Search

Significance: Our retinal image-based deep learning (DL) cardiac biological age (BioAge) model could facilitate fast, accurate, noninvasive screening for cardiovascular disease (CVD) in novel community settings and thus improve outcome with those with limited access to health care services., Purpose: This study aimed to determine whether the results issued by our DL cardiac BioAge model are consistent with the known trends of CVD risk and the biomarker leukocyte telomere length (LTL), in a cohort of individuals from the UK Biobank., Methods: A cross-sectional cohort study was conducted using those individuals in the UK Biobank who had LTL data. These individuals were divided by sex, ranked by LTL, and then grouped into deciles. The retinal images were then presented to the DL model, and individual's cardiac BioAge was determined. Individuals within each LTL decile were then ranked by cardiac BioAge, and the mean of the CVD risk biomarkers in the top and bottom quartiles was compared. The relationship between an individual's cardiac BioAge, the CVD biomarkers, and LTL was determined using traditional correlation statistics., Results: The DL cardiac BioAge model was able to accurately stratify individuals by the traditional CVD risk biomarkers, and for both males and females, those issued with a cardiac BioAge in the top quartile of their chronological peer group had a significantly higher mean systolic blood pressure, hemoglobin A1c, and 10-year Pooled Cohort Equation CVD risk scores compared with those individuals in the bottom quartile (p<0.001). Cardiac BioAge was associated with LTL shortening for both males and females (males: -0.22, r2 = 0.04; females: -0.18, r2 = 0.03)., Conclusions: In this cross-sectional cohort study, increasing CVD risk whether assessed by traditional biomarkers, CVD risk scoring, or our DL cardiac BioAge, CVD risk model, was inversely related to LTL. At a population level, our data support the growing body of evidence that suggests LTL shortening is a surrogate marker for increasing CVD risk and that this risk can be captured by our novel DL cardiac BioAge model., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Ehsan Vaghefi and David Squirrell are employees of Toku Eyes, which paid for the cost of the research., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Optometry.)

Purpose: To evaluate the 3-year outcomes of VEGF inhibitors in the treatment of cystoid macular edema due to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) in an international multicenter cohort of eyes., Design: Multicenter, international, BRVO database study., Subjects: Seven hundred forty-seven patients (760 eyes) undergoing intravitreal therapy for BRVO for 3 years in a multicenter international setting., Methods: Demographics, visual acuity (VA) in logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution letters, central subfield thickness (CST), treatments, number of injections, and visits data was collected using a validated web-based tool., Main Outcome Measures: Visual acuity gain at 3 years in logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution letters. Secondary outcome measures included anatomical results, treatment pattern, and percentage of completers. A subgroup analysis by study drug was conducted for clinical outcomes., Results: Mean adjusted VA change was +11 letters (95% confidence interval 9-13), mean adjusted change in CST was -176 μm (-193, -159). Median number of injections/visits was 16 of 24 at 3 years of follow-up. Most eyes received VEGF inhibitors exclusively (89%, n = 677) and as a monotherapy in 71% (n = 538). Few eyes were switched to steroids (11%, n = 83). Suspensions in treatment >180 days occurred in 26% of study eyes. Aflibercept showed greater CST reductions (-147 vs. -128 vs. -114 μm; P < 0.001) and significantly lower switching rates (14% vs. 38% vs. 33%; P < 0.001) compared with ranibizumab and bevacizumab, respectively., Conclusions: This international study of 3-year BRVO outcomes after starting treatment with VEGF inhibitors found adequate visual and anatomical results in routine clinical care. Visual outcomes were similar among the different initiating VEGF inhibitors, although eyes starting with aflibercept had better anatomical outcomes and a lower switching rate., Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: To compare 1-year outcomes of eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME) treated in routine clinical practice based on the proportion of visits where intravitreal VEGF inhibitor injections were delivered., Design: Cohort study., Participants: There were 2288 treatment-naive eyes with DME starting intravitreal VEGF inhibitor therapy from October 31, 2015 to October 31, 2021 from the Fight Retinal Blindness! international outcomes registry., Methods: Eyes were grouped according to the proportion of visits at which an injection was received, Group A with less than the median of 67% (n = 1172) versus Group B with greater than the median (n = 1116)., Main Outcome Measures: Mean visual acuity (VA) change after 12 months of treatment., Results: The mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) VA change after 12 months of treatment was 3.6 (2.8-4.4) letters for eyes in Group A versus 5.2 (4.4-5.9) letters for eyes in Group B (P = 0.005). The mean (95% CI) central subfield thickness (CST) change was -69 (-76 to -61) μm and -85 (-92 to -78) μm for eyes in Group A versus Group B, respectively (P = 0.002). A moderate positive correlation was observed between the number of injections received over 12 months of treatment and the change in VA (P < 0.001). Additionally, eyes that received more injections had a moderately greater CST reduction., Conclusions: This registry analysis found that overall VA and anatomic outcomes tended to be better in DME eyes treated at a greater proportion of visits in the first year of intravitreal VEGF inhibitor therapy., Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article., (Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Ophthalmology. All rights reserved.)