Search

Background: Retinal diseases, including wet or dry age-related macular degeneration, diabetic macular edema, and diabetic retinopathy (DR), are underdiagnosed and undertreated in the United States. Clinical trials support the effectiveness of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapies for several retinal conditions, but real-world data suggest underuse by clinicians, resulting in patients experiencing poorer visual outcomes over time. Continuing education (CE) has demonstrated effectiveness at changing practice behaviors, but more research is needed to understand whether CE can help address diagnostic and treatment gaps. Methods: This test and control matched pair analysis examined pre-/post-test knowledge of retinal diseases and guideline-based screening and intervention among 10,786 healthcare practitioners (i.e., retina specialists, ophthalmologists, optometrists, primary care providers, diabetes educators, pharmacists/managed care specialists, and other healthcare providers, such as registered nurses, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) who participated in a modular, interactive CE initiative. An additional medical claims analysis provided data on practice change, evaluating use of VEGF-A inhibitors among retina specialist and ophthalmologist learners (n = 7,827) pre-/post-education, compared to a matched control group of non-learners. Outcomes were pre-/post-test change in knowledge/competence and clinical change in application of anti-VEGF therapy, as identified by the medical claims analysis. Results: Learners significantly improved knowledge/competence scores on early identification and treatment, identifying patients who could benefit from anti-VEGF agents, using guideline-recommended care, recognizing the importance of screening and referral, and recognizing the importance of early detection and care for DR (all P-values = 0.003 to 0.004). Compared with matched controls, learners' incremental total injections for anti-VEGF agents for retinal conditions increased more after the CE intervention (P < 0.001); specifically, there were 18,513 more (new) anti-VEGF injections prescribed versus non-learners (P < 0.001). Conclusions: This modular, interactive, immersive CE initiative resulted in significant knowledge/competence gains among retinal disease care providers and changes in practice-related treatment behaviors (i.e., appropriate consideration and greater incorporation of guideline-recommended anti-VEGF therapies) among participating ophthalmologists and retina specialists compared to matched controls. Future studies will utilize medical claims data to show longitudinal impact of this CE initiative on treatment behavior among specialists and impact on diagnosis and referral rates among optometrists and primary care providers who participate in future programming. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate whether the choice of glucose-lowering agent for type 2 diabetes (T2D) impacts a patient's risk of developing sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy complications., Design: Retrospective observational database study emulating an idealized target trial., Subjects: Adult (≥21 years) enrollees in United States commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicare fee-for-service plans from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2021, with T2D and moderate cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk who had no baseline history of advanced diabetic retinal complications, initiating treatment with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA), sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), and sulfonylureas., Methods: We used inverse propensity scoring weights in time-to-event Cox proportional hazards models., Main Outcome Measures: Treatment for either diabetic macular edema or proliferative diabetic retinopathy., Results: The final study population included 371 698 patients, of whom 42 265 initiated GLP-1 RA, 53 476 initiated SGLT2i, 78 444 initiated DPP-4i, and 197 513 initiated sulfonylurea agents. The probability of treatment for sight-threatening retinopathy within 2 and 5 years was 0.3% and 0.7% for patients initiating SGLT2i (median follow-up 830 [interquartile range (IQR), 343-1401] days), 0.4% and 1.0% for GLP-1 RA (669 [IQR, 256-1167] days), 0.4% and 0.9% for DPP-4i (1263 [IQR, 688-1938] days), and 0.5% and 1.2% for sulfonylurea (1223 [IQR, 662-1879] days). Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors use was associated with a lower risk of treatment for sight-threatening retinopathy compared with all other medication classes, including GLP-1 RA (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-0.97), DPP-4i (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97), and sulfonylurea (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50-0.74). Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists use was associated with a similar risk of sight-threatening retinopathy as DPP-4i (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.85-1.35) and sulfonylurea (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67-1.03)., Conclusions: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors use was associated with a lower risk of sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy among adults with T2D and moderate CVD risk compared with other glucose-lowering therapies. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists do not confer increased retinal risk, relative to DPP-4i and sulfonylurea medications., 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. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: By inhibiting xanthine oxidase, subsequent inflammatory cytokine release and the resulting breakdown of the blood-retina barrier, allopurinol may limit the inflammation-driving diabetic macular edema (DME)., Methods: We examined the relationship between allopurinol and DME among type 2 diabetic United States veterans using a retrospective cohort study.  We used propensity score matching and Cox hazard models to estimate the risk of DME., Results: Propensity score-matched Cox models revealed allopurinol was associated with a 24.6% reduction in the risk of DME (HR = 0.754; 95% CI = (0.684-0.831))., Conclusion: Allopurinol could reduce the risk of DME, one of the major causes of visual disturbance among diabetic patients. Further research into the effects of allopurinol on DME is warranted.

Purpose: Animal studies have suggested that Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents (ESAs) may increase vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-related retinopathies, but this effect is unclear in humans. This study evaluates the risk of vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy (VTDR), defined as either diabetic macular edema (DME) or proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR), in patients exposed to an ESA., Methods: Two analyses were performed. First, a retrospective matched-cohort study was designed using a de-identified commercial and Medicare Advantage medical claims database. The ESA cohort of non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy patients who were new users of an ESA from 2000 to 2022 was matched to controls up to a 3:1 ratio. Exclusion criteria included less than 2 years in the plan, history of VTDR or history of other retinopathy. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression with inverse proportional treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to assess the hazard of developing VTDR, DME, and PDR. The second analysis was a self-controlled case series (SCCS) evaluating the incidence rate ratios (IRR) of VTDR during 30-day periods before and after initiating an ESA., Results: After inclusion of 1502 ESA-exposed patients compared with 2656 controls, IPTW-adjusted hazard ratios found the ESA cohort had an increased hazard of progressing to VTDR (HR = 3.0 95%CI:2.3-3.8; p  < .001) and DME (HR = 3.4,95%CI:2.6-4.4, p  < .001), but not PDR (HR = 1.0,95%CI:0.5-2.3, p  = .95). Similar results were found within the SCCS which demonstrated higher IRRs for VTDR (IRRs = 1.09-1.18; p  < .001) and DME (IRRs = 1.16-1.18; p  < .001), but not increased IRRs in PDR (IRR = 0.92-0.97, p  = .02-0.39)., Conclusion: ESAs are associated with higher risks for VTDR and DME, but not PDR. Those studying ESAs as adjunctive therapy for DR should be cautious of possible unintended effects.

Purpose: To evaluate whether sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors affect progression of non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) compared to standard of care., Methods: A retrospective cohort study compared subjects enrolled in a commercial and Medicare Advantage medical claims database who filled a prescription for a SGLT2 inhibitor between 2013 and 2020 to unexposed controls, matched up to a 1:3 ratio. Patients were excluded if they were enrolled for less than 2 years in the plan, had no prior ophthalmologic exam, had no diagnosis of NPDR, had a diagnosis of diabetic macular edema (DME) or proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR), had received treatment for vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy (VTDR), or were younger than 18 years. To balance covariates of interest between the cohorts, an inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) propensity score for SGLT2 inhibitor exposure was used. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression modeling was employed to assess the hazard ratio (HR) for VTDR, PDR, or DME relative to SGLT2 exposure., Results: A total of 6065 patients who initiated an SGLT2 inhibitor were matched to 12,890 controls. There were 734 (12%), 657 (10.8%), and 72 (1.18%) cases of VTDR, DME, and PDR, respectively, in the SGLT2 inhibitor cohort. Conversely, there were 1479 (11.4%), 1331 (10.3%), and 128 (0.99%) cases of VTDR, DME, and PDR, respectively, among controls. After IPTW, Cox regression analysis showed no difference in hazard for VTDR, PDR, or DME in the SGLT2 inhibitor-exposed cohort relative to the unexposed group [HR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.15 for VTDR; HR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.14 for DME; HR = 1.22, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.67 for PDR]., Conclusion: Exposure to SGLT2 inhibitor therapy was not associated with progression of NPDR compared to patients receiving other diabetic therapies., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: Diabetic macular edema (DME), the leading cause of vision loss among patients with diabetes mellitus, disproportionately affects Black and Hispanic patients. Currently, non-White racial and ethnic subgroups are frequently underrepresented in clinical trials, limiting the application of results to the most pertinent patient populations. Thus, we aimed to characterize the trajectory of racial reporting as well as changes and disparities in racial and ethnic distribution among participants of DME clinical trials., Design: This is a cross-sectional retrospective study., Subjects: Patients enrolled in United States (US)-based clinical trials for DME., Methods: We examined the racial and ethnic demographic distribution of participants in clinical trials related to DME across a 20-year period from 2002 to 2021. Clinical trials were screened from ClinicalTrials.gov for DME, US trial location, study completion, and > 50 patient enrollment. Descriptive statistics, proportions, odds ratios (ORs), and chi-square tests were reported and compared with 2021 US Census demographic data and diagnosed patients with diabetes demographic data., Main Outcome Measures: Change in racial reporting and race/ethnicity across 2 decades and comparison of racial/ethnic distribution with 2021 US Census demographics and diagnosed patients with diabetes., Results: There was an increase in race reporting from January 2002 to December 2011 (8 trials [40%]) versus January 2012 to December 2021 (20 trials [87%]; OR, 10.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.21-45.16; P = 0.0032). Across the 2 decades, the proportion of Asian patients enrolled increased from 2.4% to 8.0% (OR, 3.47; 95% CI, 2.64-4.56; P < 0.0001). Similarly, the proportion of enrolled Hispanic patients increased from 13.4% to 19.5% (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.37-1.78; P < 0.0001). Compared with diabetes prevalence, many minority groups are underrepresented in the total enrollment of DME clinical trial patients (Black [z = -18.51, P < 0.001]; Asian [z = -5.11, P < 0.0001]; Hispanic [chi-square = 274.7, df = 1, P < 0.0001])., Conclusions: In the past 2 decades, there has been a trend of increased racial reporting and minority patient enrollment in DME clinical trials. However, Black, Asian, and Hispanic patients remain significantly underrepresented among the DME clinical trial patient population based on diabetes prevalence., Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article., (Copyright © 2023 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Diabetic macular edema, a manifestation of diabetic retinopathy that impairs central vision, affects approximately 750,000 people in the United States and is a leading cause of vision loss. The increasing prevalence of diabetes worldwide highlights the importance of diabetic macular edema as a global health issue. Objective: The aim of this study is to compare the clinical effects and complications of intravitreal injection of Ranibizumab and aflibercept as anti-VGEFs for treatment of patients with diabetic macular edema. Patients and methods: This cross-sectional comparative study involved 40 eyes of 32 patients approved to have diabetic macular edema. All subjects had age and sex matched and they are collected from the Ophthalmology Department, Al-Agoza Police Hospital and Sayed Galal Hospital at the period of March 2017 to March 2019. Results: Comparison between both groups I and II as regard UCVA and BCVA shows a statistically non-significant difference (P>0.05). Visual acuities before and after 6 months of injection in both groups were compared and showed a statistically significant difference as regard VA change (P < 0.05) in Ranibizumab group (I) and highly statistically significant difference (P <0.01) in Aflibercept group (II). Although the effect of both groups in treatment seems to be comparable, significance of aflibercept was superior to ranibizumab as it showed more success in treatment of DME. Conclusion: Our findings suggest a possible benefit of aflibercept over ranibizumab for treating DME. This study equally suggests better efficacy of aflibercept compared to ranibizumab, in patients with worse levels of initial visual acuity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Estimates of diabetic eye disease in American Indian and Alaska Natives (AI/AN) vary over time, region, and methods. This article reports recent prevalence of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and diabetic macular edema (DME) in AI/AN served by the Indian Health Services' (IHS) teleophthalmology program, as identified using ultrawide field imaging (UWFI)., Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of 2016-2019 clinical data (n = 53,900). UWF images were acquired by certified imagers using a validated protocol, and graded by licensed, certified optometrists supervised by an ophthalmologist. Graders evaluated the extent/severity of retinal lesions in comparison to standard photographs. DR lesions predominantly in any peripheral field were considered "predominantly peripheral lesions" (PPL). The analyses calculated prevalence of any DR, any DME, DR and DME severity, sight-threatening disease, and PPL., Results: Patients averaged 56 years of age with a 68 mmol/mol A1c and 55% had had diabetes for 5+ years. Prevalence of any DR, any DME, and sight-threatening disease was 28.6%, 3.0%, and 3.0%. In patients with mild nonproliferative DR, PPL was seen in 25.3%. PPL suggested a more severe level of DR in 8.7% of patients. DR increased with age. DME decreased with age. Males and patients in the Nashville IHS area had more diabetic eye disease., Conclusion: AI/AN have a high burden of diabetes and its complications. The IHS is resource-constrained, making accurate disease estimates necessary for resource allocation and budget justifications to Congress. These data update the estimates of diabetic eye disease in Indian Country and suggest that UWFI identifies early DR.

Subjects in diabetic macular edema clinical trials in the United States are disproportionately White and male, compared with the population undergoing treatment for diabetic macular edema., (Copyright © 2022 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To validate the generalizability of a deep learning system (DLS) that detects diabetic macular edema (DME) from 2-dimensional color fundus photographs (CFP), for which the reference standard for retinal thickness and fluid presence is derived from 3-dimensional OCT., Design: Retrospective validation of a DLS across international datasets., Participants: Paired CFP and OCT of patients from diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening programs or retina clinics. The DLS was developed using data sets from Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States and validated using 3060 unique eyes from 1582 patients across screening populations in Australia, India, and Thailand. The DLS was separately validated in 698 eyes from 537 screened patients in the United Kingdom with mild DR and suspicion of DME based on CFP., Methods: The DLS was trained using DME labels from OCT. The presence of DME was based on retinal thickening or intraretinal fluid. The DLS's performance was compared with expert grades of maculopathy and to a previous proof-of-concept version of the DLS. We further simulated the integration of the current DLS into an algorithm trained to detect DR from CFP., Main Outcome Measures: The superiority of specificity and noninferiority of sensitivity of the DLS for the detection of center-involving DME, using device-specific thresholds, compared with experts., Results: The primary analysis in a combined data set spanning Australia, India, and Thailand showed the DLS had 80% specificity and 81% sensitivity, compared with expert graders, who had 59% specificity and 70% sensitivity. Relative to human experts, the DLS had significantly higher specificity (P = 0.008) and noninferior sensitivity (P < 0.001). In the data set from the United Kingdom, the DLS had a specificity of 80% (P < 0.001 for specificity of >50%) and a sensitivity of 100% (P = 0.02 for sensitivity of > 90%)., Conclusions: The DLS can generalize to multiple international populations with an accuracy exceeding that of experts. The clinical value of this DLS to reduce false-positive referrals, thus decreasing the burden on specialist eye care, warrants a prospective evaluation., (Copyright © 2022 American Academy of Ophthalmology. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To review the evidence on the safety and efficacy of current anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and intravitreal corticosteroid pharmacotherapies for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME)., Methods: Literature searches were last conducted on May 13, 2020, in the PubMed database with no date restrictions and limited to articles published in English. The combined searches yielded 230 citations, of which 108 were reviewed in full text. Of these, 31 were deemed appropriate for inclusion in this assessment and were assigned a level of evidence rating by the panel methodologist., Results: Only the 21 articles with level I evidence were included in this assessment. Seventeen articles provided level I evidence for 1 or more anti-VEGF pharmacotherapies, including ranibizumab (14), aflibercept (5), and bevacizumab (2) alone or in combination with other treatments for DME. Level I evidence was identified in 7 articles on intravitreal corticosteroid therapy for treatment of DME: triamcinolone (1), dexamethasone (4), and fluocinolone acetonide (2)., Conclusions: Review of the available literature indicates that intravitreal injections of anti-VEGF agents and corticosteroids are efficacious treatments for DME. Elevated intraocular pressure and cataract progression are important potential complications of corticosteroid therapy. Further evidence is required to assess the comparative efficacy of these therapies. Given the limited high-quality comparative efficacy data, choice of therapy must be individualized for each patient and broad therapeutic access for patients is critical to maximize outcomes., (Copyright © 2021 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: This study characterizes the association of risk factors including race, ethnicity, and insurance status with presenting visual acuity (VA) and diabetic retinopathy (DR) severity in patients initiating treatment with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy for diabetic macular edema (DME)., Design: Retrospective, cross-sectional study., Participants: The Academy Intelligent Research in Sight (IRIS) Registry database was queried for patients who initiated anti-VEGF injection treatment for DME between 2012 and 2020 (n = 203 707)., Methods: Multivariate regression analyses were conducted to understand how race, ethnicity, insurance status, and geographic location were associated with baseline features., Main Outcome Measures: Visual acuity and DR severity., Results: Patients on Medicare and private insurance presented with higher baseline VA compared with patients on Medicaid (median of 2.31 and 4.17 greater Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Scale [ETDRS] letters, respectively P < 0.01). White and non-Hispanic patients presented with better VA compared with their counterparts (median of 0.68 and 2.53 greater ETDRS letters, respectively; P < 0.01). Black and Hispanic patients presented with a worse baseline DR severity compared with White and non-Hispanic patients (odds ratio, 1.23 and 1.71, respectively; P < 0.01)., Conclusions: There are ethnic and insurance-based disparities in VA and disease severity upon initiation of anti-VEGF therapy for DME treatment. Public health initiatives could improve timely initiation of treatment., (Copyright © 2021 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Protocol T (NCT01627249) was a head-to-head study conducted by the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network that compared intravitreal aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME). A cost-effectiveness analysis accompanying the 1-year data of Protocol T revealed that aflibercept was not cost-effective vs ranibizumab for all patients, but could have been cost-effective in certain patient sub-groups if the 1-year results were extrapolated out to 10 years. The present study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of US Food and Drug Administration-approved anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents (ranibizumab, aflibercept) for treatment of DME using the 2-year data from Protocol T. Methods: Costs of aflibercept 2.0 mg or ranibizumab 0.3 mg, visual acuity (VA)-related medical costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were simulated for eight VA health states. Treatment, adverse event management, and VA-related healthcare resource costs (2016 US dollars) were based on Medicare reimbursement and published literature. VA-related health utilities were determined using a published algorithm. Patients were stratified by baseline VA: 20/40 or better; 20/50 or worse. Results: Total 2-year costs were higher, and QALYs similar, for aflibercept vs ranibizumab in the full cohort ($44,423 vs $34,529; 1.476 vs 1.466), 20/40 or better VA sub-group ($40,854 vs $31,897; 1.517 vs 1.519), and 20/50 or worse VA sub-group ($48,214 vs $37,246; 1.433 vs 1.412), respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in the full cohort and 20/50 or worse VA sub-group were $986,159/QALY and $523,377/QALY, respectively. These decreased to $711,301 and $246,978 when analyses were extrapolated to 10 years. Limitations: Key potential limitations include the fact that VA was the only QALY parameter analyzed and the uncertainty surrounding the role of better- and worse-seeing eye VA in overall functional impairment. Conclusions: This analysis suggests that aflibercept is not cost-effective vs ranibizumab for patients with DME, regardless of baseline vision.