steeper decline during the COVID-19 pandemic in the year 2020 (decrease by 0.4% from 2019 to 2020, P < 0.001; decrease by 0.2% from 2018 to 2019, P = 0.1453). The percentage of patients receiving bevacizumab of the total number of patients receiving any anti-VEGF treatment decreased (bevacizumab decreased by 6% from 2019 to 2020, P = 0.0174; decreased by 7% from 2018 to 2019, P = 0.0074). The COVID-19 pandemic did not seem to correlate with a change in the distribution of the specific anti-VEGF injection used. CONCLUSION: Despite the lower price which may correlate with value-based care, bevacizumab was the least used anti-VEGF treatment. COVID-19 correlated with a larger decrease in the utilization of all three anti-VEGF drugs.

Brolucizumab vs aflibercept and ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a leading cause of blindness worldwide and is the most common cause of blindness in developed countries. Despite antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy demonstrating improvements in visual and anatomical outcomes, unmet needs remain. Brolucizumab-dbll (ie, brolucizumab), a VEGF inhibitor for treatment of neovascular (wet) AMD and recently approved by the FDA for its treatment of wet AMD, attempts to mitigate treatment burden through less frequent injections. OBJECTIVE: To assess the incremental cost-effectiveness of brolucizumab compared with aflibercept and ranibizumab, given similar costs per injection and the potential for longer dosing intervals based on phase 3 clinical trial data. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to model the treatment of wet AMD patients with brolucizumab vs aflibercept and vs ranibizumab over a lifetime time horizon (base case) and 5-year time horizon (scenario analysis). The Markov model consisted of 3 primary health states: on treatment, off treatment, and death. Markov substates (5 total) described visual acuity (VA) ranging from no vision impairment to blindness. These VA-based substates were defined by best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) values measured using Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters. Fixed-dosing regimens for each therapy were included in the model: dosing every 4 weeks (q4w) for the first 3 months followed by dosing q8w/q12w for brolucizumab, dosing q4w for the first 3 months followed by dosing q8w for aflibercept, and q4w for ranibizumab. RESULTS: In the base case, brolucizumab was less costly than aflibercept ($63,614 vs $72,189), and brolucizumab generated 0.0079 more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) than aflibercept (4.580 vs 4.572). Lower total costs with brolucizumab were driven by reduced drug costs ($56,432 vs $64,057), reduced administration costs ($6,013 vs $6,825), and reduced monitoring costs ($1,168 vs $1,306). When evaluating the cost-effectiveness of brolucizumab over a 5-year time horizon, brolucizumab was less costly than aflibercept ($44,644 vs $50,772) and generated an additional 0.0049 QALYs (2.953 vs 2.948). Additionally, brolucizumab was less costly than ranibizumab ($63,614 vs $128,163) and generated 0.0078 more QALYs than ranibizumab (4.580 vs 4.572) in the base case. Lower total costs with brolucizumab were driven by reduced drug costs ($56,432 vs $114,516), reduced administration costs ($6,013 vs $11,541), and reduced monitoring costs ($1,168 vs $2,107). When evaluating the cost-effectiveness of brolucizumab over a 5-year time horizon, brolucizumab was less costly than ranibizumab ($44,644 vs $89,665), and brolucizumab generated an additional 0.0046 QALYs (2.953 vs 2.948). CONCLUSIONS: Brolucizumab can be cost saving and cost-effective compared with aflibercept and ranibizumab in the treatment of wet AMD. DISCLOSURES: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation provided funding to Xcenda for the cost-effectiveness analysis and preparation of this manuscript. Carlton is an employee of Xcenda. Agashivala is employed by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Yu was an employee of Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation at the time of this study. Hassan reports personal fees from iOPEN, BVI/Visitrec, ArcticDx, Bayer, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Broadspot, BMC, Katalyst Surgical, Alcon, Vitreq, Surgicube, personal Ocugenix, Regeneron, Allergan, Oculus Surgical, Novartis, Genentech, and Eyepoint, unrelated to this work. Wykoff reports personal fees from Corcept Therapeutics, DORC, EyePoint, Gyroscope, IVERIC Bio, Merck, Notal Vision, ONL Therapeutics, Oxurion, Palatin, PolyPhotonix, Takeda, Thea Open Innovation; grants from Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Aldeyra, Gemini Therapeutics, Graybug Vision, IONIS Pharmaceutical, LMRI, Mylan, Neurotech Pharmaceuticals, Outlook Pharmaceuticals, Samsung Bioepis, Senju, Taiwan Liposome Company, Xbrane BioPharma, Santen; and grants and personal fees from Adverum, Allergan, Apellis, Chengdu Kanghong Biotechnologies (KHB), Clearside Biomedical, Genentech, Kodiak Sciences, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Novartis, Opthea, Recens Medical, Regenxbio, Roche, and Regeneron, unrelated to this work. This research was presented as a virtual poster at the AMCP 2020 Annual Meeting, April 2020.

Aqueous Cytokine Expression and Higher Order OCT Biomarkers: Assessment of the Anatomic-Biologic Bridge in the IMAGINE DME Study.

PURPOSE: To identify biomarkers for predicting response to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy in diabetic macular edema (DME) and evaluate any links between cytokine expression and optical coherence tomography (OCT) phenotype. DESIGN: The IMAGINE is a post hoc image analysis and cytokine expression assessment of the Efficacy & Safety Trial of Intravitreal Injections Combined With PRP for CSME Secondary to Diabetes Mellitus (DAVE) randomized clinical trial. METHODS: Subjects were categorized as anatomical responders or nonresponders, and within the responder group as rebounders and non-rebounders based on quantitative, longitudinal OCT criteria. Retinal layer and fluid features were extracted using an OCT machine-learning augmented segmentation platform. Responders were further sub-classified by rapidity of response. Aqueous concentrations of 54 cytokines were measured at multiple timepoints. Expression was compared between responder groups and correlated with OCT imaging biomarkers. RESULTS: Of the 24 eyes studied, 79% were anatomical responders with 38% super responders, 17% early responders, and 25% slow responders. Twenty-one percent were nonresponders. Super responders had increased baseline vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) (880.0 pg/mL vs 245.4 pg/mL; P = .012) and decreased monocyte chemotactic protein-1 (MCP-1) (513.3 pg/mL vs 809.5 pg/mL; P = .0.042) concentrations compared with nonresponders. Interleukin-6 (-24.9 pg/mL vs 442.8 pg/mL; P = .032) concentrations increased among nonresponders during therapy. VEGF concentrations correlated with central subfield thickness (r = 0.49; P = .01). Panmacular retinal volume correlated with increased interleuckin-6 (r = 0.47; P = .02) and decreased MCP-1 (r = -0.45; P = .03). Matrix metallopeptidase-1 correlated with subretinal fluid volume (r = 0.50; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: OCT imaging biomarkers correlated with both intraocular cytokines and responsiveness to anti-VEGF therapy, which indicated a possible link to underlying pathways and their relevance to DME prognosis. Baseline concentrations of VEGF and MCP-1 are associated with anatomic response to anti-VEGF therapy.

Loss to Follow-Up Among Patients With Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy in Clinical Practice.

PURPOSE: To determine the proportion of patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) who were counted as loss to follow-up (LTFU) patients and to investigate predictive factors. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: Information was collected for 4,423 patients with PDR between April 30, 2012, and April 30, 2017. Two definitions of LTFU were used. Complete LTFU referred to the population who never returned to care within the study period. Interval LTFU referred to the population who did not adhere to clinical recommendations and missed scheduled appointments, resulting in intervals longer than 6 months or 1 year between 2 appointments. Age, average gross income, and insurance were assessed as potential predictors of interval LTFU. RESULTS: Among 4,423 patients with PDR, 2,407 (54.4%) and 2,320 (52.4%) were complete LTFU at 6 months and 1 year, respectively; 782 (17.7%) and 468 (10.6%) patients were interval LTFU for 6 months and 1 year, respectively. Age and average gross income were not found to be significant predictors of interval LTFU. Compared to self-pay, government and private insurance patients were more likely to be interval LTFU at 6 months (government, P = .035; private, P = .005). Private insurance patients were also more likely to be interval LTFU at 1 year (P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: The identified complete LTFU rates were notably high and warrant further study. More than 1 of 6 patients were interval LTFU for at least 6 months, and 1 of 10 patients was interval LTFU for more than 1 year. Insurance status was significant in determining interval LTFU status. Consistent with other analyses, these results indicate that compliance with clinical appointments among patients with PDR is a substantial clinical challenge.

Assessment of the DRCR Retina Network Approach to Management With Initial Observation for Eyes With Center-Involved Diabetic Macular Edema and Good Visual Acuity: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Among eyes with center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME) and good visual acuity (VA), randomized clinical trial results showed no difference in VA loss between initial observation plus aflibercept only if VA decreased, initial focal/grid laser plus aflibercept only if VA decreased, or prompt aflibercept. Understanding the initial observation approach is relevant to patient management. Objective: To assess the DRCR Retina Network protocol-defined approach and outcomes of initial observation with aflibercept only if VA worsened. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a post hoc secondary analyses of a randomized clinical trial of the DRCR Retina Network Protocol V that included 91 US and Canadian sites from November 2013 to September 2018. Participants were adults (n = 236) with type 1 or 2 diabetes, 1 study eye with CI-DME, and VA letter score at least 79 (Snellen equivalent, 20/25 or better) assigned to initial observation. Data were analyzed from March 2019 to November 2019. Interventions: Initial observation and follow-up with aflibercept only for VA loss of at least 10 letters from baseline at 1 visit or 5 to 9 letters at 2 consecutive visits. Follow-up occurred at 8 weeks and then every 16 weeks unless VA or optical coherence tomography central subfield thickness worsened. Main Outcomes and Measures: Whether individuals received aflibercept. Results: Among 236 eyes in 236 individuals (149 [63%] male; median age, 60 years [interquartile range, 53-67 years]) randomly assigned to initial observation, 80 (34%) were treated with aflibercept during 2 years of follow-up. At 2 years, the median VA letter score was 86.0 (interquartile range, 89.0-81.0; median Snellen equivalent, 20/20 [20/16-20/25]). Receipt of aflibercept was more likely in eyes with baseline central subfield thickness at least 300 µm (Zeiss-Stratus equivalent) vs less than 300 µm (45% vs 26%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.98 [95% CI, 1.26-3.13], continuous P = .005), moderately severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study retinopathy severity level 47) and above vs moderate nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (retinopathy severity level 43) and below (51% vs 27%; HR, 2.22 [95% CI, 1.42-3.47], ordinal P < .001), and among participants whose nonstudy eye received DME treatment within 4 months of randomization vs not (52% vs 25%; HR, 2.55 [95% CI, 1.64-3.99], P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Most eyes managed with initial observation plus aflibercept only if VA worsened maintained good vision at 2 years and did not require aflibercept for VA loss. However, the eyes in the trial were approximately twice as likely to receive aflibercept for VA loss if they had greater baseline central subfield thickness, worse diabetic retinopathy severity level, or a nonstudy eye receiving treatment for DME. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01909791.