Elsevier

Ophthalmology

Volume 126, Issue 3, March 2019, Pages 407-413
Ophthalmology

Original article
Outcomes of Eyes Lost to Follow-up with Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy That Received Panretinal Photocoagulation versus Intravitreal Anti–Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor

Presented at: Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology Annual Meeting, April 2018, Honolulu, Hawaii; American Society of Retina Specialist Annual Meeting, July 2018, Vancouver, Canada; Retina Society Annual Meeting, September 2018, San Francisco, California; and American Academy of Ophthalmology Annual Meeting, October 2018, Chicago, Illinois.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.07.027Get rights and content

Purpose

To compare anatomic and functional outcomes in eyes with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) that were lost to follow-up (LTFU) for more than 6 months after treatment with either intravitreal injection (IVI) of anti–vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents or panretinal photocoagulation (PRP).

Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Participants

Fifty-nine patients who were LTFU immediately after treatment for more than 6 months between September 2013 and September 2016.

Methods

Patients with eyes receiving either intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment or PRP with the next follow-up visit occurring more than 6 months after treatment were identified. Visual acuity (VA) and anatomic outcomes at the visit before being LTFU, the return visit, the 6-month visit after return, the 12-month visit after return, and the final visit were gathered and compared between the 2 treatment groups.

Main Outcomes Measures

Visual acuity and anatomic outcomes.

Results

Seventy-six eyes of 59 patients were included in the study, of which 30 received IVI with anti-VEGF and 46 received PRP. In the anti-VEGF group, mean VA worsened significantly when comparing the visit before being LTFU (0.43±0.38 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR]) with the return visit (0.97±0.80 logMAR; P = 0.001) as well as with the final visit (0.92±0.94 logMAR; P = 0.01). In the PRP group, mean VA worsened significantly when comparing the visit before being LTFU (0.42±0.34 logMAR) with the return visit (0.62±0.64 logMAR; P = 0.03). However, no significant difference was observed at the final visit (0.46±0.47 logMAR; P = 0.38). There was a significantly greater number of eyes with tractional retinal detachment in the IVI group compared with the PRP group at the final visit (10 vs. 1, respectively; P = 0.005). There was a significantly greater incidence of neovascularization of the iris in the IVI arm compared with the PRP arm at the final visit (4 vs. 0, respectively; P = 0.02).

Conclusions

Eyes with PDR that received only intravitreal anti-VEGF demonstrated worse anatomic and functional outcomes after being LTFU compared with eyes that received PRP. Given the potential sequelae of being LTFU, the choice of treatment for PDR must be considered carefully.

Abbreviations and Acronyms

DME
diabetic macular edema
ETDRS
Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study
IVI
intravitreal injection
logMAR
logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution
LTFU
lost to follow-up
NVG
neovascular glaucoma
PDR
proliferative diabetic retinopathy
PRP
panretinal photocoagulation
SD
standard deviation
TRD
tractional retinal detachment
VA
visual acuity
VEGF
vascular endothelial growth factor
VH
vitreous hemorrhage

Cited by (0)

Financial Disclosure(s): The author(s) have made the following disclosure(s): J.H.U.: Consultant – UCB (Brussels, Belgium); Financial support – Roche/Genentech (San Francisco, CA), Santen (Osaka, Japan), Ophthotech (New York, NY).

C.D.R.: Consultant – Genentech (San Francisco, CA), Alcon (Fort Worth, TX), Allergan (Dublin Ireland), Iconic (San Francisco, Iconic), Notal Vision (Prince William County, VA); Financial support – Roche/Genentech (San Francisco, CA), Regeneron (Tarrytown, NY), Allergan (Dublin, Ireland), Novartis (Basel, Switzerland), Iconic (San Francisco, Iconic).

J.I.M.: Consultant – Genentech (San Francisco, CA); Lecturer – Regeneron (Tarrytown, NY).

S.J.G.: Consultant – Deciphera (Waltham, MA), Santen (Osaka, Japan); Financial support – Aerpio (Cincinnati, OH), Allergan (Dublin, Ireland), Eyegate (Waltham, MA).

HUMAN SUBJECTS: Human subjects were included in this study The human ethics committees at Wills Eye Hospital approved the study. All research complied with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability (HIPAA) Act of 1996 and adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. The need for informed consent was waived.

No animal subjects were included in this study.

Author Contributions:

Conception and design: Obeid, Su, Gao, Fineman, Regillo, Hsu

Analysis and interpretation: Obeid, Su, Patel, Uhr, Borkar, Gao, Fineman, Regillo, Maguire, Garg, Hsu

Data collection: Obeid, Su, Patel, Uhr, Borkar, Maguire, Garg, Hsu

Obtained funding: N/A

Overall responsibility: Obeid, Su, Patel, Uhr, Borkar, Gao, Fineman, Regillo, Maguire, Garg, Hsu

View Abstract