4.6 Article

Trends in the Care of Diabetic Macular Edema: Analysis of a National Cohort

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 11, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149450

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health K12 Award [K12-EY015398]
  2. Scheie Eye Institute
  3. Paul and Evanina Mackall Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To evaluate how the monitoring and treatment for diabetic macular edema (DME) has changed in a national sample. Design Retrospective cohort study. Methods Setting: Administrative medical claims data from a large, national U.S. insurer. Study population: Beneficiaries of a U.S. insurance company. Observation procedures: All incident cases of DME were found. Those in years 2002/3, 2006 and 2010 were followed for a 2-year observation period and those from 2009, 2010 and 2011 for a 1-year observation period. Main Outcome Measures: Types and frequencies of treatment were tallied and compared over each of the cohorts. Results Two-year cohorts had 233, 251 and 756 patients in 2002/3, 2006 and 2010 respectively. One-year cohorts had 1002, 1119 and 1382 patients in 2009, 2010 and 2011, respectively. Both percentage of patients receiving therapy and number of treatments given increased across the 2-year cohorts for both focal laser and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) (p<0.001). The highest use of anti-VEGF agents in any of the cohorts was in the 2011 1-year group that only averaged 3.78 injections. Focal laser was used 2.5x as frequently as anti-VEGF injections in the most recent cohorts with only a high of 14.0% of DME patients receiving anti-VEGF therapy in any of the cohorts. Conclusion Regardless of treatment modality (laser or injection) DME patients received vastly fewer treatments than patients in randomized control trials. Despite the proven superior visual outcomes of anti-VEGF agents over focal laser in DME, focal laser was still used more frequently.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available