Abstract
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.