Optimizing Anti-VEGF Treatment Outcomes for Patients with Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) drugs to ophthalmology has revolutionized the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). Despite this significant progress, gaps and challenges persist in the diagnosis of nAMD, initiation of treatment, and management of frequent intravitreal injections. Thus, nAMD remains a leading cause of blindness in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To present current knowledge, evidence, and expert perspectives on anti-VEGF therapies in nAMD to support managed care professionals and providers in decision making and collaborative strategies to overcome barriers to optimize anti-VEGF treatment outcomes among nAMD patients. SUMMARY: Three anti-VEGF therapies currently form the mainstay of treatment for nAMD, including 2 therapies approved by the FDA for treatment of nAMD (aflibercept and ranibizumab) and 1 therapy approved by the FDA for oncology indications and used off-label for treatment of nAMD (bevacizumab). In clinical trials, each of the 3 agents maintained visual acuity (VA) in approximately 90% or more of nAMD patients over 2 years. However, in long-term and real-world settings, significant gaps and challenges in diagnosis, treatment, and management pose barriers to achieving optimal outcomes for patients with nAMD. Many considerations, including individual patient characteristics, on-label versus off-label treatment, repackaging, and financial considerations, add to the complexity of nAMD decision making and management. Many factors may contribute to additional challenges leading to suboptimal long-term outcomes among nAMD patients, such as delays in diagnosis and/or treatment approval and initiation, individual patient response to different anti-VEGF therapies, lapses in physician regimentation of anti-VEGF injection and monitoring, and inadequate patient adherence to treatment and monitoring. These latter factors highlight the considerable logistical, emotional, and financial burdens of long-term, frequent intravitreal injections and the vital importance of personalized approaches to anti-VEGF treatment decision making and management for patients with nAMD. To address these challenges and reduce the number of yearly injections, studies have examined alternative dosing regimens, including extended fixed intervals, as needed, and treat-and-extend strategies in specific nAMD patient populations. New clinical evidence and insights into expert clinical practice discussed in this article can support managed care professionals in the key role they play in addressing challenges in nAMD treatment and management and optimizing patient outcomes through appropriate management of anti-VEGF treatment. DISCLOSURES: PRIME Education is an independent medical education company and has been an accredited provider of continuing education for 23 years. There is no fee for this activity as it is sponsored by PRIME through an educational grant from Regeneron. All authors contributed to the writing and reviewing of the article. Wykoff reports consultancies/research grants from Alcon Laboratories, Genentech/Roche, Clearside, and Iconic Therapeutics; consultancies/honoraria, research grants, and speaker fees from Allergan and Regeneron; research grants from Allegro, Apellis, Aura, NEI, NIH, Novartis, OHR Pharmaceuticals, Ophthotech, pSivida, Roche, Santen, SciFluor, Tyrogenex; and consultancies for Alimera Sciences, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, DORC, ONL Therapeutics, Thrombogenics, and Valeant. Clark reports advisory board work, consultancies, research grants, and speaker fees from Genentech/Roche and Regeneron and consultancy for Bayer. Brill reports consultancies for Aries Pharma, Avella, BaroNova, Braeburn Pharmaceuticals, Cardinal Health, Endogastric Solutions, GeneNews, Halt Medical, Lumendi, Medtronic, Monteris Medical, Natera, Phosphorus, Rebiotix, Seno Medical, UCB, Vermillion, Echosens, and HAP Innovations. Brill is a shareholder in EndoChoice, GeneNews, SonarMD, and SynerZ and reports advisory board work with Nestle Health Sciences, Indivior Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Bayer, and AstraZeneca. Nielson reports advisory board work/consultancy and research grants for Genentech/Roche; advisory board work and research grants from Regeneron; and research grants from Alcon and Ophthotech.

Assessing Patient and Provider Perceptions of Factors Associated with Patient Engagement in Asthma Care.

RATIONALE: National quality improvement initiatives emphasize building partnerships between patients and providers by promoting patient engagement through communication, shared decision-making, and self-care skills. Efforts to promote patient engagement are especially important for people with asthma. To cultivate effective partnerships in asthma care, patients and providers may benefit from understanding each other's values and perceptions regarding treatment goals, shared decision-making, as well as barriers to optimal care and outcomes. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a survey study to assess and compare asthma patient and provider perceptions of factors that are associated with effective partnerships and patient engagement. METHODS: Surveys were administered to adult patients with poorly controlled asthma (n = 328) and their physicians (n = 40) before they participated in collaborative learning sessions held in 40 allergy and immunology practices across the United States. The surveys included items for both groups to report their asthma-related treatment goals and perceptions about information needs and knowledge, shared decision-making, and barriers to medication adherence. RESULTS: Providers rated their knowledge about different aspects of their patients' health status (on a scale from 1 = poor knowledge to 5 = excellent knowledge). The lowest percentages of ratings 4 and 5 were for knowledge about patients' financial status (29%), adherence (42%), lifestyle (46%), and workplace situation (46%). The highest percentages of ratings 4 and 5 were for knowledge about patients' exacerbation history (75%), smoking status (76%), hospitalization history (79%), and comorbidities (79%). The percentages of patients and providers, respectively, who indicated the following treatment goals as important differed significantly: preventing exacerbations (62% and 83%; P = 0.01), preventing emergency department visits (44% and 76%; P < 0.01), and improving ability to perform daily activities (69% and 48%; P < 0.01). However, there were no significant differences in percentages of provider-reported goals and goals that providers estimated their patients would indicate as important. Disconnects were also observed for perceived barriers to asthma medication adherence. CONCLUSIONS: The observed disconnects in patient and provider perceptions may inform strategies for cultivating effective partnerships and patient engagement to improve care quality and outcomes for people with asthma.