Long-term Treatment Patterns for Diabetic Macular Edema: Up to 6-Year Follow-Up in the IRIS® Registry.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) intravitreal therapy (IVT) patterns and long-term visual outcomes among patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) in routine clinical practice in the United States. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of the American Academy of Ophthalmology's Intelligent Research in Sight (IRIS®) Registry.; Participants: Treatment-naïve patients with DME (no previous IVT in the past 12 months) initiating anti-VEGF IVT from 1/1/2015-3/31/2021. METHODS: Baseline characteristics, treatment patterns, and long-term visual acuity (VA) outcomes were reported for up to 6 years of follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes included the annualized number of injections, change in VA, and anti-VEGF agents. RESULTS: A total of 190,345 eyes met inclusion criteria. After 1 year of anti-VEGF IVT initiation, eyes received a mean of 3.9 (±2.8) injections and gained +3.2 (±16.4) letters of vision. Of the 1,236 eyes with year 6 data, eyes received a mean of 2.9 (±2.1) injections in year 6 and gained +0.5 (±19.7) letters from baseline. The number of injections decreased, and injection intervals increased year over year up to 6 years regardless of baseline VA initiation. The average injection interval was 10-weeks in year 1, then widened to 13.2 in year 2, before plateauing in years 3-6 (12.6, 12.3, 12.2, and 12.3 weeks respectively). Improvements in VA from baseline were greatest in eyes that received 5 or more injections each year. At the end of follow-up, eyes with good baseline vision (> 20/25) lost vision, whereas those with worse baseline vision (< 20/25) gained vision. Although 51.7% of patients with DME discontinued IVT after a mean of 6 months, 32.8% re-initiated anti-VEGF IVT. Worse VA outcomes were associated with patients of Hispanic ethnicity (-1.08 [-1.34, -0.83] compared to non-Hispanic), Medicaid insurance (-1.15 [-1.48, -0.81] compared to Commercial), and older age (-0.06 [-0.07, -0.05] each additional year) CONCLUSIONS: Patients with DME in the routine clinical settings receive fewer injections than those in clinical trials and fewer than recommended per the label of FDA approved anti-VEGF IVT.

The Association of Retinal Disease with Vision Impairment and Functional Status in Medicare Patients.

Background: The association of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), diabetic macular edema (DME), and retinal vein occlusion (RVO) with functional status in the general Medicare population are not well established. Objectives: This study examined patient-reported survey data linked with Medicare claims to describe the burden of these vision-threatening retinal diseases (VTRDs) among Medicare beneficiaries. Methods: Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey data linked with Medicare Fee-for-Service claims data from 2006 to 2018 were used in a nationally representative retrospective pooled cross-sectional population-based comparison study. Outcomes between community-dwelling beneficiaries with nAMD (n = 1228), DME (n = 101), or RVO (n = 251) were compared with community-dwelling beneficiaries without any VTRDs (n = 104 088), controlling for baseline demographic and clinical differences. Beneficiaries with a diagnosis of nAMD, DME, or RVO during the data year were included; those with other VTRDs were excluded. Outcomes included vision function and loss, overall functioning as assessed by difficulties with activities of daily living (ADLs) and instrumental ADLs (iADLs), anxiety/depression, falls, and fractures. Results: In patient cohorts with nAMD, DME, and RVO, approximately one-third (34.2%-38.3%) reported "a little trouble seeing" (vs 28.3% for controls), and 26%, 17%, and 9%, respectively, reported "a lot of trouble seeing/blindness" (vs 5% of controls). Difficulty walking and doing heavy housework were the most reported ADLs and iADLs, respectively. Compared with those without VTRDs, beneficiaries with nAMD had higher odds of diagnosed vision loss (odds ratio [OR], 5.39; 95% confidence interval, 4.06-7.16; P < .001) and difficulties with iADLs (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.80; P = .005); no differences were observed for DME or RVO vs control. After adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, poverty status, comorbidities, and other relevant covariates, nAMD, DME, and RVO were not significantly associated with anxiety/depression, falls, or fractures. Discussion: Patients with nAMD or DME were more likely to report severe visual impairment than those without VTRDs, although only those with nAMD were more likely to be diagnosed with vision loss. Conclusions: Patients with nAMD continue to experience more vision impairment and worse functional status compared with a similar population of Medicare beneficiaries despite availability of therapies like antivascular endothelial growth factor to treat retinal disease.

Impact of Anti-VEGF Treatment and Patient Characteristics on Vision Outcomes in Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration: Up to 6-Year Analysis of the AAO IRIS® Registry.

Purpose: To evaluate anti-VEGF treatment patterns and the influence of patient demographic and clinical characteristics on up to 6-year vision outcomes in neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Design: Retrospective, multicenter, noninterventional registry study with up to 6 years of follow-up. Participants: A cohort of 254 655 eyes (226 767 patients) with first anti-VEGF injection and at least 2 years of follow-up; 160 423 eyes had visual acuity (VA) data. Methods: Anonymized patient data were collected in the United States through the IRIS® Registry (Intelligent Research in Sight). Main Outcome Measures: Changes in VA from baseline; frequency of and gaps between intravitreal anti-VEGF injections; treatment discontinuations; switching anti-VEGF agents; and influence of baseline clinical and demographic characteristics on VA. Results: After a mean VA increase of 3.0 ETDRS letters at year 1, annual decreases led to a net loss from baseline of 4.6 letters after 6 years. Patients with longer follow-ups had better baseline and follow-up VA. From a mean of 7.2 in year 1 and 5.6 in year 2, mean injections plateaued between 4.2 to 4.6 in years 3 through 6. Treatment was discontinued in 38.8% of eyes and switched in 32.3%. When adjusting for differences at baseline, every additional injection resulted in a 0.68 letter improvement from baseline to year 1; thus, multiple injections in a year have the potential to be clinically meaningful. Older age, male gender, Medicaid insurance, and not being treated by a retina specialist were associated with a higher likelihood of vision loss at year 1. Of the patients, 58.5% lost ≥ 10 letters VA at least once during follow-up, with 14.5% of patients experiencing sustained poor vision after a median of 3.4 years. Conclusions: After modest mean VA improvement with intravitreal anti-VEGF injections at year 1, patients netted a loss of VA by year 6. Injection frequency decreased over time, and this was paired with a relatively high rate of discontinuation. Modeling suggested that more frequent injections were associated with better VA. Difficulty with continuous adherence to frequent intravitreal injections may have contributed to undertreatment resulting in less-than-optimal vision outcomes. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Maintenance of Vision Needed to Drive after Intravitreal Anti-VEGF Therapy in Patients with Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration and Diabetic Macular Edema.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy and visual acuity (VA)/driving vision maintenance over 4 years in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) or diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN: Retrospective, observational, clinical practice cohort study using data from the Vestrum Health database. PARTICIPANTS: Initial diagnosis (January 1, 2014 to June 30, 2019) of nAMD or DME and ≥ 1 year of treatment/follow-up history. The VA analysis required 4 years of treatment/follow-up history. For the driving vision maintenance analysis, patients required Snellen VA of 20/40 or better at baseline and for ≥ 6 months during year 1 after index intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment in the better-seeing eye. METHODS: A loss-of-driving event was the first clinic visit with VA worse than 20/40 sustained for ≥ 6 consecutive months. Kaplan-Meier analyses estimated the probability of maintaining driving vision over 4 years stratified by year-1 injection number. Cox proportional hazard models examined associations between baseline clinical characteristics and year-1 injection frequency and the risk of losing driving vision. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean change in VA over time and by baseline VA, driving vision maintenance probability over time and stratified by anti-VEGF injection frequency, and baseline factors predictive of driving vision maintenance. RESULTS: In year 1, the nAMD and DME cohorts gained 8.5 and 9.5 ETDRS letters, respectively. Between years 1 and 4, patients with nAMD and DME lost 6.6 and 2.7 ETDRS letters, respectively. The probability of maintaining driving vision over 4 years was 56% (nAMD) and 72% (DME); among patients who received 1 to 5, 6 to 7, and ≥ 8 anti-VEGF injections in year 1, corresponding probabilities were 50%, 56%, and 65% (nAMD; P < 0.001) and 63%, 72%, and 77% (DME; P < 0.001). Baseline factors associated with driving vision loss included older age, worse index VA, geographic atrophy (nAMD), and worsening baseline diabetic retinopathy (DME). CONCLUSIONS: Older age and worse index VA were risk factors for driving vision loss, whereas a greater year-1 injection number was associated with driving vision maintenance through year 4, supporting early initiation and frequent anti-VEGF injections for maintaining driving vision in nAMD or DME. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Risk of Blindness Among Patients With Diabetes and Newly Diagnosed Diabetic Retinopathy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between initial diabetic retinopathy (DR) severity/risk of blindness in patients with newly diagnosed DR/good vision in the U.S. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study evaluated adult patients with good vision (20/40 or better) and newly diagnosed DR between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2017 (index date) in the American Academy of Ophthalmology's Intelligent Research in Sight (IRIS) Registry. The primary exposure of interest was DR severity at index: mild nonproliferative DR (NPDR), moderate NPDR, severe NPDR, and proliferative DR (PDR). The main outcome measure was development of sustained blindness (SB), defined as study eyes with Snellen visual acuity readings of 20/200 or worse at two separate visits ≥3 months apart that did not improve beyond 20/100. RESULTS: Among 53,535 eligible eyes (mean follow-up 662.5 days), 678 (1.3%) eyes developed SB. Eyes with PDR at index represented 10.5% (5,629 of 53,535) of the analysis population but made up 26.5% (180 of 678) of eyes that developed SB. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that eyes with moderate NPDR, severe NPDR, and PDR at index were 2.6, 3.6, and 4.0 times more likely, respectively, to develop SB after 2 years of DR diagnosis versus eyes with mild DR at index. In a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for index characteristics/development of ocular conditions during follow-up, eyes with PDR had an increased risk of developing SB versus eyes with mild NPDR at index (hazard ratio 2.26 [95% CI 2.09-2.45]). CONCLUSIONS: In this longitudinal ophthalmologic registry population involving eyes with good vision, more advanced DR at first diagnosis was a significant risk factor for developing SB.

Five-Year Patterns of Diabetic Retinopathy Progression in US Clinical Practice.

PURPOSE: To characterize the natural course of diabetic retinopathy (DR) in contemporary clinical practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of US claims data collected between January 1, 2006, and April 30, 2017. Patients aged ≥18 years with continuous medical and prescription insurance coverage for 18 months before DR diagnosis (index date) and for a follow-up period of 5 years were included (N=14,490). The time and risk of progressing to severe nonproliferative DR (NPDR) or proliferative DR (PDR) and of developing diabetic macular edema (DME) were evaluated over 5 years in patients stratified by DR severity at initial diagnosis. RESULTS: The estimated probability of progressing to severe NPDR or PDR within 5 years of diagnosis was 17.6% for patients with moderate NPDR versus 5.8% for mild NPDR. The probability of developing DME within 5 years was 62.6%, 44.6%, and 28.4% for patients diagnosed with severe NPDR, moderate NPDR, and PDR, respectively, versus 15.6% for mild NPDR. Among those observed to progress, median time to severe NPDR or PDR was approximately 2.0 years in patients with moderate NPDR, whereas median time to DME was approximately 0.5 years in patients with severe NPDR, 1.3 years in moderate NPDR, and 1.6 years in PDR. Relative to mild NPDR, adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for progression to severe NPDR or PDR within 5 years were 3.12 (2.61-3.72) in patients with moderate NPDR, and for incident DME were 5.92 (5.13-6.82), 3.54 (3.22-3.91), and 1.96 (1.80-2.14) in patients with severe NPDR, moderate NPDR, and PDR, respectively. CONCLUSION: The risk of DR progression and DME over 5 years was highest among patients diagnosed with moderate and severe NPDR, respectively. Our findings reinforce the importance of close monitoring for these patients to avoid unobserved disease progression toward PDR and/or DME.

Real-World Injection Frequency and Cost of Ranibizumab and Aflibercept for the Treatment of Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration and Diabetic Macular Edema.

BACKGROUND: Ranibizumab and aflibercept are FDA-approved treatments for patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) and diabetic macular edema (DME). Although these agents differ in cost and labeled dosing, it is unclear whether these differences are reflected in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To compare the real-world frequency and cost of ranibizumab and aflibercept injections among treatment-naive and previously treated patients with nAMD and DME. METHODS: Claims data from MarketScan Research Databases were retrospectively reviewed to identify treatment-naive patients with nAMD who initiated intravitreal ranibizumab or aflibercept between January 1, 2014, and January 1, 2016, and treatment-naive patients with DME who initiated intravitreal ranibizumab or aflibercept between July 29, 2014, and July 1, 2016. Patients who switched to subsequent-line aflibercept or ranibizumab during the study period were eligible to enter previously treated subgroups. Multivariable regression models were derived to compare the per-patient frequency and cost of injections between ranibizumab- and aflibercept-treated patients with nAMD over 12 months (treatment-naive: n = 1,087 and n = 1,578; previously treated: n = 221 and n = 751) and 24 months (treatment-naive: n = 454 and n = 568; previously treated: n = 93 and n = 284) and in patients with DME over 6 months (treatment-naive: n = 507 and n = 681; previously treated: n = 53 and n = 223) and 12 months (treatment-naive: n = 326 and n = 382; previously treated: n = 24 and n = 122). RESULTS: After adjusting for patient demographics and clinical characteristics, per-patient injection frequency and cost were not significantly different between treatment-naive patients with nAMD who received ranibizumab versus aflibercept over 12 months (5.62 vs. 5.54; P = 0.52, and $11,351 vs. $10,702; P = 0.06, respectively) and 24 months (7.86 vs. 8.37; P = 0.16, and $16,286 vs. $16,666; P = 0.69, respectively). In previously treated patients with nAMD, injection frequency was significantly lower among ranibizumab- versus aflibercept-treated patients over 24 months (7.98 vs. 9.63; P = 0.03), whereas treatment costs were comparable over 12 months ($11,512 vs. $12,050; P = 0.44) and 24 months ($16,303 vs. $19,361; P = 0.13). In treatment-naive patients with DME, ranibizumab was associated with significantly fewer injections and lower costs than aflibercept over 6 months (2.60 vs. 2.92 and $3,379 vs. $5,925, respectively; both P < 0.001) and 12 months (3.33 vs. 3.87 and $4,136 vs. $7,656, respectively; both P < 0.001). Similar cost savings were observed among previously treated patients with DME who received ranibizumab over 6 months ($3,834 vs. $6,775 for aflibercept; P = 0.0001) and 12 months ($4,606 vs. $9,190; P = 0.02), despite nonsignificant differences in injection frequency during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Although the frequency and cost of ranibizumab and aflibercept injections were generally comparable among patients treated for nAMD, ranibizumab was associated with estimated per-patient-per-year cost savings of $3,500-$4,500 in those treated for DME. Most patients received fewer injections than any FDA-indicated dosing schedule, suggesting potential undertreatment that may result in suboptimal vision outcomes. DISCLOSURES: Study funding was provided by Genentech, a member of the Roche Group. The sponsor participated in the design of the study; collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation of the manuscript; and the decision to submit the article for publication. Kiss has been a consultant for and received honoraria from Alcon, Alimera, Allergan, BioMarin, Novartis, and Spark; has been on the advisory board for, a consultant for, received honoraria from, and held stock options in Adverum and Regenxbio; has been a consultant for, received honoraria from, and held stock/stock options in Fortress; has been on the advisory board for, a consultant and investigator for, and received grants and honoraria from Genentech and Regeneron; and has been on the advisory board for, a consultant for, and received grants and honoraria from Optos. Malangone-Monaco, Wilson, Varker, Stetsovsky, and Smith are employees of IBM Watson Health, which received funding from Genentech to undertake this study. Garmo is an employee of Genentech. Data reported in this manuscript were presented in part at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) Managed Care and Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting; April 23-26, 2018; Boston, MA.

Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab and aflibercept to treat diabetic macular edema from a US perspective: analysis of 2-year Protocol T data.

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.

Treatment Patterns, Overall Survival, and Total Healthcare Costs of Advanced Merkel Cell Carcinoma in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare and aggressive type of cancer with poor outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To describe treatment patterns, overall survival, and healthcare costs associated with advanced MCC (aMCC) using data from Medicare enrollees who received an aMCC diagnosis in the USA States between 2006 and 2013. METHODS: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data from 2006 to 2013 were used to describe treatment patterns, 1- and 5-year overall survival, and total healthcare costs for the periods 12 months before aMCC diagnosis and 4-12 months afterward in patients aged ≥ 65 years. RESULTS: We identified 257 patients with an aMCC diagnosis, of whom 51% had stage IIIb disease and 49% had stage IV. Within 4 months after diagnosis, 84% of patients (n = 216) received treatment; 45% (n = 115) received surgery, 48% (n = 124) radiation therapy, and 31% (n = 80) chemotherapy. Second-line chemotherapy was administered in 33% of patients (n = 26) receiving first-line chemotherapy. Median overall survival was 27 months in patients whose aMCC was diagnosed at stage IIIb and 12 months in patients whose aMCC was diagnosed at stage IV. Median total 12-month direct healthcare costs were US$48,006 (25th-75th percentile range = US$30,594-US$69,797) per patient. Total costs were highest in patients receiving chemotherapy, either alone or combined with radiation and/or surgery (US$52,854; 25th-75th percentile range = US$34,473-US$71,987). CONCLUSION: Most patients with aMCC received initial treatment, including surgery, radiation, and/or chemotherapy, and approximately one-third of those receiving chemotherapy received second-line chemotherapy. Total 12-month direct healthcare costs were highest in patients who received chemotherapy alone or combined with radiation and/or surgery. These poor survival results and high treatment costs highlight the need for effective new aMCC therapies.

Identifying and Prioritizing the Barriers and Facilitators to the Self-Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Community-Centered Approach.

OBJECTIVE: Self-management of type 2 diabetes mellitus is crucial to controlling the disease and preventing harm. Multiple factors have been identified in the literature as potential barriers and facilitators to self-management, but the magnitude and directionality of these factors are seldom studied. We sought to develop and test an instrument to identify and quantify the barriers and facilitators to self-management of type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A community-centered approach was used to design, implement, and interpret the results of a stated-preference study. All activities were guided by a diverse stakeholder board. Based on previously reported development work, a novel survey instrument consisting of 13 potential barriers and facilitators was pretested and piloted in our local community. Participants were asked to discuss, rate, and rank each factor. A simple self-explicated method was used to quantify the data and Z scores were used for hypothesis testing. RESULTS: In total, 25 patients with self-reported type 2 diabetes (64% female; 92% minorities) participated in the pretest and pilot. Time commitments (Z = -3.72), lack of active support groups (Z = -3.39) and other resources in the local community (Z = -2.96), and language/culture (Z = -2.69) were identified as barriers to self-management. Access to healthy food (Z = +5.68), personal understanding (Z = +4.81), and communication with healthcare providers (Z = +4.62) were identified as facilitators. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that factors impacting self-management can be quantified and categorized as barriers and facilitators. While further refinement to some factors and investigation into alternative prioritization methods is necessary, our stakeholder board endorsed moving this to a large nationally representative study to see how these factors vary across different people.