Morphological changes in intraretinal microvascular abnormalities after anti-VEGF therapy visualized on optical coherence tomography angiography.
Anti-VEGF
DME
Ischemia
OCTA
PDR
Retina
Journal
Eye and vision (London, England)
ISSN: 2326-0254
Titre abrégé: Eye Vis (Lond)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101664982
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
07
11
2019
accepted:
09
05
2020
entrez:
10
6
2020
pubmed:
10
6
2020
medline:
10
6
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To examine the baseline morphological characteristics and alterations in intraretinal microvascular abnormalities (IRMAs) in response to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment, documented by optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) in diabetic eyes. In this retrospective study, IRMAs were evaluated with multimodal imaging (fundus photography, fluorescein angiography, OCTA) in treatment-naïve diabetic eyes before and after anti-VEGF treatment for diabetic macular edema (DME) and/or proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) and compared to diabetic control eyes with similar diabetic retinopathy (DR) severity that did not receive anti-VEGF therapy. The morphological characteristics of IRMAs on enface OCTA imaging were graded by masked readers at baseline, then after anti-VEGF therapy in treated eyes or after observation in control eyes. Characterization of interval changes in an IRMA were based on the following parameters: branching, vessel caliber and area of adjacent capillary non-perfusion. The treated group included 45 IRMA foci from 15 eyes of 11 patients, while the control group included 27 IRMA foci from 15 eyes of 14 patients. Following anti-VEGF treatment, enface OCTA demonstrated that 14 foci of IRMA (31%) demonstrated regression with normalization of appearance of the capillary bed, 20 IRMAs (44%) remained unchanged, six IRMAs (13%) progressed with enlargement or development of new IRMAs and five IRMAs (11%) demonstrated complete obliteration defined as IRMA disappearance with advancing capillary drop-out. In the control group, 17 IRMA (63%) remained stable, 8 IRMAs (29.6%) progressed and 2 experienced total obliteration (7.4%). The difference in rank order between the two groups was statistically significant ( In eyes with DR status post anti-VEGF therapy, foci of IRMAs have a variable course demonstrating one of four possible outcomes: regression, stability, progression or complete obliteration. In contrast, none of the untreated control diabetic eyes demonstrated regression of IRMAs, consistent with known progression of DR severity in high risk eyes. Morphologic evaluation of IRMAs with OCTA may help to monitor changes in retinal blood flow as well as the response to anti-VEGF treatment.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To examine the baseline morphological characteristics and alterations in intraretinal microvascular abnormalities (IRMAs) in response to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment, documented by optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) in diabetic eyes.
METHODS
METHODS
In this retrospective study, IRMAs were evaluated with multimodal imaging (fundus photography, fluorescein angiography, OCTA) in treatment-naïve diabetic eyes before and after anti-VEGF treatment for diabetic macular edema (DME) and/or proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) and compared to diabetic control eyes with similar diabetic retinopathy (DR) severity that did not receive anti-VEGF therapy. The morphological characteristics of IRMAs on enface OCTA imaging were graded by masked readers at baseline, then after anti-VEGF therapy in treated eyes or after observation in control eyes. Characterization of interval changes in an IRMA were based on the following parameters: branching, vessel caliber and area of adjacent capillary non-perfusion.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The treated group included 45 IRMA foci from 15 eyes of 11 patients, while the control group included 27 IRMA foci from 15 eyes of 14 patients. Following anti-VEGF treatment, enface OCTA demonstrated that 14 foci of IRMA (31%) demonstrated regression with normalization of appearance of the capillary bed, 20 IRMAs (44%) remained unchanged, six IRMAs (13%) progressed with enlargement or development of new IRMAs and five IRMAs (11%) demonstrated complete obliteration defined as IRMA disappearance with advancing capillary drop-out. In the control group, 17 IRMA (63%) remained stable, 8 IRMAs (29.6%) progressed and 2 experienced total obliteration (7.4%). The difference in rank order between the two groups was statistically significant (
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In eyes with DR status post anti-VEGF therapy, foci of IRMAs have a variable course demonstrating one of four possible outcomes: regression, stability, progression or complete obliteration. In contrast, none of the untreated control diabetic eyes demonstrated regression of IRMAs, consistent with known progression of DR severity in high risk eyes. Morphologic evaluation of IRMAs with OCTA may help to monitor changes in retinal blood flow as well as the response to anti-VEGF treatment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32514410
doi: 10.1186/s40662-020-00195-2
pii: 195
pmc: PMC7262762
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
29Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests relevant to this study, and their detailed financial disclosure: OS: None; NM: None; CB: Consultant, Genentech, Speaker, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Novartis; AI: Speaker, Topcon Medical Systems, Inc., Nidek Medical Products, Inc.; KL: None; EK: none; SM: None; A.YA: None; MA: None; AW: None; JD: Consultant and Financial Support, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Optovue, Inc., Novartis Pharma AG., and Roche; NW: Financial Support, Macula Vision Research Foundation, Topcon Medical Systems, Inc., Nidek Medical Products, Inc., and Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Consultant, Optovue, Inc., Regeneron, and Genentech.
Références
Am J Ophthalmol. 1998 Dec;126(6):791-7
pubmed: 9860002
Ophthalmology. 1991 May;98(5 Suppl):823-33
pubmed: 2062515
Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2015 Sep;46(8):796-805
pubmed: 26431294
Clin Ophthalmol. 2017 Jan 21;11:193-200
pubmed: 28176934
Ophthalmology. 1987 Jul;94(7):741-6
pubmed: 2889177
Eye (Lond). 1993;7 ( Pt 2):250-3
pubmed: 7607344
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2018 Nov - Dec;41(9):807-813
pubmed: 30755332
Ophthalmology. 2017 Apr;124(4):431-439
pubmed: 28161147
Ophthalmology. 1991 May;98(5 Suppl):786-806
pubmed: 2062513
Br J Ophthalmol. 1988 Sep;72(9):660-5
pubmed: 3179253
Br J Ophthalmol. 1986 Feb;70(2):114-7
pubmed: 2418866
Ophthalmology. 2003 Sep;110(9):1677-82
pubmed: 13129861
Arch Ophthalmol. 1979 Apr;97(4):654-5
pubmed: 426679
Br J Ophthalmol. 2012 Feb;96(2):179-84
pubmed: 22250209
Expert Rev Med Devices. 2018 Dec;15(12):875-882
pubmed: 30460869
Retina. 2019 Jan;39(1):79-87
pubmed: 29135803
Retina. 2015 Nov;35(11):2371-6
pubmed: 26308529
JAMA. 2015 Nov 24;314(20):2137-2146
pubmed: 26565927
Br J Ophthalmol. 1953 May;37(5):282-92
pubmed: 13042023
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019 Feb;7(2):140-149
pubmed: 30005958
Ophthalmology. 2012 Apr;119(4):789-801
pubmed: 22330964
Popul Health Manag. 2017 Feb;20(1):6-12
pubmed: 27124621
Am J Ophthalmol Case Rep. 2018 Jan 04;9:41-44
pubmed: 29468217
Ophthalmology. 2018 Oct;125(10):1568-1574
pubmed: 29752001
Ophthalmology. 1991 May;98(5 Suppl):741-56
pubmed: 2062510
Retina. 2008 Jul-Aug;28(7):957-63
pubmed: 18698297