Purpose To investigate the outcomes of intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy in eyes with both neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and diabetic retinopathy (DR).
Methods Patients from four high-volume referral centres who presented with neovascular AMD and DR, and received intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy, were included. Data retrieved from medical records and multimodal imaging were analysed.
Results Forty-one eyes of 38 patients (21 male, 17 female; mean age 78±8 years) were enrolled. Median follow-up was 28±19 (12–72) months with a mean of 9.2±7.4 intravitreal anti-VEGF injections per eye were administrated. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 0.5±0.3 logMAR; it improved significantly at 1 year (0.3±0.3 logMAR; p=0.02) and returned to baseline values at last follow-up visit (0.6±0.4 logMAR; p=0.26). Mean central macular thickness (CMT) significantly decreased from 408±150 μm to 328±104 μm at 1 year (p=0.021) and to 335±127 μm at last follow-up visit (p=0.032). The baseline severity of DR was graded as mild non-proliferative DR (NPDR) in 21 (51%) eyes, moderate NPDR in 14 (34%), severe NPDR in 4 (10%) and inactive proliferative DR in 2 (5%). At last follow-up visit, one eye graded as moderate NPDR improved to mild, one eye graded as severe NPDR improved to mild and one eye graded as severe NPDR was inactivated due to panretinal photocoagulation.
Conclusions Outcomes analysis of intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy for eyes with both neovascular AMD and DR showed stabilisation of BCVA and reduction of CMT, along with stable or improved DR stage throughout follow-up.
- Treatment Medical
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors All the authors meet the ICMJE recommendations for authorship credit (substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data; drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; final approval of the version published; agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved).
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Obtained.
Ethics approval Institutional review board (IRB) approval was obtained for this retrospective study, and the retrospective review of patient information, from all sites. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) compliance was also maintained.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.