Real-world Outcomes among Eyes with Center-Involving Diabetic Macular Edema and Good Visual Acuity

ABSTRACT

Purpose

We aimed to determine long-term visual and anatomical outcomes among patients with center involving-diabetic macular edema and good vision and evaluate factors associated with visual and anatomic outcomes.

Materials and Methods

In this retrospective study, all patients with type 2 diabetes aged ≥18 years had seen at the Wilmer Eye Institute between March 2015-June 2018 and with diabetic macular edema confirmed on spectral-domain optical coherence tomography imaging were included, provided they had visual acuity of 20/30 or better in ≥1 eye and a follow-up duration of ≥3 clinic visits. Change in logMAR visual acuity and central 1 mm foveal thickness from baseline, lines of visual acuity gained/lost for overall cohort stratified by treatment were analyzed.

Results

Among 197 (243 eyes) participants, mean (± standard deviation) age was 63.4 ± 11.2 years, and half were males. Average duration of follow-up was 1.7 ± 0.7 years. One hundred and forty-six eyes (60%) received anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections, at an average of 3.7 ± 2.9 injections/eye/year. Mean logMAR visual acuity at baseline was 0.1 ± 0.1 [Snellen 20/25] in both treatment and observation (no anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment received during and 3 months prior to the study inclusion period) groups. Final logMAR visual acuity was 0.2 ± 0.2 in the treatment group [Snellen 20/32] versus 0.1 ± 0.3 in observation group [Snellen 20/25]; (p = .23). Mean central foveal thickness changed from 333 ± 66 to 308 ± 45 microns in treatment group and 319 ± 41 to 308 ± 65 microns in observation group.

Conclusions

After an average of 1.7 years of follow-up, there were no significant differences in final vision or central foveal thickness irrespective of whether patients received or did not receive treatment with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections.

KEYWORDS:

• Ci-DME
• good vision
• anti-VEGF
• observation
• agencies regulation

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Ximin Li (Research Associate at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) and the Wilmer Biostatistical department (Core Grant EY01765) for assistance with data analysis.

Supplemental material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed publisher’s website.