Treatment Outcomes of Retinal Vein Occlusion in Clinical Practice in Nepal

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-48938/v1

Download PDF

Research article

Treatment Outcomes of Retinal Vein Occlusion in Clinical Practice in Nepal

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-48938/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 18 Feb, 2021

Read the published version in BMC Ophthalmology →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: This study evaluated the treatment outcomes of retinal vein occlusion (RVO) in a routine clinical practice in Nepal.

Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of observational data of patients with RVO who attended the retina clinic of the Tilganga Institute of Ophthalmology from 1 November 2017 to 31 October 2018. The main outcome was the mean change in visual acuity (VA) at 12 months from the start of treatment. Other outcomes of interest were the mean change in central subfield thickness (CST) and the number of treatments over 12 months.

Results: A total of 99 eyes (of 99 patients) with RVO (60 - branch RVO [BRVO] and 39 - central RVO [CRVO] were available for the analysis. Eyes with CRVO had worse VA and CST at baseline. Eyes in both groups were similar for age, associated factors for RVO, duration of vision loss and the presence of ischemia at baseline. The mean (95% Confidence Interval [CI]) VA change at 12 months for BRVO was -0.35 (-0.46, -0.23) logMAR (p < 0.001) from a mean (SD) of 0.75 (0.42) logMAR at baseline with 63% achieving VA < 0.3 logMAR while for CRVO it was -0.35 (-0.46, -0.23) logMAR (p = 0.19) from 1.13 (0.61) logMAR at baseline and VA < 0.3 logMAR in 36%. The mean (95% CI) change in CST over 12 months was -114 (-189, -40) µm (p = 0.003) from a mean (SD) of 423 (151) µm at baseline for BRVO and -184(-276, -91) µm (p < 0.001) from 519 (213) µm for CRVO. Patients in both groups received a median of 2 bevacizumab injections over 12 months. Around 37% eyes were lost before 12 months’ observation. The mean VA and CST trajectory in these eyes at their last visit was similar to those that completed 12 months.

Conclusion: The outcomes of RVO are inferior and the number of treatments over the 12 months fewer than those of clinical trials and other reports from routine clinical practice. Future studies to identify the barriers for undertreatment in our practice are warranted to improve the treatment outcomes.

Ophthalmology

retinal vein occlusion

treatment outcomes

bevacizumab

The prevalence of retinal vein occlusion (RVO), a common cause of vision impairment often associated with cardiovascular or other systemic diseases, in Nepal is on the rise.[1-3] The cause for the impaired vision in eyes with RVO (branch retinal vein occlusion [BRVO] and central retinal vein occlusion [CRVO]) is macular edema and ischemia.[4] Treatment options for RVO includes laser photocoagulation and intravitreal injections of either vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (VEGF) or steroids. The Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion Group during the 1980’s reported that laser photocoagulation improved vision in eyes with BRVO.[5] The pivotal phase 3 randomised clinical trials (RCT) of intravitreal injections of VEGF inhibitors for RVO, from the earlier half of this decade, reported good visual and anatomic outcomes than those reported with macular laser photocoagulation and intravitreal injections of triamcinolone. [6-11]

The VEGF inhibitors are the preferred first line agents in the treatment of RVO.[12, 13] The choice of VEGF inhibitors among countries varies according to their drug regulatory processes, reimbursement policies and its availability. Bevacizumab, owing to its cost, is the preferred VEGF inhibitor for the treatment of macular edema due to BRVO and CRVO in Nepal. Studies reporting the treatment outcomes of RVO in Nepal are limited. Such studies in clinical practice provides data which can be used to improve the outcomes where they appear suboptimal and in formulating treatment guidelines. This study evaluated the treatment outcomes of patients that received treatment for RVO at a large tertiary clinical practice in Nepal.

This was a retrospective analysis of data collected prospectively from consecutive eyes in patients with RVO who attended the retina clinic of the Tilganga Institute of Ophthalmology from 1 November 2017 to 31 October 2018 thereby allowing the possibility of having at least 12 months of observations after the initial treatment, were included in the analysis. Treatment naïve eyes with RVO were eligible. Eyes of patients with concomitant ocular diseases that could cause vision impairment, such as macular scars or corneal opacities, were not included in the analysis. Data recorded at each visit included duration of decreased vision, best corrected visual acuity (VA) read on the Snellen chart (converted to logarithm of minimum angle of resolution [logMAR]), intraocular pressure (Goldman applanation tonometry), central subfield thickness (CST [µm]) measured using spectral domain optical coherence tomography (OCT), neovascularization of the retina, iris or angle, ocular procedures, gonioscopy and adverse events. Duration and type of diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, presence of cardiovascular diseases was recorded at the first visit (baseline). Fluorescein angiogram was done at the discretion of the treating physician. All treatment decisions, including choice of treatment and frequency of visits, were based on VA and OCT at the discretion of the practitioner in consultation with the patient thereby reflecting real-world clinical practice. Eyes of patients with concomitant ocular diseases that could cause vision impairment, such as macular scars or corneal opacities, were not included in the analysis. Informed consent was sought from the patients. The Institutional Review Board of the Tilganga Institute of Ophthalmology approved the study. This study adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.

The main outcome was the mean change in VA at 12 months. The mean change in CST and number of treatments were also evaluated. The proportions of eyes with VA ≤ 0.3 logMAR (6/12 Snellen equivalent) at 12 months and those with ≥ 1 logMAR (6/60) were calculated. The proportion that gained ≥ lines of vision and those that lost similar lines at 12 months were also evaluated. Outcomes were also analysed stratified in eyes with initial good vision (≤ 0.3 logMAR) and those with initial vision > 0.3 logMAR (6/15). The VA and CST outcomes in eyes that were lost before 12 months were also evaluated.

Descriptive data included the mean, standard deviation (SD), 95% confidence interval (CI), median (first and third quantiles, Q1 and Q3) and percentages where appropriate. Changes at 12 months were tested using independent t-test, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, Chi-square test / Fisher Exact test as appropriate. The last observation was carried forward to report outcomes in eyes that were lost before 12 months. A generalized additive model was used to display VA and CST in eyes with 12 months follow-up. Locally estimated scatterplot smoothing (LOESS) curves, a non-parametric strategy for fitting a smooth curve to data points, were used to display the relationship of VA and CST from the baseline to the last observed visit in eyes that were lost before 12 months. All analyses were performed using R version 3.6.3 (http://www.R-project.org/) with the mgcv package (V1.8-24) for generalized additive (mixed) model computation.

Study population

There was a total of 120 eyes (120 patients) with RVO in the time specified. Of these, 21 eyes that also had concomitant diseases for vision impairment were excluded thus, only 99 eyes were available for the analysis. Three-fifths eyes (60%) had BRVO while two-fifths had CRVO. Participants had a mean (SD) age of 56 (15) years. The mean (SD) duration of vision loss was 70 (86) days. Risk factors were documented in most (81 patients, 82%) of them at baseline. The more frequent individual associated factors were hypertension in 59 (60%), smoking in 27 (27%), diabetes in 22 (22%), hyperlipidemia in 19 (19%) and alcohol consumption in 10 (10%). The proportion of patients with these factors were similar in both CRVO and BRVO groups (Table 1). Eyes with CRVO had worse vision (VA: 1.13 logMAR [6/75 Snellen equivalent] versus 0.75 logMAR [6/30] for BRVO, p = 0.001) and macular thickness (CST: 519 µm versus 423 µm, p = 0.02) at baseline than those with BRVO. Table 1 gives an overview of baseline characteristics of eyes in the two groups.

Table 1. Demographic characteristics
CRVO	BRVO	p value
Patients, n	39	60
Female, n (%)	17 (44)	35 (58)
Right Eye, n (%)	26 (67)	32 (53)
Hypertension, %	51	65	0.25
Diabetes, %	18	25	0.56
Hyperlipidaemia, %	15	22	0.6
Smoking, %	28	27	1
Alcohol, %	10	10	1
Glaucoma, %	0.1	0	0.15
Vision loss, days mean (SD)	82 (78)	114 (144)	0.16
Age, years mean (SD)	53 (17)	58 (13)	0.09
Baseline VA logMAR, mean (SD)	1.13 (0.61)	0.75 (0.42)	0.001
VA ≤ 0.3 logMAR, %	10	20	0.31
VA ≥ 1 logMAR, %	59	37	0.04
Baseline IOP mm Hg, mean (SD)	19 (11)	16 (3)	0.07
CST mm, mean (SD)	519 (213)	423 (151)	0.02
Presence of Ischaemia
Ischaemic, %	18	20	1
NonIschaemic, %	82	80
n - Number, SD – Standard Deviation, VA – Visual Acuity, CST – Central Subfield Thickness, logMAR – logarithm of minimum angle of resolution

Visual outcomes at 12 months

The mean (SD) VA in the RVO cohort 0.6 (0.61) logMAR (6/24 Snellen equivalent) at 12 months improved from the baseline of 0.89 (0.53) logMAR (6/48 Snellen equivalent, p < 0.001). The mean (95% confidence interval) VA change at 12 months was -0.29 (-0.4, -0.18) logMAR. The mean VA in eyes with good initial vision (≤0.3 logMAR, 6/12 Snellen equivalent or better) dropped from the baseline while those presenting with > 0.3 logMAR (6/15 or worse) improved. The proportion of eyes with VA ≤ 0.3 logMAR (6/12 or better) increased to 53% at 12 months from 16% at baseline (p = 0.02) while those with VA ≥ 1 logMAR (6/60 or worse) decreased to 24% from 45% at baseline (p < 0.01).

Table 2. One-year outcomes
	CRVO	BRVO	p value
Patients, n	39	60
Baseline VA logMAR, mean (SD)	1.13 (0.61)	0.75 (0.42)	0.001
Final VA logMAR, mean (SD)	0.92 (0.75)	0.4 (0.4)	<0.001
Change VA logMAR, mean (95% CI)	-0.2 (-0.43, 0.02)	-0.35 (-0.46, -0.23)	0.25
VA ≤ 0.3 %, baseline/final	10 / 36	20 / 63	0.01
VA ≥ 1 %, baseline/final	59 /47	37 /12	<0.001
Improvement ≥ 3 lines, %	32	60	0.37
Worsening ≥ 3 lines, %	8	7	0.31
Baseline IOP mmHg, mean (SD)	19 (11)	16 (3)	0.07
Final IOP mmHg, mean (SD)	17 (2)	15 (5)	0.05
Change IOP mmHg, mean (95% CI)	-3 (-6, 0)	-2 (-4, -1)	0.64
Baseline CST mm, mean (SD)	519 (213)	423 (151)	0.02
Final CST mm, mean (SD)	343 (160)	281 (133)	0.09
Change CST mm, mean (95% CI)	-184 (-276, -91)	-114 (-189, -40)	0.24
Injections^α, median (Q1, Q3)	2 (1, 3)	2 (1, 3)	1
Additional Macular Laser, n	0	2	0.52
Additional Triamcinolone, n	2	2	0.65
Additional PRP, n	16	15	0.17
n – Number, VA – Visual Acuity, SD – Standard Deviation, CI – Confidence Interval, CST – Central Subfield Thickness, Q1 – First Quantile, Q3 – Third Quantile, PRP – Panretinal photocoagulation, * Last observation carried forward for lost to follow-up, ^αNumber of bevacizumab injections.

Figure 1 illustrates the mean VA over 12 months in eyes with CRVO and BRVO that completed 12 months’ observation. The mean (95% CI) VA change at 12 months in BRVO, -0.35 (-0.46, -0.23) logMAR, was significant (p < 0.001) but those of CRVO, -0.2 (-0.43, 0.02) logMAR, was not (p = 0.19, Table 2). The proportion of eyes with VA ≤ 0.3 logMAR increased and those with VA ≥ 1 logMAR decreased in both groups but more in eyes with BRVO (Table 2).

Table 3. Outcomes stratified by Visual Acuity at presetation
	CRVO(n = 39)	BRVO(n = 60)	p value
Eyes with presenting VA ≤0.3 logMAR
Eyes, n (%)	4 (10)	12 (20)	0.05
Baseline VA logMAR, mean (SD)	0.28 (0.05)	0.18 (0.13)	0.5
Final VA logMAR, mean (SD)	0.54 (0.83)	0.22 (0.25)	0.71
Change VA logMAR, mean (95% CI)	0.26 (-1.04, 1.57)	0.03 (-0.13, 0.2)	0.61
Baseline CST mm, mean (SD)	423 (152)	330 (102)	0.31
Final CST mm, mean (SD)	268 (50)	230 (110)	0.46
Change CST mm, mean (95% CI)	-155 (-390, 80)	-79 (-206, 48)	0.42
Injections, median (Q1, Q3)	0.5 (0, 1.5)	0 (0, 1.2)	0.94
Additional Macular Laser, n	0	0	1
Additional Triamcinolone, n	0	0	1
Additional PRP, n	1	5	1
Eyes with presenting VA ≤0.3 logMAR
Eyes, n (%)	35 (90)	48 (80)
Baseline VA logMAR, mean (SD)	1.22 (0.57)	0.89 (0.34)	0.02
Final VA logMAR, mean (SD)	0.97 (0.74)	0.44 (0.42)	<0.001
Change VA logMAR, mean (95% CI)	-0.26 (-0.49, -0.03)	-0.44 (-0.57, -0.32)	0.15
Baseline CST mm, mean (SD)	531(218)	449 (153)	0.07
Final CST mm, mean (SD)	355 (168)	291(137)	0.12
Change CST mm, mean (95% CI)	-188 (-294, -82)	-120 (-206, -34)	0.30
Injections, median (Q1, Q3)	2 (1, 3)	2 (1, 3)	0.72
Additional Macular Laser, n	0	2	0.5
Additional Triamcinolone, n	2	2	1
Additional PRP, n	15	10	0.05^l
n – Number, VA – Visual Acuity, SD – Standard Deviation, CI – Confidence Interval, CST – Central Subfield Thickness, Q1 – First Quantile, Q3 – Third Quantile, PRP – Panretinal photocoagulation, * Last observation carried forward for lost to follow-up, ^αNumber of bevacizumab injections. ^lOdd’s ratio = 2.8

We divided the cohort into two subgroups according to the VA at baseline, eyes with VA ≤ 0.3 logMAR and those with VA > 0.3 logMAR, to study the relationship of the initial VA on VA gains with treatment.Eyes with good initial vision (VA ≤ 0.3 logMAR) had a minimal mean (95% CI) VA change at 12 months, 0.03 (-0.13, 0.2) logMAR from a mean (SD) of 0.22 (0.25) logMAR at baseline (p = 0.68) in BRVO and 0.26 (-1.04, 1.57) logMAR from a mean (SD) of 0.28 (0.05) logMAR at baseline (p = 0.57) in CRVO. The mean (95% CI) VA change in eyes with initial vision > 0.3 logMAR was greater in BRVO, -0.44 (-0.57, -0.32) logMAR from 0.89 (0.34) logMAR at baseline (p<0.001), but was not so for CRVO, -0.26 (-0.49, -0.03) logMAR from 1.22 (0.57) logMAR at baseline (p = 0.1). However, the final vision in the initial VA > 0.3 logMAR subgroup in BRVO, despite the higher gain, was lower than in the good initial vision group (Table 3).

Macular thickness

Bevacizumab significantly reduced the mean CST in eyes with RVO (Figure 1). The mean (95% CI) change in CST at 12 months was -145 (-203, -88) µm from a mean of -460 (183) µm at baseline (p<0.001). The mean (95% CI) change in CST at 12 months in CRVO, -184 (-276, -91) µm (p < 0.001), and in BRVO, -114 (-189, -40) µm (p = 0.003), was similar (0.24, Table 2). Eyes in both VA subgroups had significant reduction in the mean CST after 12 months of treatment that were similar for both CRVO and BRVO (Table 3).

Treatments

The median (Q1, Q3) number of bevacizumab injections in eyes with RVO over 12 months was 2 (1, 3). Less than two-fifths (36%) eyes required additional treatments, including laser (macular and panretinal photocoagulation) and intravitreal steroid (triamcinolone) injections, during the 12 months (Table 2). None of the eyes that received additional steroid continued treatment of RVO with steroid. The median number of bevacizumab injections in CRVO and BRVO were (2 [1, 3]) versus (2 [1, 3], p = 1). There was no difference in the median number of bevacizumab injections when eyes were stratified based on the initial VA, however, more eyes with CRVO in the initial vision > 0.3 logMAR group received panretinal photocoagulation (Odd’s ration = 2, Table 3).

Non-completion rate at 12 months

Thirty-seven eyes (37%, CRVO – 12 and BRVO – 25 eyes, p = 0.37 ) were lost before the 12 month’s visit. The mean (95% CI) VA change from the start of treatment to their last visit was -0.36 (-0.55, -0.2) logMAR for BRVO (p < 0.001) and -0.31 (-0.56, -0.06) logMAR for CRVO (p = 0.01) while the CST change was -98 (-222, 26) µm for BRVO (p = 0.11) and -204 (-384, -25) µm for CRVO (p = 0.03). These eyes received a median (Q1, Q3) of 2 (1, 2) for BRVO and 2 (1, 3) for CRVO bevacizumab injections. Figure 2 illustrates the mean VA and CST trajectory of CRVO and BRVO eyes from baseline to their last observed visit before the dropout.

Adverse Events

Neovascularisation of the retina was observed in one-fifth eyes (CRVO – 11 [28%], BRVO – 10 [17%], p = 0.26). Of these, 3 eyes required a surgical procedure for vitreous haemorrhage. Three-fifths eyes with CRVO (59%) developed iris neovascularisation over 12 months of which, 7 had angle neovascularisation. Glaucoma was controlled with medications in 9 eyes. Glaucoma drainage procedure was required in 2 eyes. Injection related complications, including endophthalmitis, was not observed over 12 months.

We found that patients with BRVO in our clinical practice had improved vision and reduced macular thickness at one year while vision improvement in those with CRVO, despite the reduction in macular thickness, was not significant. Patients with RVO that had good initial vision, VA ≤ 0.3 logMAR (6/12), maintained this level of vision while those with VA > 0.3 logMAR (6/15) gained a mean of 0.4 logMAR. Eyes received a median of 2 bevacizumab injections over the 12 months. Just a shy over one-third were lost before 12 months. The mean VA and CST trajectory in these eyes from the start of treatment to the last observed visit was similar to those that were completed 12 month’s observation. They received a median of 2 bevacizumab injections before they dropped out. Neovascularization on the retina was simialr for both BRVO and CRVO. Almost three-fifth eyes with CRVO had neovascularization of the iris and a third of these also had neovascularization at the angles. Injection related complications, such as endophthalmitis, were not observed during the study.

The mean reduction in CST at 12 months with bevacizumab in the present study was similar for both BRVO and CRVO. The anatomical outcome mirrored functional outcome in BRVO however, it did not for CRVO which was also observed with ranibizumab in a clinical practice in Denmark.[14] The mean VA which was worse at baseline in CRVO in the present study remained so at 12 months which was similar to those reported in other observational studies of RVO.[15-17] There were fewer eyes with VA ≤ 0.3 logMAR (6/12) and more with VA ≥ 1 logMAR (6/60) at 12 months in CRVO than in BRVO. The degree of macular edema and the subsequent photoreceptor damage could have limited visual recovery in CRVO despite the improvement in the mean CST.

Visual outcomes we observed were strongly related to the VA at presentation. Eyes with initial VA ≤ 0.3 logMAR, had much lower net gain perhaps due to the ceiling effect, but maintained better vision at 12 months (VA ≤ 0.3 logMAR in 63% for BRVO and 36% for CRVO). Those presenting with VA > 0.3 logMAR had higher gains with improvement towards the mean. Eyes in the good VA group received fewer injections than those in the VA > 0.3 logMAR group.

Studies have found that the visual outcomes of eyes receiving VEGF inhibitors for retinal diseases in routine clinical practice are inferior to those of clinical trials.[18-21] The mean VA of patients at baseline in the present study was worse than those in the pivotal clinical trials of VEGF inhibitors for BRVO, The Ranibizumab for the Treatment of Macular Edema following Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion: Evaluation of Efficacy and Safety (BRAVO) study, and Intravitreal Aflibercept for Macular Edema following Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion (VIBRANT) study, and CRVO, Ranibizumab for the Treatment of Macular Edema after Central Retinal Vein Occlusion: Evaluation of Efficacy and Safety (CRUISE) study, VEGF Trap-Eye: Investigation of Efficacy and Safety in Central Retinal Vein Occlusion (COPERNICUS) study and VEGF Trap-Eye for Macular Edema Secondary to Central Retinal Vein Occlusion (GALILEO) study.[6-10] Patients with BRVO in the present study that had VA better than 0.3 logMAR (6/12) at 12 months was similar to those of BRAVO and VIBRANT as was those that gained ≥ 3 lines of vision.[6, 7] Patients with CRVO that gained ≥ 3 lines of vision in the present study however, were fewer than those in CRUISE, COPERNICUS and GALILEO.[8-10] The mean VA at 12 months we observed however, was inferior to those of the pivotal clinical trials.[6-10] Patients in the present study received 2 bevacizumab injections over 12 months in contrast to the 9 VEGF inhibitor injections in the pivotal clinical trials. The patients in our cohort received far fewer treatments and the outcomes were suboptimal than those reported in the clinical trials.

The drop in macular thickness over 12 months we observed were lower than reported in the clinical trials.[6-10] The maculae of the eyes at baseline in the present study were thinner than those in the clinical trials.[6-10] Patients did not receive bevacizumab injections when the VA was good (≤ 0.3 logMAR) irrespective of the thickened maculae as shown by the median number of treatments in the subgroup that had initial VA ≤ 0.3 logMAR. This partly explains why our patient received fewer treatments and suboptimal anatomical outcomes than those of the clinical trials.[6-10]

The mean change in VA in BRVO at 12 months we observed was similar to a meta-analysis that reported outcomes of VEGF inhibitor treatments for BRVO in routine clinical practice.[21] The mean drop in CST at 12 months in the present study was inferior and intravitreal treatments fewer than those reported in the meta-analysis.[21] The deterioration of macular anatomy precedes functional impairment when VEGF inhibitor treatments are withheld in RVO.[22] Treatments in the present study were withheld when the VA was better that could have led the fewer treatments in our cohort and the thickened maculae. The visual and anatomic outcomes of CRVO at 12 months in the present study were inferior and the number of treatments fewer than those reported in studies in routine clinical practice.[15-17] Neovascularization on the retina and iris in our cohort was more frequent than reported in those studies. Neovascularization and the need of panretinal laser may be unnecessary in eyes that receive adequate treatment for vascular retinal diseases.[23, 24]

High participants dropout is an unfortunate feature in observational studies. Almost 37% of eyes in the present study dropped out before the 12-month observation. Most of these were lost after 6 months of observations. The mean VA and CST in these eyes were better than the baseline before they dropped out. We do not know whether these eyes dropped out because they felt they were seeing well and did not want to continue injections, or they may have stopped due to a poor outcome.

This study has some limitations that are inherent to observational studies. The treatment decisions in the study, in contrast to clinical trials, were made without adjudication from a reading centre or reference to study protocols. The VA transferred from Snellen chart to logMAR may be less reliable than those obtained using a logMAR chart.[25] The cost of bevacizumab treatment, which are borne by the patient, could have influenced the treatment decision and follow-up visits. Transfer of some patients to their nearest facility might have a reason for the high drop out. Nevertheless, this study provides data on the treatment outcomes of RVO in our clinical practice.

Our findings indicate that the availability of VEGF inhibitors may not of itself produce the best outcomes possible. The improvement in VA and anatomic outcomes over 12 months in eyes with RVO in the observational cohort we studied were inferior to those reported in the pivotal clinical trials and observed in routine clinical practice elsewhere. Our outcomes suggest deficiencies in the management and treatment of RVO patients which could be likely affected by lack of implementation of optimal diagnostic and retreatment criteria. Such suboptimal outcomes can result in severe impairment of quality of life of the individual. Future analysis should aim to identify the barriers so that the treatment outcomes of our patients could be improved.

RVO – Retinal vein occlusion, BRVO – Branch retinal vein occlusion, CRVO – Central retinal vein occlusion, VEGF – Vascular endothelial growth factor, RCT – Randomised clinical trial, VA – Visual acuity, logMAR – logarithm, of the minimum angle of resolution, CST – Central subfield thickness, OCT – Optical coherence tomography, SD – Standard deviation, CI – Confidence interval, Q – Quantiles, LOESS – Locally estimated scatterplot smoothing, LOCF – Last observation carried forward, BRAVO – The Ranibizumab for the Treatment of Macular Edema following Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion: Evaluation of Efficacy and Safety study, VIBRANT – Intravitreal Aflibercept for Macular Edema following Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion study, CRUISE – Ranibizumab for the Treatment of Macular Edema after Central Retinal Vein Occlusion: Evaluation of Efficacy and Safety study, COPERNICUS – VEGF Trap-Eye: Investigation of Efficacy and Safety in Central Retinal Vein Occlusion study and GALILEO – VEGF Trap-Eye for Macular Edema Secondary to Central Retinal Vein Occlusion study

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Tilganga Institute of Ophthalmology. Informed consent for this observational study was obtained from the participants.

Consent for publication

The participants consented for publication of their anonymised data along with the consent for participation in this observational study.

Availability of data and materials

Data can be shared upon request.

Competing interests

No competing interests to declare.

Funding

No funding was obtained for the study.

Authors’ contributions

SB participated in the design of the study, analyzed and interpreted data and drafted the manuscript. MP participated in the data analysis and interpretation and commented on the manuscript. IP, PLJ, CS, GP and EP participated in the study design, data collection and commented on the manuscript.

Acknowledgements

This research was undertaken as part of the second year of the ChM (Master of Surgery) in Clinical Ophthalmology, Edinburgh Surgery Online (ESO), University of Edinburgh. The authors thank Prof Baljean Dhillon, Dr Roly Megaw and Dr Heather Ellis for their feedbacks.

McIntosh RL, Rogers SL, Lim L, Cheung N, Wang JJ, Mitchell P, Kowalski JW, Nguyen HP, Wong TY: Natural history of central retinal vein occlusion: an evidence-based systematic review. Ophthalmology 2010, 117(6):1113-1123.e1115.
Thapa SS, Thapa R, Paudyal I, Khanal S, Aujla J, Paudyal G, Rens Gv: Prevalence and pattern of vitreo-retinal diseases in Nepal: the Bhaktapur glaucoma study. BMC ophthalmology 2013, 13:9-9.
Thapa R, Bajimaya S, Paudyal G, Khanal S, Tan S, Thapa SS, van Rens G: Prevalence, pattern and risk factors of retinal vein occlusion in an elderly population in Nepal: the Bhaktapur retina study. BMC Ophthalmol 2017, 17(1):162.
Ho M, Liu DT, Lam DS, Jonas JB: Retinal Vein Occlusions, from Basics to the Latest Treatment. Retina (Philadelphia, Pa) 2016, 36(3):432-448.
The Branch Vein Occlusion Study Group: Argon laser photocoagulation for macular edema in branch vein occlusion. . American journal of ophthalmology 1984, 98(3):271-282.
Brown DM, Campochiaro PA, Bhisitkul RB, Ho AC, Gray S, Saroj N, Adamis AP, Rubio RG, Murahashi WY: Sustained benefits from ranibizumab for macular edema following branch retinal vein occlusion: 12-month outcomes of a phase III study. Ophthalmology 2011, 118(8):1594-1602.
Clark WL, Boyer DS, Heier JS, Brown DM, Haller JA, Vitti R, Kazmi H, Berliner AJ, Erickson K, Chu KW et al: Intravitreal Aflibercept for Macular Edema Following Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion: 52-Week Results of the VIBRANT Study. Ophthalmology 2016, 123(2):330-336.
Campochiaro PA, Brown DM, Awh CC, Lee SY, Gray S, Saroj N, Murahashi WY, Rubio RG: Sustained benefits from ranibizumab for macular edema following central retinal vein occlusion: twelve-month outcomes of a phase III study. Ophthalmology 2011, 118(10):2041-2049.
Brown DM, Heier JS, Clark WL, Boyer DS, Vitti R, Berliner AJ, Zeitz O, Sandbrink R, Zhu X, Haller JA: Intravitreal aflibercept injection for macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion: 1-year results from the phase 3 COPERNICUS study. American journal of ophthalmology 2013, 155(3):429-437.e427.
Korobelnik JF, Holz FG, Roider J, Ogura Y, Simader C, Schmidt-Erfurth U, Lorenz K, Honda M, Vitti R, Berliner AJ et al: Intravitreal Aflibercept Injection for Macular Edema Resulting from Central Retinal Vein Occlusion: One-Year Results of the Phase 3 GALILEO Study. Ophthalmology 2014, 121(1):202-208.
Ip MS, Scott IU, VanVeldhuisen PC, Oden NL, Blodi BA, Fisher M, Singerman LJ, Tolentino M, Chan CK, Gonzalez VH et al: A randomized trial comparing the efficacy and safety of intravitreal triamcinolone with observation to treat vision loss associated with macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion: the Standard Care vs Corticosteroid for Retinal Vein Occlusion (SCORE) study report 5. Archives of ophthalmology (Chicago, Ill : 1960) 2009, 127(9):1101-1114.
Flaxel CJ, Adelman RA, Bailey ST, Fawzi A, Lim JI, Vemulakonda GA, Ying G-s: Retinal Vein Occlusions Preferred Practice Pattern&#xae. Ophthalmology 2020, 127(2):P288-P320.
Schmidt-Erfurth U, Garcia-Arumi J, Gerendas BS, Midena E, Sivaprasad S, Tadayoni R, Wolf S, Loewenstein A: Guidelines for the Management of Retinal Vein Occlusion by the European Society of Retina Specialists (EURETINA). Ophthalmologica Journal international d'ophtalmologie International journal of ophthalmology Zeitschrift fur Augenheilkunde 2019, 242(3):123-162.
Brynskov T, Kemp H, Sørensen TL: Intravitreal ranibizumab for retinal vein occlusion through 1 year in clinical practice. Retina (Philadelphia, Pa) 2014, 34(8):1637-1643.
Lip PL, Malick H, Damer K, Elsherbiny S, Darrad KM, Mushtaq B, Mitra A, Stavrou P, Yang Y: One-year outcome of bevacizumab therapy for chronic macular edema in central and branch retinal vein occlusions in real-world clinical practice in the UK. Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, NZ) 2015, 9:1779-1784.
Vaz-Pereira S, Marques IP, Matias J, Mira F, Ribeiro L, Flores R: Real-World Outcomes of Anti-VEGF Treatment for Retinal Vein Occlusion in Portugal. European journal of ophthalmology 2017, 27(6):756-761.
Callizo J, Ziemssen F, Bertelmann T, Feltgen N, Vögeler J, Koch M, Eter N, Liakopoulos S, Schmitz-Valckenberg S, Spital G: Real-World Data: Ranibizumab Treatment For Retinal Vein Occlusion In The OCEAN Study. Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, NZ) 2019, 13:2167-2179.
Finger RP, Wiedemann P, Blumhagen F, Pohl K, Holz FG: Treatment patterns, visual acuity and quality-of-life outcomes of the WAVE study - a noninterventional study of ranibizumab treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in Germany. Acta ophthalmologica 2013, 91(6):540-546.
Ciulla TA, Bracha P, Pollack J, Williams DF: Real-world Outcomes of Anti–Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy in Diabetic Macular Edema in the United States. Ophthalmology Retina 2018, 2(12):1179-1187.
Holekamp NM, Campbell J, Almony A, Ingraham H, Marks S, Chandwani H, Cole AL, Kiss S: Vision Outcomes Following Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema in Clinical Practice. American journal of ophthalmology 2018, 191:83-91.
Ang JL, Ah-Moye S, Kim LN, Nguyen V, Hunt A, Barthelmes D, Gillies MC, Mehta H: A systematic review of real-world evidence of the management of macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion. Eye (London, England) 2020.
Pielen A, Mirshahi A, Feltgen N, Lorenz K, Korb C, Junker B, Schaefer C, Zwiener I, Hattenbach LO: Ranibizumab for Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion Associated Macular Edema Study (RABAMES): six-month results of a prospective randomized clinical trial. Acta ophthalmologica 2015, 93(1):e29-37.
Writing Committee for the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research N, Gross JG, Glassman AR, Jampol LM, Inusah S, Aiello LP, Antoszyk AN, Baker CW, Berger BB, Bressler NM et al: Panretinal Photocoagulation vs Intravitreous Ranibizumab for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2015, 314(20):2137-2146.
Sivaprasad S, Prevost AT, Vasconcelos JC, Riddell A, Murphy C, Kelly J, Bainbridge J, Tudor-Edwards R, Hopkins D, Hykin P: Clinical efficacy of intravitreal aflibercept versus panretinal photocoagulation for best corrected visual acuity in patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy at 52 weeks (CLARITY): a multicentre, single-blinded, randomised, controlled, phase 2b, non-inferiority trial. Lancet (London, England) 2017, 389(10085):2193-2203.
Gregori NZ, Feuer W, Rosenfeld PJ: Novel method for analyzing snellen visual acuity measurements. Retina (Philadelphia, Pa) 2010, 30(7):1046-1050.

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 18 Feb, 2021

Read the published version in BMC Ophthalmology →

Editorial decision: Major revision
04 Jan, 2021
Review #3 received at journal
23 Dec, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed at journal
06 Dec, 2020
Review #2 received at journal
15 Nov, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed at journal
29 Oct, 2020
Review #1 received at journal
05 Oct, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed at journal
11 Sep, 2020
Reviewers invited by journal
14 Aug, 2020
Submission checks completed at journal
07 Aug, 2020
Editor invited by journal
07 Aug, 2020
Editor assigned by journal
07 Aug, 2020
First submitted to journal
24 Jul, 2020

You are reading this latest preprint version

Treatment Outcomes of Retinal Vein Occlusion in Clinical Practice in Nepal

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Background

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

abbreviations

Declarations

References

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1