Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Abstract Background/Objectives DRAKO (NCT02850263) was a 24-month, prospective, non-interventional, multi-centre cohort study enrolling patients with diabetic macular oedema (DMO) including central involvement. The study evaluated UK standard-of-care intravitreal aflibercept (IVT-AFL) treatment. This analysis describes the treatment pathway and service provision for the anti–vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment-naïve (C1) and non-naïve patients (C2) who received prior anti-VEGF treatment for DMO other than IVT-AFL. Methods Mean changes in best-corrected visual acuity and central subfield thickness were measured and stratified by baseline factors, including ethnicity and administration of five initial monthly injections within predefined windows. Clinic visits were classified as treatment only (T1), monitoring assessment only (T2), combined visits (T3) or post-injection visits with no treatment or assessment (T4). Results Median time from decision to treat to treatment was 6 days. As a percentage of total visits, T1, T2, T3 and T4 were 7%, 42%, 48% and 3% for C1 and 11%, 39%, 48% and 2% for C2. Most IVT-AFL injections were administered by healthcare professionals (HCPs) other than doctors (C1, 57.4%; C2, 58.5%). The percentage of treatments associated with a procedure-related adverse event where at least 75% of injections were completed by the same injector role were similar for doctors and other HCPs (C1, 1.1% and 0.8%; C2, 0.7%, and 1.0%). Conclusions Results indicate that upon DMO diagnosis, patients were treated promptly, and most visits were combined (treatment and assessment) or monitoring only. Most IVT-AFL was administered by non-physicians with a similar treatment-related safety profile as IVT-AFL administered by physicians.

Original publication

DOI

10.1038/s41433-022-02367-x

Type

Journal article

Journal

Eye

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Publication Date

08/2023

Volume

37

Pages

2527 - 2534