PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients with treatment-naïve diabetic macula oedema (DMO) treated with Aflibercept in routine clinic settings in ethnically diverse North West London (NWL) and compare to outcomes reported in the VIVID and VISTA clinical trials. METHODS: This was a retrospective multicentre interventional case series. Two hundred and seventy eyes of 221 treatment-naïve patients at three NWL hospitals initiated on Aflibercept and who had at least 12 months follow-up were included in the study. Visual acuity, central subfield thickness and macula volume were recorded at baseline, month 3, 6 and 12. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the NWL cohort and participants in the VIVID and VISTA trials at baseline including higher HbA1c and a higher proportion of eyes with proliferative diabetic retinopathy in the NWL cohort. The mean VA, mean CSFT and mean MV at baseline was 66.4 (± 14.6) letters, 417 (± 94) μm and 10.3 (± 1.9) mm3. The mean VA gain at 12 months was 4.0 (± 11.8) letters (p < 0.001); a total of 26% of eyes gained ≥ 10 letters, 15% of eyes gained ≥ 15 letters and 6% lost ≥15 letters. At 12-months, the mean reduction in CSFT was 108 (± 96) μm (p<0.001) and the mean reduction in MV was 1.05 (± 1.21) mm3 (p<0.001). An average of 6.2 (± 2.3) injections was given over 12 months. There was a significant association between functional and anatomical response category at 3 months and response category at 12 months (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of treatment with Aflibercept for patients in NWL was meaningfully lower than was reported in the VIVID and VISTA clinical trials. A high proportion of patients with good visual acuity at baseline, poorer glycaemic control, worse diabetic retinopathy and under-treatment likely contributed to lower functional and anatomical outcomes.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients with treatment-naïve diabetic macula oedema (DMO) treated with Aflibercept in routine clinic settings in ethnically diverse North West London (NWL) and compare to outcomes reported in the VIVID and VISTA clinical trials. METHODS: This was a retrospective multicentre interventional case series. Two hundred and seventy eyes of 221 treatment-naïve patients at three NWL hospitals initiated on Aflibercept and who had at least 12 months follow-up were included in the study. Visual acuity, central subfield thickness and macula volume were recorded at baseline, month 3, 6 and 12. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the NWL cohort and participants in the VIVID and VISTA trials at baseline including higher HbA1c and a higher proportion of eyes with proliferative diabetic retinopathy in the NWL cohort. The mean VA, mean CSFT and mean MV at baseline was 66.4 (± 14.6) letters, 417 (± 94) μm and 10.3 (± 1.9) mm3. The mean VA gain at 12 months was 4.0 (± 11.8) letters (p < 0.001); a total of 26% of eyes gained ≥ 10 letters, 15% of eyes gained ≥ 15 letters and 6% lost ≥15 letters. At 12-months, the mean reduction in CSFT was 108 (± 96) μm (p<0.001) and the mean reduction in MV was 1.05 (± 1.21) mm3 (p<0.001). An average of 6.2 (± 2.3) injections was given over 12 months. There was a significant association between functional and anatomical response category at 3 months and response category at 12 months (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of treatment with Aflibercept for patients in NWL was meaningfully lower than was reported in the VIVID and VISTA clinical trials. A high proportion of patients with good visual acuity at baseline, poorer glycaemic control, worse diabetic retinopathy and under-treatment likely contributed to lower functional and anatomical outcomes.
Authors: Charles C Wykoff; William C Ou; Rahul N Khurana; David M Brown; W Lloyd Clark; David S Boyer Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2017-08-16 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Victor H Gonzalez; Joanna Campbell; Nancy M Holekamp; Szilárd Kiss; Anat Loewenstein; Albert J Augustin; Julia Ma; Allen C Ho; Vaishali Patel; Scott M Whitcup; Pravin U Dugel Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2016-09-17 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Gui-shuang Ying; Jiayan Huang; Maureen G Maguire; Glenn J Jaffe; Juan E Grunwald; Cynthia Toth; Ebenezer Daniel; Michael Klein; Dante Pieramici; John Wells; Daniel F Martin Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-10-06 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Jean-François Korobelnik; Diana V Do; Ursula Schmidt-Erfurth; David S Boyer; Frank G Holz; Jeffrey S Heier; Edoardo Midena; Peter K Kaiser; Hiroko Terasaki; Dennis M Marcus; Quan D Nguyen; Glenn J Jaffe; Jason S Slakter; Christian Simader; Yuhwen Soo; Thomas Schmelter; George D Yancopoulos; Neil Stahl; Robert Vitti; Alyson J Berliner; Oliver Zeitz; Carola Metzig; David M Brown Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2014-07-08 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Yiling J Cheng; Alka M Kanaya; Maria Rosario G Araneta; Sharon H Saydah; Henry S Kahn; Edward W Gregg; Wilfred Y Fujimoto; Giuseppina Imperatore Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-12-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Carl W Baker; Adam R Glassman; Wesley T Beaulieu; Andrew N Antoszyk; David J Browning; Kakarla V Chalam; Sandeep Grover; Lee M Jampol; Chirag D Jhaveri; Michele Melia; Cynthia R Stockdale; Daniel F Martin; Jennifer K Sun Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-05-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Pravin U Dugel; Joanna H Campbell; Szilárd Kiss; Anat Loewenstein; Vanessa Shih; Xiaoshu Xu; Nancy M Holekamp; Albert J Augustin; Allen C Ho; Victor H Gonzalez; Scott M Whitcup Journal: Retina Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 4.256