Search

Intraocular vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) levels play an important role in the pathogenesis of blindness-related diseases, such as age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Here, we aimed to develop a paper-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (P-ELISA) to analyze the suppression of aqueous VEGF concentrations following intravitreal injection (IVI) of anti-VEGF antibody (bevacizumab or ranibizumab). A total of 25 eyes with wet AMD, one with myopic neovascularization, and one with polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy were enrolled in this study. The limit of detection using P-ELISA was 0.03 pg/mL. Forty-six consecutive samples of aqueous humor were acquired. From all samples, 66.67% (10/15) achieved complete VEGF suppression (below the detection limit) within 5 weeks of receiving IVI of anti-VEGF antibody. Only 13.33% of samples (2/15) achieved complete VEGF suppression 5 weeks after receiving treatment. In some patients, elevated VEGF was still detected 5 weeks after receipt of anti-VEGF antibody, and all samples (10/10) were found to have elevated VEGF levels 49 days after treatment. Thus, we suggest that monthly IVI of anti-VEGF antibody may be required to ensure durable VEGF inhibition. Ultrasensitive P-ELISA can detect elevated VEGF at an earlier time point and may facilitate decision-making regarding appropriate treatment strategies., Competing Interests: M.-Y.H., K.H.L., and C.M.C. are inventors of a patent (patent no.: TW 201428105) owned by National Tsing Hua University based on the work reported in this paper. M.-Y.H. and C.M.C. have a patent pending in the USA based on the work reported in this paper (patent no:US20140315224 A1). Y.-C.H., D.-K.H., S.-C.L., K.-H.L., C.-Y.W., Y.-P.W. and H.-Y.C. have no potential conflicts of interest to declare.

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the capacity of paper-based ELISA (P-ELISA) to monitor VEGF in patients requiring treatment for vision-threatening diseases. The most commonly encountered vision-threatening diseases are age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and diabetic retinopathy (DR), both of which may require short-term or life-long anti-VEGF injection treatment therapy. Accurate measurement of VEGF concentration in aqueous humor can provide significant and timely information to diagnose the disease state. Adequate and precise therapy may consequently be provided. At odds with conventional diagnostic approaches is the fact that a maximum of only 200 microliters of aqueous humor can be safely removed from the eye for testing. Fortunately, new diagnostic platforms, such as P-ELISA, require only minute volumes, i.e., approximately 2 microliters per test "well" and approximately 40 microliters total to quantify VEGF levels, and the testing process takes less than an hour. Thus, point-of-care (POC) diagnostics, such as P-ELISA, should be examined and improved upon as needed in order to develop an efficient tool for outpatient clinics and others to obtain semi-quantitative results that might facilitate accurate dosing of anti-VEGF treatment and delay or prevent the progression of AMD and DR.

Objective: To evaluate quantitative and qualitative differences in documentation of the ophthalmic examination between paper and electronic health record (EHR) systems., Design: Comparative case series., Participants: One hundred fifty consecutive pairs of matched paper and EHR notes, documented by 3 attending ophthalmologist providers., Methods: An academic ophthalmology department implemented an EHR system in 2006. Database queries were performed to identify cases in which the same problems were documented by the same provider on different dates, using paper versus EHR methods. This was done for 50 consecutive pairs of examinations in 3 different diseases: age-related macular degeneration (AMD), glaucoma, and pigmented choroidal lesions (PCLs). Quantitative measures were used to compare completeness of documenting the complete ophthalmologic examination, as well as disease-specific critical findings using paper versus an EHR system. Qualitative differences in paper versus EHR documentation were illustrated by selecting representative paired examples., Main Outcome Measures: (1) Documentation score, defined as the number of examination elements recorded for the slit-lamp examination, fundus examination, and complete ophthalmologic examination and for critical clinical findings for each disease. (2) Paired comparison of qualitative differences in paper versus EHR documentation., Results: For all 3 diseases (AMD, glaucoma, PCL), the number of complete examination findings recorded was significantly lower with paper than the EHR system (P ≤ 0.004). Among the 3 individual examination sections (general, slit lamp, fundus) for the 3 diseases, 5 of the 9 possible combinations had significantly lower mean documentation scores with paper than EHR notes. For 2 of the 3 diseases, the number of critical clinical findings recorded was significantly lower using paper versus EHR notes (P ≤ 0.022). All (150/150) paper notes relied on graphical representations using annotated hand-drawn sketches, whereas no (0/150) EHR notes contained drawings. Instead, the EHR systems documented clinical findings using textual descriptions and interpretations., Conclusions: There were quantitative and qualitative differences in the nature of paper versus EHR documentation of ophthalmic findings in this study. The EHR notes included more complete documentation of examination elements using structured textual descriptions and interpretations, whereas paper notes used graphical representations of findings., Financial Disclosure(s): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article., (Copyright © 2013 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)