Cognitive bias evaluation on the choice of treatment in common retinal disorders among retina specialists in 2023.

PURPOSE: The study aimed to discern the intent to treat with the therapeutic agents prescribed first or second line in the following eye conditions: neovascular age-related macular Degeneration (nAMD), diabetic macular edema (DME), retinal vein occlusion (RVO), and myopic maculopathy with choroidal neovascularization (MMNV). The study also aimed to distinguish the ophthalmologists' intended treatment for their patients from those that they would prescribe for themselves if they were affected by the above macular conditions. METHODS: The study utilized an online survey of 243 French ophthalmologists practicing medical retina, with males accounting for 54.3% of the participants. Data was obtained using a questionnaire that focused on the ophthalmologists' experience with various agents as well as their first and second line choices for nAMD, DME, RVO, and MMNV. RESULTS: The vast majority of French ophthalmologists (99%) had experience with the most widely used anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (anti-VEGFs); ranibizumab, bevacizumab, and aflibercept. Fewer than 8% reported experience with anti-VEGF drug reservoirs, biosimilars, or faricimab. The study findings also showed ranibizumab and aflibercept as the commonly prescribed first line choices for the above-mentioned ocular conditions. For the second line choice, the study showed that aflibercept and dexamethasone intravitreal implants were the most common across the four retinal conditions studied. The only difference in intent to treat for "patients" versus "yourself" was for biosimilars (0% to 0.8%, P=0.001). CONCLUSION: The findings regarding the first and second line choices for the mentioned ocular disorders were found to agree with the findings of published literature currently used in practice, with a tendency to prefer ranibizumab as first line therapy for neovascular disorders and aflibercept as first line therapy for macular edema. In addition, there were no differences between choices for first and second line therapy for patients vs. ophthalmologists.