June 2020
Volume 61, Issue 7
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2020
Temporal Trends in the Treatment of Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: An AAO IRIS Registry Analysis
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Dan Gong
    Mass Eye and Ear, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States
  • Nathan Eli Hall
    Mass Eye and Ear, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States
  • Tobias Elze
    Mass Eye and Ear, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States
  • Lucia Sobrin
    Mass Eye and Ear, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States
  • Joan W Miller
    Mass Eye and Ear, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States
  • Alice Lorch
    Mass Eye and Ear, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States
  • John B Miller
    Mass Eye and Ear, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Dan Gong, None; Nathan Hall, None; Tobias Elze, None; Lucia Sobrin, None; Joan Miller, None; Alice Lorch, None; John Miller, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  NIH R21 EY030142, R21 EY030631, R01 EY030575, K99 EY028631, P30 EY003790; BrightFocus Foundation; Grimshaw-Gudewicz Foundation; Research to Prevent Blindness; Lions Foundation; Alice Adler Fellowship
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2020, Vol.61, 1382. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Dan Gong, Nathan Eli Hall, Tobias Elze, Lucia Sobrin, Joan W Miller, Alice Lorch, John B Miller; Temporal Trends in the Treatment of Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: An AAO IRIS Registry Analysis. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2020;61(7):1382.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) is a major cause of irreversible vision loss in the United States. Panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) and intravitreal anti-VEGF injections (IVI) are both acceptable treatments to reduce the risk of vision loss in patients with PDR, but it is unclear how treatment patterns are changing over time.

Methods : A retrospective, cohort analysis using the AAO IRIS Registry database spanning 2013-2017. A total of 197,273 eyes with a PDR diagnosis code (ICD-10 codes E08.35, E09.35, E10.35, E11.35, E13.35; ICD-9 code 362.02) were included in addition to information on whether these eyes underwent PRP (CPT 67228), IVI (CPT 67028), or observation. Comparison analyses of age, gender, and the presence of diabetic macular edema (DME) were conducted using t-tests, Tukey tests, and Chi-squared tests as appropriate.

Results : From 2013-2017, 80,606 (40.9%) eyes with PDR underwent PRP, 96,413 (48.9%) eyes underwent IVI, and 20,254 (10.2%) underwent observation. While PDR patients receiving PRP were younger than those receiving IVI (57.6 vs 59.7 years old, p<0.001), the average age of both groups declined from 2013 to 2017 (67.9 to 62.8 for IVI, p<0.001; 66.5 to 60.9 for PRP, p<0.001). In 2013, the majority of eyes undergoing treatment for PDR received PRP (57.3% PRP, 42.7% IVI), but by 2017, this treatment pattern had reversed with the majority receiving IVI (42.7% PRP, 57.3% IVI, p<0.001). A higher proportion of women with PDR received IVI than men in 2013 (+1.6%), but a lower proportion of women received IVI than men by 2017 (-1.0%, p=0.007). The proportion of eyes with PDR without concurrent DME receiving IVI increased from 40.7% in 2013 to 44.9% in 2017 although this was not statistically significant (p=0.81).

Conclusions : In this cohort analysis of the AAO IRIS Registry, IVI surpassed PRP as the more common method of treating PDR from 2013 to 2017.

This is a 2020 ARVO Annual Meeting abstract.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×