English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Intravitreal injections are a mandatory treatment for macular edema due to nAMD, DME and RVO. These chronic diseases usually need chronic treatment using intravitreal injections with anti-VEGF agents. Thus, many trials were performed to define the best treatment interval using pro re nata regimes (PRN), fixed regimes or treat-and-extend regimes (TE). However, real-world studies reveal a high rate of losing patients within a 2-year interval of treatment observation causing worse results. In this study we analyzed retrospectively 2 years of real-world experience with an individualized treat-and-extend injection scheme.    Methods  Since 2015 our treatment scheme for intravitreal injections has been switched from PRN to TE. Out of 102 patients 59 completed a follow up time of 2 years. Every patient received visual acuity testing, SD-OCT and slit lamp examination prior to every injection. At each visit an injection was performed and the treatment interval was adjusted mainly on SD-OCT based morphologic changes by increasing or reducing in 2-week steps. Individual changes of the treatment protocol by face-to-face communication between physician and patient were possible.    Results  After 1 year of treatment visual acuity gain in nAMD was 7.4 ± 2.2 ETDRS letters ( n  = 34; injection frequency: 7.4 ± 0.4) respectively 6.1 ± 4.7 in DME ( n  = 9; injection frequency: 8.4 ± 1.1) and 9.7 ± 4.5 in RVO ( n  = 16; injection frequency: 7.6 ± 0.5). After 2 years of treatment results were as following: nAMD: visual acuity gain 6.9 ± 2.1 (injection frequency: 12.6 ± 0.7); DME: 11.1 ± 5.1 (injection frequency: 14.0 ± 1.0); RVO: 7.5 ± 5.0 (injection frequency: 11.2 ± 0.9). Planned treatment exit after 2 year was achieved in 29.4% of patients in nAMD (0% after 1 year); 0% in DME (0% after 1 year); and 31.3% in RVO (0% after 1 year). Patients’ persistence was 94.1% during the follow-up.    Conclusion  Using a consequent and individualized TE regime in daily practice may lead to a high patients’ persistence and visual acuity gains nearly comparable to those of large prospective clinical trials. Crucial factors are face-to-face communication with the patient as well as a stringent management regime. At this time TE may be the only instrument for proactive therapy which should therefore be regarded as a first-line tool in daily practice.

Individualized treat-and-extend regime for optimization of real-world vision outcome and improved patients’ persistence