Individualized treat-and-extend regime for optimization of real-world vision outcome and improved patients' persistence.


Journal

BMC ophthalmology
ISSN: 1471-2415
Titre abrégé: BMC Ophthalmol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967802

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
30 Mar 2020
Historique:
received: 20 06 2019
accepted: 20 03 2020
entrez: 2 4 2020
pubmed: 2 4 2020
medline: 7 2 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Intravitreal injections are a mandatory treatment for macular edema due to nAMD, DME and RVO. These chronic diseases usually need chronic treatment using intravitreal injections with anti-VEGF agents. Thus, many trials were performed to define the best treatment interval using pro re nata regimes (PRN), fixed regimes or treat-and-extend regimes (TE). However, real-world studies reveal a high rate of losing patients within a 2-year interval of treatment observation causing worse results. In this study we analyzed retrospectively 2 years of real-world experience with an individualized treat-and-extend injection scheme. Since 2015 our treatment scheme for intravitreal injections has been switched from PRN to TE. Out of 102 patients 59 completed a follow up time of 2 years. Every patient received visual acuity testing, SD-OCT and slit lamp examination prior to every injection. At each visit an injection was performed and the treatment interval was adjusted mainly on SD-OCT based morphologic changes by increasing or reducing in 2-week steps. Individual changes of the treatment protocol by face-to-face communication between physician and patient were possible. After 1 year of treatment visual acuity gain in nAMD was 7.4 ± 2.2 ETDRS letters (n = 34; injection frequency: 7.4 ± 0.4) respectively 6.1 ± 4.7 in DME (n = 9; injection frequency: 8.4 ± 1.1) and 9.7 ± 4.5 in RVO (n = 16; injection frequency: 7.6 ± 0.5). After 2 years of treatment results were as following: nAMD: visual acuity gain 6.9 ± 2.1 (injection frequency: 12.6 ± 0.7); DME: 11.1 ± 5.1 (injection frequency: 14.0 ± 1.0); RVO: 7.5 ± 5.0 (injection frequency: 11.2 ± 0.9). Planned treatment exit after 2 year was achieved in 29.4% of patients in nAMD (0% after 1 year); 0% in DME (0% after 1 year); and 31.3% in RVO (0% after 1 year). Patients' persistence was 94.1% during the follow-up. Using a consequent and individualized TE regime in daily practice may lead to a high patients' persistence and visual acuity gains nearly comparable to those of large prospective clinical trials. Crucial factors are face-to-face communication with the patient as well as a stringent management regime. At this time TE may be the only instrument for proactive therapy which should therefore be regarded as a first-line tool in daily practice.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Intravitreal injections are a mandatory treatment for macular edema due to nAMD, DME and RVO. These chronic diseases usually need chronic treatment using intravitreal injections with anti-VEGF agents. Thus, many trials were performed to define the best treatment interval using pro re nata regimes (PRN), fixed regimes or treat-and-extend regimes (TE). However, real-world studies reveal a high rate of losing patients within a 2-year interval of treatment observation causing worse results. In this study we analyzed retrospectively 2 years of real-world experience with an individualized treat-and-extend injection scheme.
METHODS METHODS
Since 2015 our treatment scheme for intravitreal injections has been switched from PRN to TE. Out of 102 patients 59 completed a follow up time of 2 years. Every patient received visual acuity testing, SD-OCT and slit lamp examination prior to every injection. At each visit an injection was performed and the treatment interval was adjusted mainly on SD-OCT based morphologic changes by increasing or reducing in 2-week steps. Individual changes of the treatment protocol by face-to-face communication between physician and patient were possible.
RESULTS RESULTS
After 1 year of treatment visual acuity gain in nAMD was 7.4 ± 2.2 ETDRS letters (n = 34; injection frequency: 7.4 ± 0.4) respectively 6.1 ± 4.7 in DME (n = 9; injection frequency: 8.4 ± 1.1) and 9.7 ± 4.5 in RVO (n = 16; injection frequency: 7.6 ± 0.5). After 2 years of treatment results were as following: nAMD: visual acuity gain 6.9 ± 2.1 (injection frequency: 12.6 ± 0.7); DME: 11.1 ± 5.1 (injection frequency: 14.0 ± 1.0); RVO: 7.5 ± 5.0 (injection frequency: 11.2 ± 0.9). Planned treatment exit after 2 year was achieved in 29.4% of patients in nAMD (0% after 1 year); 0% in DME (0% after 1 year); and 31.3% in RVO (0% after 1 year). Patients' persistence was 94.1% during the follow-up.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
Using a consequent and individualized TE regime in daily practice may lead to a high patients' persistence and visual acuity gains nearly comparable to those of large prospective clinical trials. Crucial factors are face-to-face communication with the patient as well as a stringent management regime. At this time TE may be the only instrument for proactive therapy which should therefore be regarded as a first-line tool in daily practice.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32228517
doi: 10.1186/s12886-020-01397-x
pii: 10.1186/s12886-020-01397-x
pmc: PMC7104494
doi:

Substances chimiques

Angiogenesis Inhibitors 0
Recombinant Fusion Proteins 0
VEGFA protein, human 0
Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A 0
aflibercept 15C2VL427D
Bevacizumab 2S9ZZM9Q9V
Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor EC 2.7.10.1
Ranibizumab ZL1R02VT79

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

122

Subventions

Organisme : Volkswagen Foundation
ID : Niedersachsen Vorab

Références

Ophthalmology. 2010 Jun;117(6):1124-1133.e1
pubmed: 20381871
Diabetes Ther. 2018 Dec;9(6):2271-2289
pubmed: 30288700
PLoS One. 2013 Oct 25;8(10):e78538
pubmed: 24205253
Arch Ophthalmol. 1998 May;116(5):653-8
pubmed: 9596502
Ophthalmology. 2016 Jun;123(6):1351-9
pubmed: 26935357
Ophthalmology. 2014 Jan;121(1):202-208
pubmed: 24084497
Br J Ophthalmol. 2015 Feb;99(2):220-6
pubmed: 25193672
Acta Ophthalmol. 2013 Sep;91(6):526-30
pubmed: 22697404
Ophthalmology. 2011 Apr;118(4):663-71
pubmed: 21459217
Ophthalmology. 2014 Nov;121(11):2247-54
pubmed: 25012934
Ophthalmology. 2010 Jun;117(6):1102-1112.e1
pubmed: 20398941
Ophthalmology. 2011 Apr;118(4):615-25
pubmed: 21459215
N Engl J Med. 2006 Oct 5;355(14):1419-31
pubmed: 17021318
Ophthalmology. 2009 Sep;116(9):1731-9
pubmed: 19643495
Ophthalmology. 2016 Jul;123(7):1521-9
pubmed: 27157149
Ophthalmol Retina. 2018 Jun;2(6):539-549
pubmed: 31047606
Acta Ophthalmol. 2015 Aug;93(5):e400-2
pubmed: 25619682
Ophthalmology. 2014 Jan;121(1):193-201
pubmed: 24084500
Acta Ophthalmol. 2013 Sep;91(6):540-6
pubmed: 23171290
Ophthalmology. 2014 Dec;121(12):2432-42
pubmed: 25060610
Ophthalmology. 2012 Apr;119(4):789-801
pubmed: 22330964
Br J Ophthalmol. 2016 Jun;100(6):787-95
pubmed: 26453639
Ophthalmology. 2018 Jan;125(1):57-65
pubmed: 28893454
Ophthalmology. 2012 Dec;119(12):2537-48
pubmed: 23084240
Am J Ophthalmol. 2013 Mar;155(3):429-437.e7
pubmed: 23218699
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013 Mar;251(3):697-704
pubmed: 22733165
Ophthalmology. 2014 Jan;121(1):209-219
pubmed: 24112944
Ophthalmology. 2014 Oct;121(10):1904-14
pubmed: 24907062
Diabetes Care. 2010 Nov;33(11):2399-405
pubmed: 20980427
N Engl J Med. 2006 Oct 5;355(14):1432-44
pubmed: 17021319
Ophthalmologica. 2016;236(4):201-206
pubmed: 27907924
Ophthalmology. 2011 May;118(5):831-9
pubmed: 21146229
Ophthalmology. 2012 Jun;119(6):1175-83
pubmed: 22306121
Clin Ophthalmol. 2017 Aug 23;11:1533-1540
pubmed: 28883712
Ophthalmology. 2012 Apr;119(4):802-9
pubmed: 22301066
Ophthalmology. 2007 Feb;114(2):246-52
pubmed: 17270674

Auteurs

Ingo Volkmann (I)

Hannover Medical School, University Eye Hospital, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany. volkmann.ingo@mh-hannover.de.

Katharina Knoll (K)

Hannover Medical School, University Eye Hospital, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.

Mareile Wiezorrek (M)

Hannover Medical School, University Eye Hospital, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.

Oliver Greb (O)

Hannover Medical School, University Eye Hospital, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.

Carsten Framme (C)

Hannover Medical School, University Eye Hospital, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH