Hemiretinal vein occlusion 12-month outcomes are unique with vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors: data from the Fight Retinal Blindness! Registry

BACKGROUND/AIMS To describe baseline characteristics and 12-month outcomes with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors of treatment-naïve hemiretinal vein occlusion (HRVO) compared with branch (BRVO) and central (CRVO) variants in routine clinical care. METHODS A database observational study recruited 79 HRVO eyes, 590 BRVO eyes and 344 CRVO eyes that initiated therapy over 10 years. The primary outcome was mean change in visual acuity (VA-letters read on a logarithm of minimal angle of resolution chart) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included mean change in central subfield thickness (CST), injections and visits. RESULTS At baseline, mean VA in HRVO (53.8) was similar to CRVO (51.9; p=0.40) but lower than BRVO (59.4; p=0.009). HRVO eyes improved to match BRVO eyes from soon after treatment started through 12 months. Mean change in VA was greater in HRVO (+16.4) than both BRVO (+11.4; p=0.006) and CRVO (+8.5; p<0.001). Mean change in CST in HRVO (-231 µm) was similar to CRVO (-259 µm; p=0.33) but greater than BRVO eyes (-151 µm; p=0.003). The groups had similar median burdens of eight injections and nine visits. CONCLUSIONS HRVO generally experienced the greatest mean change in VA of the three types of RVO when treated with VEGF inhibitors, ending with similar 12-month VA and CST to BRVO despite starting closer to CRVO. Inclusion of HRVO in BRVO or CRVO cohorts of clinical trials would be expected to proportionally inflate and skew the visual and anatomic outcomes

Understanding Loss to Follow-Up in AMD Patients Receiving VEGF Inhibitor Therapy: Associated Factors and Underlying Reasons

Background: In patients with wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD), loss to follow-up (LTFU) leads to unplanned interruptions in therapy and the risk of visual loss. Methods: This retrospective and prospective case–control cohort study compared AMD patients with (LTFU YES) and without (LTFU NO) LTFU during anti-VEGF treatment over 12 years. LTFU was defined as missing any treatment or monitoring visits, or not scheduling follow-ups for six months. Results: Significant differences between LTFU NO (n = 298) and LTFU YES (n = 174) groups were age, treatment phase, baseline and final best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), type of anti-VEGF drug, treatment switch, commuting distance, and escort during commuting. A multivariate logistic regression analysis identified the need for an escort during the commuting and treatment phase as the only significant difference. The four most common reasons for LTFU were general health worsening (21.8%), patient-missed appointments (16.7%), COVID-19-related issues (14.9%), and treatment dissatisfaction (8.6%). Conclusions: The factors associated with increased LTFU rates were older age, inactive treatment phase, lower baseline and final BCVA, bevacizumab treatment, monotherapy, longer travelling distance, and commuting with an escort. According to the multivariate logistic regression analysis, only the escort during the commuting and treatment phases was significant. These findings could direct research to explore social support in treatment adherence and highlight the importance of treatment phases in practice