The Effect of Delay in Care among Patients Requiring Intravitreal Injections.

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To examine the effect of delay in care on visual acuity (VA) in patients requiring intravitreal injections (IVIs). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients 18 years of age or older with diabetic macular edema (DME), proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR), or both; neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD); or retinal vein occlusion (RVO) scheduled to see a retina specialist during the mandated lockdown period (March 14 - May 4, 2020 [the coronavirus disease 2019 period]) and who had received an IVI in the 12 weeks prior. METHODS: Chart review was performed and demographics, diagnoses, procedures, and VA were recorded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: VA in patients who completed, canceled, and no-showed for the scheduled visit. RESULTS: Of the 1041 total patients, 620 (60%) completed the scheduled visit, whereas 376 (36%) canceled and 45 (4%) no-showed. In patients who missed the visit, the average delay in care was 5.34 weeks. In those who missed a visit, VA was assessed at the subsequent visit. Patients who canceled a visit were older, and patients who no-showed had lower baseline vision (mean Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters ± standard error [SE] no-show, 53.27 ± 3.21 letters; canceled, 60.79 ± 1.11 letters; and completed, 62.81 ± 0.84 letters; P = 0.0101) and were more likely to have DME, PDR, or both (no-show, 13 patients [29%]; canceled, 56 patients [16%]; completed, 81 patients [13%]; P = 0.0456). Patients who missed a visit lost vision as compared with the patients who completed one (no-show, -5.024 ± 1.88 letters; canceled, -1.633 ± 0.65 letters; completed, 0.373 ± 0.50 letters; P = 0.0028). Patients with DME, PDR, or both (-3.48 ± 1.95 letters vs. 2.71 ± 1.75 letters; P = 0.0203), with RVO (-3.22 ± 1.41 letters vs. 0.95 ± 1.23 letters; P = 0.0230), and, to lesser degree, with nAMD (-1.23 ± 0.70 letters vs. -0.24 ± 0.56 letters; P = 0.2679) lost vision compared with patients with same diagnoses who completed the scheduled visit. CONCLUSIONS: In patients requiring IVIs, a delay in care of 5.34 weeks resulted in vision loss. It was seen in all patients, but was more prominent in patients with DME, PDR or both and RVO. Further studies are necessary to examine whether these vision changes persist over a longer duration.