Patient Experience Survey of Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Treatment for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration and Diabetic Macular Edema.

INTRODUCTION

Understanding patient perspectives of treatment may improve adherence and outcomes. This study explored real-world patient experiences with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment for diabetic macular edema (DME) and neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).

METHODS

This multinational, non-interventional, quantitative, cross-sectional, observational survey assessed treatment barriers/burden, patient-reported visual functioning, and treatment satisfaction in DME and nAMD patients in the USA, the UK, Canada, France, Italy, and Spain. Treatment patterns and visual outcomes were extracted from medical charts. Regression models evaluated relationships between adherence, total missed visits, number of anti-VEGF injections, and clinical and patient-reported outcomes for visual functioning. Association between treatment satisfaction and aspects of burden were assessed.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 183 DME and 391 nAMD patients. Patients had moderately high vision-related functioning (25-item National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire score: mean = 74.8) and were satisfied with their current treatment (mean total score: Macular Disease Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire = 59.2; Retinopathy Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire = 61.3). Treatment satisfaction scores were worse with higher time-related impacts of treatment (nAMD/DME), higher impacts on finances and daily life (nAMD), negative impacts on employment and lower expectations for treatment effectiveness (DME). Most patients reported ≥1 barrier (66.1% DME, 49.2% nAMD patients) related to treatment (35.0%), clinic (32.6%), and COVID-19 (21.1%). Moreover, 44.9% of patients reported some impairment in activities of daily living. Work absenteeism was observed among >60% of working patients. Nearly one-quarter (24.2%) of patients needed ≥1 day to recover from intravitreal injections; most reported ≥30 min of travel time (73.7%) and clinic wait time (54.2%). In unadjusted univariable analyses, treatment adherence (vs. nonadherence) was related to higher most recent visual acuity (β = 8.98 letters; CI, 1.34-16.62) and lower odds of visual acuity below driving vision (≤69 letters) (OR = 0.50; CI, 0.25-1.00).

CONCLUSION

More durable treatments with reduced frequency of injections/visits may reduce treatment burden and improve patient satisfaction, which may enhance adherence and visual outcomes.