Comparison of big data before and after the establishment of one-stop intravitreal injection mode in the real-world research
10.3760/cma.j.cn511434-20230518-00226
- VernacularTitle:一站式玻璃体腔注药模式成立前后真实世界研究大数据对比
- Author:
Liangzhang TAN
1
;
Xinjun REN
;
Yifeng KE
;
Juping LIU
;
Fei GAO
;
Shoukuan LIU
;
Xiaorong LI
Author Information
1. 天津医科大学眼科医院、眼视光学院、眼科研究所 国家眼耳鼻喉疾病临床医学研究中心天津市分中心 天津市视网膜功能与疾病重点实验室, 天津 300384
- Keywords:
Intravitreal injection;
Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drugs;
Ocular fundus disease;
Real-world research;
Management mode
- From:
Chinese Journal of Ocular Fundus Diseases
2023;39(6):451-458
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare and analyze the application of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) drugs for intravitreal injection in the real world before and after the establishment of one-stop intravitreal injection center, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of different management modes.Methods:A retrospective clinical study. A total of 4 015 patients (4 659 eyes) who received anti-VEGF drugs for ocular fundus diseases at the Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital from July, 2018 to June, 2022 were included in the study. There were 2 146 males and 1 869 females. The ocular fundus diseases in this study were as follows: 1 090 eyes of 968 patients with wet age-related macular degeneration (wAMD); 855 eyes of 654 patients with diabetic macular edema (DME); 1 158 eyes of 980 patients with diabetic retinopathy (DR); 930 eyes of 916 patients with macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO-ME). A total of 294 eyes of 275 patients with choroidal neovascularization secondary to pathological myopia (PM-CNV); 332 eyes of 222 patients with other fundus diseases. A total of 13 796 anti-VEGF needles were injected. A total of 1 252 patients (1 403 eyes) from July 2018 to June 2020 were regarded as the control group. From July 2020 to June 2022, 2 763 patients (3 256 eyes) who received anti-VEGF treatment in the intravitreal injection center were regarded as the observation group. The total number of intravitreal injection needles, the distribution of anti-VEGF therapy in each disease according to disease classification, the proportion of patients who chose the 3+ on-demand treatment (PRN) regimen and the distribution of clinical application of different anti-VEGF drugs were compared between the control group and the observation group. The waiting time and medical experience of patients were investigated by questionnaire. χ2 test was used to compare the count data between the two groups, and t test was used to compare the measurement data. Results:Among the 13 796 anti-VEGF injections in 4 659 eyes, the total number of anti-VEGF drugs used in the control and observation groups were 4 762 and 9 034, respectively, with an average of (3.39±3.78) and (2.78±2.27) injections per eye ( t=6.900, P<0.001), respectively. In the control and observation groups, a total of 1 728 and 2 705 injections of anti-VEGF drugs were used for wAMD with an average of (5.14±4.56) and (3.59±2.45) injections per eye, respectively; a total of 982 and 2 038 injections of anti-VEGF drugs were used for DME with an average of (4.36±4.91) and (3.24±2.77) needles per eye, respectively. Additionally, a total of 942 and 2 179 injections of anti-VEGF drugs were injected for RVO-ME with an average of (3.98±3.71) and (3.14±2.15) injections per eye, respectively; a total of 291 and 615 injections of anti-VEGF drugs were injected for PM-CNV with an average of (3.31±2.63) and (2.99±1.69) injections per eye, respectively. A total of 683 and 1 029 injections of anti-VEGF drugs were injected for DR with an average of (1.60±1.26) and (1.41±1.05) injections per eye, respectively. The clinical application and implementation of "3+PRN" treatment were as follows: 223 (66.4%, 223/336) and 431 eyes (57.2%, 431/754) in the wAMD ( χ2=8.210, P=0.004), 75 (33.3%, 75/225) and 236 (37.5%, 236/630) eyes in the DME ( χ2=1.220, P>0.05), and 97 (40.9%, 97/237) and 355 eyes (51.2%, 355/693) in the RVO-ME ( χ2=7.498, P=0.006), 39 (44.3%, 39/88) and 111 eyes (53.9%, 111/206) in the PM-CNV ( χ2=2.258, P>0.05), respectively. In addition, the results of the questionnaire survey showed that there were significant differences between the control and observation groups regarding the time of appointment waiting for surgery ( t=1.340), time from admission to entering the operating room on the day of injection ( t=2.780), time from completing preoperative treatment preparation to waiting for entering the operating room ( t=8.390), and time from admission to discharge ( t=6.060) ( P<0.05). Conclusions:The establishment of a one-stop intravitreal injection mode greatly improved work efficiency and increased the number of injections. At the same time, the compliance, waiting time, and overall medical experience of patients significantly improved under centralized management.
