» Articles » PMID: 36653595

Evaluation of Standard-of-care Intravitreal Aflibercept Treatment Practices in Patients with Diabetic Macular Oedema in the UK: DRAKO Study Outcomes

Overview
Journal Eye (Lond)
Specialty Ophthalmology
Date 2023 Jan 18
PMID 36653595
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background/objectives: DRAKO (NCT02850263) was a 24-month, prospective, non-interventional, multi-centre cohort study enrolling patients with diabetic macular oedema (DMO) including central involvement. The study evaluated UK standard-of-care intravitreal aflibercept (IVT-AFL) treatment. This analysis describes the treatment pathway and service provision for the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment-naïve (C1) and non-naïve patients (C2) who received prior anti-VEGF treatment for DMO other than IVT-AFL.

Methods: Mean changes in best-corrected visual acuity and central subfield thickness were measured and stratified by baseline factors, including ethnicity and administration of five initial monthly injections within predefined windows. Clinic visits were classified as treatment only (T1), monitoring assessment only (T2), combined visits (T3) or post-injection visits with no treatment or assessment (T4).

Results: Median time from decision to treat to treatment was 6 days. As a percentage of total visits, T1, T2, T3 and T4 were 7%, 42%, 48% and 3% for C1 and 11%, 39%, 48% and 2% for C2. Most IVT-AFL injections were administered by healthcare professionals (HCPs) other than doctors (C1, 57.4%; C2, 58.5%). The percentage of treatments associated with a procedure-related adverse event where at least 75% of injections were completed by the same injector role were similar for doctors and other HCPs (C1, 1.1% and 0.8%; C2, 0.7%, and 1.0%).

Conclusions: Results indicate that upon DMO diagnosis, patients were treated promptly, and most visits were combined (treatment and assessment) or monitoring only. Most IVT-AFL was administered by non-physicians with a similar treatment-related safety profile as IVT-AFL administered by physicians.

References
1.
Varma R, Bressler N, Doan Q, Gleeson M, Danese M, Bower J . Prevalence of and risk factors for diabetic macular edema in the United States. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014; 132(11):1334-40. PMC: 4576994. DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.2854. View

2.
Moss S, Klein R, Klein B . The 14-year incidence of visual loss in a diabetic population. Ophthalmology. 1998; 105(6):998-1003. DOI: 10.1016/S0161-6420(98)96025-0. View

3.
Hex N, Bartlett C, Wright D, Taylor M, Varley D . Estimating the current and future costs of Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes in the UK, including direct health costs and indirect societal and productivity costs. Diabet Med. 2012; 29(7):855-62. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2012.03698.x. View

4.
Rasul A, Subhi Y, Sorensen T, Munch I . Non-physician delivered intravitreal injection service is feasible and safe - a systematic review. Dan Med J. 2016; 63(5). View

5.
Stefansson E, Bek T, Porta M, Larsen N, Kristinsson J, Agardh E . Screening and prevention of diabetic blindness. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2000; 78(4):374-85. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0420.2000.078004374.x. View