Search

Importance: Poor adherence or persistence to treatment can be a barrier to optimizing clinical practice (real-world) outcomes to intravitreal injection therapy in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). Currently, there is a lack of consensus on the definition and classification of adherence specific to this context., Objective: To describe the development and validation of terminology on patient nonadherence and nonpersistence to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy., Design, Setting, and Participants: Following a systematic review of currently used terminology in the literature, a subcommittee panel of retinal experts developed a set of definitions and classification for validation. Definitions were restricted to use in patients with nAMD requiring intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy. Validation by the full nAMD Barometer Leadership Coalition was established using a modified Delphi approach, with predetermined mean scores of 7.5 or more signifying consensus. Subsequent endorsement of the definitions was provided from a second set of retinal experts, with more than 50% members agreeing or strongly agreeing with all definitions., Main Outcomes and Measures: Development of consensus definitions for the terms adherence and persistence and a classification system for the factors associated with treatment nonadherence or nonpersistence in patients with nAMD., Results: Nonadherence was defined as missing 2 or more treatment or monitoring visits over a period of 12 months, with a visit considered missed if it exceeded more than 2 weeks from the recommended date. Nonpersistence was defined by nonattendance or an appointment not scheduled within the last 6 months. The additional terms planned discontinuation and transfer of care were also established. Reasons for treatment nonadherence and nonpersistence were classified into 6 dimensions: (1) patient associated, (2) condition associated, (3) therapy associated, (4) health system and health care team associated, (5) social/economic, and (6) other, with subcategories specific to treatment for nAMD., Conclusions and Relevance: This classification system provides a framework for assessing treatment nonadherence and nonpersistence over time and across different health settings in the treatment of nAMD with current intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatments. This may have additional importance, given the potential association of the coronavirus pandemic on adherence to treatment in patients with nAMD.

Importance: Threshold of retinal nonperfusion for the development of proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) is unclear., Objectives: To identify a threshold of retinal nonperfusion for the presence of retinal neovascularization and the distribution and area of retinal nonperfusion in eyes with severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR), PDR, neovascularization of the optic disc (NVD), and retinal neovascularization elsewhere (NVE)., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional image analysis study was performed between September 24, 2018, and October 24, 2018, at a multicenter national study in the United Kingdom. Baseline images were obtained from 2 completed randomized clinical trials (Ranibizumab for Diabetic Macular Edema Panretinal Photocoagulation [RDP] study and Clinical Efficacy of Intravitreal Aflibercept vs Panretinal Photocoagulation for Best Corrected Visual Acuity in Patients With Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy at 52 Weeks [CLARITY] study). The RDP study recruited eyes with severe NPDR between April 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015, and the CLARITY study recruited eyes with PDR between August 22, 2014, and November 20, 2015. Ultra-widefield angiography images of eyes with no prior panretinal photocoagulation treatment were included., Main Outcomes and Measures: The total area of retinal nonperfusion, the area of posterior pole retinal nonperfusion, and the area of peripheral retinal nonperfusion were measured., Results: A total of 92 patients (92 eyes) were included in the study: 59 in the PDR group (mean [SD] age, 42 [15] years; 20 female [33.9%]) and 33 in the NPDR group (mean [SD] age, 63 [10] years; 3 female [9.1%]). Forty eyes had NVE and 19 had NVD with or without NVE. We identified a retinal nonperfusion threshold of 118.3 disc areas (DA) with a specificity of 84.9% (95% CI, 68.1% to 94.9%) for PDR. The median area of retinal nonperfusion was 67.8 DA (95% CI, 44.2 to 107.3 DA) in the NPDR eyes and 147.9 DA (95% CI, 127.4 to 173.5 DA) for eyes with proliferative changes, with a difference of 69.0 DA (95% CI, 42.2 to 97.7 DA; P < .001). No difference was found in the median area of posterior nonperfusion between NPDR and PDR, with a difference of 0 DA (95% CI, -6.7 to 5.2 DA; P = .56). As for peripheral nonperfusion, NPDR eyes measured 64.1 DA and PDR eyes measured 130.6 DA, with a difference of 70.8 DA (95% CI, 48.4 to 94.9 DA; P < .001). Eyes with NVD had the largest total area of retinal nonperfusion, with a difference of 65.1 DA (95% CI, 28.6 to 95.8 DA; P < .001) compared with eyes with only NVE., Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest eyes with at least 107.3 DA of nonperfusion are at risk of proliferative disease, and eyes with NVD have the largest area of retinal nonperfusion.