BACKGROUND: The ORCA module of the non-interventional OCEAN study investigated the use of retinal imaging diagnostics in the clinical treatment of patients undergoing vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor treatment as part of routine clinical care. This article analyzes the agreement between the diagnosis documented by the treating ophthalmologist and the evaluation of reading centers at baseline as well as the effect on the response to treatment during the course. METHODS: A total of 396 patients (age 75.4 years) were enrolled in which ranibizumab treatment was indicated by the treating ophthalmologist due to either diabetic macular edema (DME), neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nvAMD) or retinal venous occlusion (RVO). Over a period of 24 months, patient and examination data, treatments and interpretation of retinal imaging data by the treating ophthalmologist were systematically recorded. Furthermore, retinal imaging data were also evaluated by three reading centers. RESULTS: In 338 out of 396 (85.4%) study eyes, the baseline diagnosis of the treating ophthalmologist was confirmed by the reading centers (DME 87.5%, nvAMD 82.3%, RVO 94.9%). In 17 of the remaining 58 eyes with a discrepant diagnosis, there was at least a consensus with respect to the indications for VEGF inhibitor therapy. The differential diagnoses included a variety of different retinal diseases. During follow-up of up to 3 months, eyes with a consistent diagnosis showed a clear increase in visual acuity (6.4 versus 2.7 letters, p = 0.05) and greater decrease in central retinal thickness (-112.3 versus -24.4 μm, p < 0.0001). DISCUSSION: The initial treatment decision for anti-VEGF therapy with consideration of the differential diagnoses can be challenging. Accurate evaluation of the clinical and imaging findings along with appropriate expertise appear to be important. The observation of superior initial response in eyes with a consensus of the diagnosis at baseline underlines the relevance of an adequate initial assessment for a successful treatment outcome.
BACKGROUND: The ORCA module of the non-interventional OCEAN study investigated the use of retinal imaging diagnostics in the clinical treatment of patients undergoing vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor treatment as part of routine clinical care. This article analyzes the agreement between the diagnosis documented by the treating ophthalmologist and the evaluation of reading centers at baseline as well as the effect on the response to treatment during the course. METHODS: A total of 396 patients (age 75.4 years) were enrolled in which ranibizumab treatment was indicated by the treating ophthalmologist due to either diabetic macular edema (DME), neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nvAMD) or retinal venous occlusion (RVO). Over a period of 24 months, patient and examination data, treatments and interpretation of retinal imaging data by the treating ophthalmologist were systematically recorded. Furthermore, retinal imaging data were also evaluated by three reading centers. RESULTS: In 338 out of 396 (85.4%) study eyes, the baseline diagnosis of the treating ophthalmologist was confirmed by the reading centers (DME 87.5%, nvAMD 82.3%, RVO 94.9%). In 17 of the remaining 58 eyes with a discrepant diagnosis, there was at least a consensus with respect to the indications for VEGF inhibitor therapy. The differential diagnoses included a variety of different retinal diseases. During follow-up of up to 3 months, eyes with a consistent diagnosis showed a clear increase in visual acuity (6.4 versus 2.7 letters, p = 0.05) and greater decrease in central retinal thickness (-112.3 versus -24.4 μm, p < 0.0001). DISCUSSION: The initial treatment decision for anti-VEGF therapy with consideration of the differential diagnoses can be challenging. Accurate evaluation of the clinical and imaging findings along with appropriate expertise appear to be important. The observation of superior initial response in eyes with a consensus of the diagnosis at baseline underlines the relevance of an adequate initial assessment for a successful treatment outcome.
Authors: Martin Gliem; Robert P Finger; Rolf Fimmers; Christian K Brinkmann; Frank G Holz; Peter Charbel Issa Journal: Retina Date: 2013 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Robert P Finger; Peter Wiedemann; Francisca Blumhagen; Karin Pohl; Frank G Holz Journal: Acta Ophthalmol Date: 2012-11-22 Impact factor: 3.761
Authors: Philip J Rosenfeld; David M Brown; Jeffrey S Heier; David S Boyer; Peter K Kaiser; Carol Y Chung; Robert Y Kim Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-10-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Nicole T M Saksens; Monika Fleckenstein; Steffen Schmitz-Valckenberg; Frank G Holz; Anneke I den Hollander; Jan E E Keunen; Camiel J F Boon; Carel B Hoyng Journal: Prog Retin Eye Res Date: 2013-11-28 Impact factor: 21.198
Authors: Frank G Holz; Ramin Tadayoni; Stephen Beatty; Alan Berger; Matteo G Cereda; Rafael Cortez; Carel B Hoyng; Philip Hykin; Giovanni Staurenghi; Stephanie Heldner; Timon Bogumil; Theresa Heah; Sobha Sivaprasad Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2014-09-05 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: J Stasch-Bouws; S M Eller-Woywod; S Schmickler; J Inderfurth; P Hoffmann; C Ohlmeyer; B Kammering; D Pauleikhoff Journal: Ophthalmologe Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 1.059
Authors: Matthias Gutfleisch; Oliver Ester; Sökmen Aydin; Martin Quassowski; Georg Spital; Albrecht Lommatzsch; Kai Rothaus; Adam Michael Dubis; Daniel Pauleikhoff Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2022-01-22 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Sandra Liakopoulos; Georg Spital; Christian K Brinkmann; Tina Schick; Focke Ziemssen; Jessica Voegeler; Mirja Koch; Bernd Kirchhof; Frank G Holz; Daniel Pauleikhoff; Steffen Schmitz-Valckenberg Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2020-02-17 Impact factor: 4.638