Understanding Loss to Follow-Up in AMD Patients Receiving VEGF Inhibitor Therapy: Associated Factors and Underlying Reasons.

BACKGROUND: In patients with wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD), loss to follow-up (LTFU) leads to unplanned interruptions in therapy and the risk of visual loss. METHODS: This retrospective and prospective case-control cohort study compared AMD patients with (LTFU YES) and without (LTFU NO) LTFU during anti-VEGF treatment over 12 years. LTFU was defined as missing any treatment or monitoring visits, or not scheduling follow-ups for six months. RESULTS: Significant differences between LTFU NO (n = 298) and LTFU YES (n = 174) groups were age, treatment phase, baseline and final best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), type of anti-VEGF drug, treatment switch, commuting distance, and escort during commuting. A multivariate logistic regression analysis identified the need for an escort during the commuting and treatment phase as the only significant difference. The four most common reasons for LTFU were general health worsening (21.8%), patient-missed appointments (16.7%), COVID-19-related issues (14.9%), and treatment dissatisfaction (8.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The factors associated with increased LTFU rates were older age, inactive treatment phase, lower baseline and final BCVA, bevacizumab treatment, monotherapy, longer travelling distance, and commuting with an escort. According to the multivariate logistic regression analysis, only the escort during the commuting and treatment phases was significant. These findings could direct research to explore social support in treatment adherence and highlight the importance of treatment phases in practice.

European Unmet Needs in the Management of Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration in Daily Practice: Data from the Fight Retinal Blindness! Registry.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the proportion, predictors, and outcomes of patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) treated with a high burden of VEGF inhibitor intravitreal (IVT) injections after 2 years in routine clinical practice. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of data from a prospectively designed observational outcomes registry, the Fight Retinal Blindness! Project, of patients treated in European centers. PARTICIPANTS: Treatment-naïve eyes (1 eye per patient) starting VEGF inhibitors for nAMD from January 2017 to March 2020 with 24 months of follow-up. We analyzed the following 3 treatment-burden groups defined by the mean interval of the 3 closest injections to the 24-month visit: (1) those with a high-treatment burden had injection intervals ≤ 42 days, (2) those with a low-treatment burden had injection intervals between 43 and 83 days; and (3) those with tolerable treatment burden had injection intervals between 84 and 365 days. METHODS: Multinomial regression was used to evaluate baseline risk predictors of patients requiring a high-treatment burden. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportion of patients that experienced a high-treatment burden at 2 years and its predictors. RESULTS: We identified 2038 eligible patients completing 2 years of treatment (2038/3943 patients [60%]) with a median (quartile 1, quartile 3) of 13 (10, 17) injections. The proportion of patients with a high-treatment burden was 25% (516 patients) at 2 years. Younger patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96-0.99; P < 0.01) were more likely to have high-treatment burden, whereas eyes with type 3 choroidal neovascular lesions at baseline were significantly less likely (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13-0.52; P < 0.01). Regarding type of fluid, patients with subretinal fluid only at baseline (OR, 3.85; 95% CI, 1.34-11.01; P = 0.01) and persistent active intraretinal (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.18-2.06; P < 0.01) or subretinal fluid only (OR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.52-3.21; P < 0.01) after the loading phase had a higher risk of high treatment burden at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: High treatment burden is a common issue in routine clinical practice in Europe, with a quarter of patients requiring injections of conventional VEGF inhibitors every 6 weeks at 2 years and 40% discontinuing treatment within 2 years. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Hemiretinal vein occlusion 12-month outcomes are unique with vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors: data from the Fight Retinal Blindness! Registry.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To describe baseline characteristics and 12-month outcomes with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors of treatment-naïve hemiretinal vein occlusion (HRVO) compared with branch (BRVO) and central (CRVO) variants in routine clinical care. METHODS: A database observational study recruited 79 HRVO eyes, 590 BRVO eyes and 344 CRVO eyes that initiated therapy over 10 years. The primary outcome was mean change in visual acuity (VA-letters read on a logarithm of minimal angle of resolution chart) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included mean change in central subfield thickness (CST), injections and visits. RESULTS: At baseline, mean VA in HRVO (53.8) was similar to CRVO (51.9; p=0.40) but lower than BRVO (59.4; p=0.009). HRVO eyes improved to match BRVO eyes from soon after treatment started through 12 months. Mean change in VA was greater in HRVO (+16.4) than both BRVO (+11.4; p=0.006) and CRVO (+8.5; p<0.001). Mean change in CST in HRVO (-231 µm) was similar to CRVO (-259 µm; p=0.33) but greater than BRVO eyes (-151 µm; p=0.003). The groups had similar median burdens of eight injections and nine visits. CONCLUSIONS: HRVO generally experienced the greatest mean change in VA of the three types of RVO when treated with VEGF inhibitors, ending with similar 12-month VA and CST to BRVO despite starting closer to CRVO. Inclusion of HRVO in BRVO or CRVO cohorts of clinical trials would be expected to proportionally inflate and skew the visual and anatomic outcomes.

Two 11-Years Periods Statistics and Trends of Enucleation and Evisceration.

PURPOSE: The indications for evisceration and enucleation are still evolving and controversial. The study aims to describe trends of enucleation versus evisceration in one center. METHODS: In period 1998-2019 were 353 patients were included in the study. Statistical results and Chi-square test for pair-wise comparisons for the statistical significance in comparing two subgroups (years periods 1998-2008 and 2009-2019) per category have been evaluated. RESULTS: The enucleation was performed in 306 patients, and the evisceration was performed in 47 patients. In 221 patients with the tumor exclusively enucleation was indicated. For the operation technique, the authors got a chi-square value of 0.027, and the associated P value is at 0.8695, then the number of evisceration and enucleation in subgroups have not confirmed independency. For the tumor presence, the authors got a chi-square value of 5.4, and the associated P value is at 0.02, then the number of validated/nonvalidated tumor presence in subgroups confirmed independency. CONCLUSIONS: The performed enucleations had 98% cases uveal melanoma, 1% of cases of another type of malignancy (lymphoma non-Hodgkin type), and 1% cases with benign tumor. Enucleation is also today most frequently due to malignant intraocular tumors, whereas evisceration if most frequently for the phthisis eye after a trauma or a previous intraocular surgery. In our study in 22 years interval also in the second period, there was an increased trend of enucleation due to intraocular malignancy. It can have many reasons, especially, that patients are sent to oncology centers late in the advanced stage of tumor.