Lifetime Outcomes of Anti–Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Treatment for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration | Macular Diseases | JAMA Ophthalmology | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Figure.  Estimated Prevalence Rates (With 95% CIs) of Patients With Reading and Driving Visual Acuity, Stratified by Number of Intravitreal Injections Received During the First Year of Treatment and Age at Baseline After 5 and 10 Years
Estimated Prevalence Rates (With 95% CIs) of Patients With Reading and Driving Visual Acuity, Stratified by Number of Intravitreal Injections Received During the First Year of Treatment and Age at Baseline After 5 and 10 Years

In each stratum, pairwise differences are statistically significant at the 5% level because the respective 95% confidence intervals do not overlap.

Table 1.  Characteristics of the Sample
Characteristics of the Sample
Table 2.  Estimated Transition Probabilities Between Vision States and Into the Dropout State at 5 and 10 Years With 95% Bootstrap Confidence Intervals (500 Resamples)
Estimated Transition Probabilities Between Vision States and Into the Dropout State at 5 and 10 Years With 95% Bootstrap Confidence Intervals (500 Resamples)
Table 3.  Estimated Distribution of Patients (N = 3192) Across Vision States at 5 and 10 Yearsa
Estimated Distribution of Patients (N = 3192) Across Vision States at 5 and 10 Yearsa
1.
Lim  LS, Mitchell  P, Seddon  JM, Holz  FG, Wong  TY.  Age-related macular degeneration.   Lancet. 2012;379(9827):1728-1738. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60282-7PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Chakravarthy  U, Biundo  E, Saka  RO, Fasser  C, Bourne  R, Little  JA.  The economic impact of blindness in Europe.   Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2017;24(4):239-247. doi:10.1080/09286586.2017.1281426PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Brown  DM, Kaiser  PK, Michels  M,  et al; ANCHOR Study Group.  Ranibizumab versus verteporfin for neovascular age-related macular degeneration.   N Engl J Med. 2006;355(14):1432-1444. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa062655PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Wong  TY, Chakravarthy  U, Klein  R,  et al.  The natural history and prognosis of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis.   Ophthalmology. 2008;115(1):116-126. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.03.008PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Maguire  MG, Martin  DF, Ying  GS,  et al; Comparison of Age-related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials (CATT) Research Group.  Five-year outcomes with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: the comparison of age-related macular degeneration treatments trials.   Ophthalmology. 2016;123(8):1751-1761. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.03.045PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Gillies  MC, Campain  A, Barthelmes  D,  et al; Fight Retinal Blindness Study Group.  Long-term outcomes of treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: data from an observational study.   Ophthalmology. 2015;122(9):1837-1845. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.05.010PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Sweeting  MJ, Farewell  VT, De Angelis  D.  Multi-state Markov models for disease progression in the presence of informative examination times: an application to hepatitis C.   Stat Med. 2010;29(11):1161-1174. doi:10.1002/sim.3812PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Gillies  MC, Walton  R, Liong  J,  et al.  Efficient capture of high-quality data on outcomes of treatment for macular diseases: the fight retinal blindness! Project.   Retina. 2014;34(1):188-195. doi:10.1097/IAE.0b013e318296b271PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Finger  RP, Fenwick  E, Hirneiss  CW,  et al.  Visual impairment as a function of visual acuity in both eyes and its impact on patient reported preferences.   PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e81042. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0081042PubMedGoogle Scholar
10.
Keeffe  JE, Jin  CF, Weih  LM, McCarty  CA, Taylor  HR.  Vision impairment and older drivers: who’s driving?   Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86(10):1118-1121. doi:10.1136/bjo.86.10.1118PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Colenbrander  A, Fletcher  DC.  Basic concepts and terms for low vision rehabilitation.   Am J Occup Ther. 1995;49(9):865-869.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Petiot  V, Quantin  C, Le Teuff  G,  et al.  Disability evolution in multiple sclerosis: how to deal with missing transition times in the Markov model?   Neuroepidemiology. 2007;28(1):56-64. doi:10.1159/000098518PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Jackson  CH, Sharples  LD.  Hidden Markov models for the onset and progression of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome in lung transplant recipients.   Stat Med. 2002;21(1):113-128. doi:10.1002/sim.886PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Minicuci  N, Noale  M, Grp  I; ISLA group.  Influence of level of education on disability free life expectancy by sex: the ILSA study.   Exp Gerontol. 2005;40(12):997-1003. doi:10.1016/j.exger.2005.08.011PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Jackson  CH.  Multi-state models for panel data: the msm package for R.   J Stat Softw. 2011;38(8):1-28. doi:10.18637/jss.v038.i08Google ScholarCrossref
16.
Finger  RP, Wickremasinghe  SS, Baird  PN, Guymer  RH.  Predictors of anti-VEGF treatment response in neovascular age-related macular degeneration.   Surv Ophthalmol. 2014;59(1):1-18. doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2013.03.009PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Bloch  SB, Larsen  M, Munch  IC.  Incidence of legal blindness from age-related macular degeneration in denmark: year 2000 to 2010.   Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153(2):209-213.e2.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Skaat  A, Chetrit  A, Belkin  M, Kinori  M, Kalter-Leibovici  O.  Time trends in the incidence and causes of blindness in Israel.   Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153(2):214-221.e1.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Borooah  S, Jeganathan  VS, Ambrecht  AM,  et al.  Long-term visual outcomes of intravitreal ranibizumab treatment for wet age-related macular degeneration and effect on blindness rates in south-east Scotland.   Eye (Lond). 2015;29(9):1156-1161. doi:10.1038/eye.2015.83PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Westborg  I, Rosso  A.  Risk factors for discontinuation of treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration.   Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2018;25(2):176-182. doi:10.1080/09286586.2017.1397701PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Gil  J, Preux  PM, Alioum  A,  et al.  Disease progression and survival in ALS: first multi-state model approach.   Amyotroph Lateral Scler. 2007;8(4):224-229. doi:10.1080/17482960701278562PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Finger  RP, Hoffmann  AE, Fenwick  EK,  et al.  Patients’ preferences in treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in clinical routine.   Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96(7):997-1002. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2011-301201PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Finger  RP, Guymer  RH, Gillies  MC, Keeffe  JE.  The impact of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment on quality of life in neovascular age-related macular degeneration.   Ophthalmology. 2014;121(6):1246-1251. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.12.032PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Grand  MK, Vermeer  KA, Missotten  T, Putter  H.  A joint model for dynamic prediction in uveitis.   Stat Med. 2019;38(10):1802-1816. doi:10.1002/sim.8069PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    Original Investigation
    October 15, 2020

    Lifetime Outcomes of Anti–Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Treatment for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Department of Ophthalmology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
    • 2IMBIE, Faculty of Medicine, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
    • 3Sydney Medical School, Save Sight Institute, Discipline of Ophthalmology and Eye Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    • 4Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
    • 5Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    • 6Ophthalmology, Department of Surgery, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    JAMA Ophthalmol. 2020;138(12):1234-1240. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2020.3989
    Key Points

    Question  What are lifetime outcomes of anti–vascular endothelial growth factor treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration?

    Findings  In this multistate model using real-world data, an estimated 12% of the sample retained driving visual acuity and 15% reading visual acuity in at least 1 eye over their mean remaining lifetime of 11 years. More injections and younger age at baseline were associated with better outcomes.

    Meaning  Good lifetime vision outcomes can be achieved with anti–vascular endothelial growth factor treatment in neovascular age-related macular degeneration with more injections and an earlier start, increasing the chances of good outcomes and highlighting the need to provide easy access to this treatment.

    Abstract

    Importance  Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), the largest single cause of irreversible severe vision loss in high-income countries, can now be treated with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors, but to our knowledge, no data on lifetime outcomes are available.

    Objective  To determine visual acuity (VA) outcomes of anti-VEGF treatment for nAMD in both eyes for patients’ remaining lifetime.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  Multistate modeling using real-world cohort data of 3192 patients with nAMD (>67 000 visits) treated in routine eye clinics in Australia, New Zealand, and Switzerland. Data were analyzed between 2007 and 2015.

    Exposures  Intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment at the treating physician’s discretion and prospective data collection in standardized registry.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  Visual acuity in both eyes over the remaining lifetime.

    Results  For the mean remaining lifetime of 11 years, an estimated 12% (n = 371; 95% CI, 345-400) of the sample retained driving VA and an estimated 15% (n = 463; 95% CI, 434-495) reading VA in at least 1 eye. At that time, an estimated 82% of the sample (n = 2629; 95% CI, 2590-2660) had dropped out. Younger age at baseline and more injections during the first year of treatment were associated with better long-term outcomes.

    Conclusions and Relevance  Anti-VEGF treatment was associated with preserved useful visual acuity in almost 20% of patients over their average remaining lifetime. More than 80% of patients will cease treatment over that time, having likely experienced a deterioration of vision beforehand. This is a remarkable outcome compared with outcomes without intervention, which lead to legal blindness within 3 years of disease onset in 80% of those affected. These findings underline the public health necessity of providing anti-VEGF treatment to persons in need.

    Introduction

    The late-stage neovascular form of age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) is the largest single cause of irreversible, severe vision loss in all high-income countries, causing estimated direct costs of more than €50 billion (US $59 billion) in the EU alone each year.1,2 Current treatment options that preserve sight and lead to a considerable improvement in some patients are based on the inhibition of vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) and are delivered as regular intravitreal injections.3 In contrast, nonintervention outcomes lead to legal blindness within 3 years following onset in 80% of patients affected.4 Because anti-VEGF treatment does not cure nAMD but only controls it, treatment is for the long term and is often required until either the eye worsens to levels where treatment is no longer considered beneficial or the patient dies.

    However, to date, only a few reports on real-world outcomes beyond 5 years are available, and attrition is high, as is inevitable in long-term observational studies in elderly populations.5,6 Thus, we do not know whether and for how long patients retain useful visual acuity (VA) that allows them to continue to undertake activities that were often lost prior to the advent of anti-VEGF treatment, such as reading and driving. Considering the considerable societal effects of both nAMD and its treatment in terms of costs, a better understanding of lifetime outcomes of anti-VEGF treatment for nAMD is required. Long-term treatment outcomes or prognosis can be estimated using multistate models (MSMs), which capture transition between different health states over time conditional on specific transition probabilities based on real-world data.7 In this study, we used MSMs as well as data from patients with long-term, ongoing anti-VEGF treatment for nAMD in routine medical practice to evaluate outcomes for this sample over their average remaining lifetime.

    Methods
    Design and Setting

    This was a retrospective analysis of an observational study of patients who had commenced intravitreal therapy for nAMD in routine clinical practice and had been prospectively tracked in the Fight Retinal Blindness (FRB) database. Treatment decisions and visit schedules were determined by the treating physician in consultation with the patient. Both visits and treatment were at maximum monthly. The details of the FRB database have been previously published.8 In brief, the FRB registry collects data from each clinical visit. Institutional ethics approval was obtained from the human research ethics committees of the University of Sydney, the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists, and the Cantonal Ethics Committee Zurich, and patients provided written consent. No compensation or other incentives were provided for participation. The study adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.

    Patient Selection and Variables

    All patients resided in Australia, New Zealand, or Switzerland; were aged 55 years or older with a diagnosis of nAMD and received treatment with anti-VEGF between 2007 and 2015; and had VA data for both eyes and at least 1 follow-up. Patients were excluded if data were missing on which eye was treated. Patients were not excluded based on ocular comorbidities or if they underwent cataract surgery during follow-up. Best-corrected VA was tested using Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study charts or logMAR charts. Treatment was with anti-VEGF agents only; no patients received intravitreal corticosteroids.

    Outcomes
    Vision States

    Multistate modeling requires discrete health states through which patients transition with a certain probability. Because the assessed outcome is VA, we considered discrete vision states that have been described in more detail elsewhere.9 In brief, 3 categories of vision impairment (VI) were calculated for both eyes, individually: (1) no VI (VA ≥20/40); (2) mild VI (<20/40 to 20/60); and (3) moderate to severe VI (VA <20/60). These cutoffs were chosen because 20/40 is the cutoff for driving VA in most countries and 20/60 is a cutoff for comfortable reading VA (no need for magnifying aids).10,11 With 3 categories of vision impairment in each eye, a combination of 6 different vision states were determined based on the 3 categories of VI in each eye (eTable in the Supplement). Treatment cessation, dropout, and death were all classified as dropout because the data did not allow for a differentiation. Patients were classified dropout if no further visits were documented for at least 6 months. Any documented visits, irrespective of the interval between them, were included in the respective vision state in the model.

    Statistical Analyses

    Descriptive statistical analysis methods were used to characterize the sample. These included means with standard deviations (SD) and medians with interquartile ranges (IQRs) for continuous variables and numbers with percentages for categorical variables.

    We used multistate Markov models to describe the process in which an individual transitions through a series of vision states in continuous time while receiving anti-VEGF treatment for nAMD. A Markov model is a general MSM in which a system switches between different states assuming a certain transition probability. Multistate Markov models are commonly used in studies of chronic diseases, in which patients are assumed to pass through a series of discrete disease stages with 1 final state, either death or the terminal stage of a disease from which no exacerbation is possible, that is irreversible and referred to as an “absorbing” state.12,13 This approach works very well for censored data14 and has been implemented in the software solution R (R Statistical Foundation; add-on package msm).15

    With the addition of a dropout state, ie, treatment cessation for any reason including mortality, as an absorbing state, our data reflected a 7-state system: 6 vision states as well as 1 absorbing health state in which patients were no longer treated. Transitions between any of the 6 vision states are possible; however, an improvement for example from vision state 6 to vision state 1 is unlikely (see eFigure 1 in the Supplement for possible transitions). Our data were entered into a multistate hidden Markov model, with monthly transitions between health states. Patients who were extended beyond 1 month were classified as remaining in the vision state until they were assessed the next time, ie, had their VA recorded again, at which point they could either remain (ie, no change) or transition into another vision state (ie, improve, deteriorate, or dropout). At any time, any individual is in a discrete vision state or in the absorbing health state. Transition between and time within each of the vision states are governed by the according transition probabilities.

    The msm functions in the R package of the same name, version 1.6.6, were then used to estimate a transition probability matrix and the remaining mean life expectancy of patients based on the Australian Life Tables (Australian Bureau of Statistics at https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/). Because age at baseline and the number of injections received during the first year are the most important factors associated with treatment outcomes besides baseline VA,16 MSMs were adjusted for the most populous age groups (aged 70-79 years and aged 80-89 years) and by number of injections during the first year of treatment (≤5, 6-7, or ≥8 injections). Only the initial number of injections was used to characterize transition rates, whereas subsequent variations of the injection frequency were not included as a predictor in our model. The calculation of life expectancy was also adjusted for age at baseline and sex. For each transition probability (over 5 and 10 years), 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap approach, with 500 resamples, as implemented in the msm package.15

    The goodness of model fit was assessed by comparing expected and observed prevalence (or occupancy) in all health states per month for the first 5 years for which we had real-life data. This accurately describes how well the model captures the assessed process over time and is an appropriate approach for assessing goodness of fit of hidden Markov models.13 All analyses were undertaken using the R software for statistical computing, version 3.5.2.

    Results
    Sample Characteristics

    We obtained complete data sets of 3192 individual patients with a total of 67 700 visits (Table 1). Thirty-seven percent were male and 63% female, and most were 80 years or older at baseline (Table 1). Thirty-nine percent of the sample were treated in both eyes. On average, patients were followed up for just under 3 years (mean [SD], 34 [37] months), and mean (SD) VA was similar at last follow-up compared with baseline (60 [22] and 61 [19] letters). Patients received a mean (SD) of 18 (17) injections during follow-up ( Table 1).

    Modeled Lifetime Outcomes

    Estimated transition probabilities and 95% CIs from baseline to 5 and 10 years are listed in Table 2. Using vision state 1 as an example, patients with good VA in both eyes (vision state 1, VA ≥20/40) at baseline had a 13% chance at 5 years and a 5% chance at 10 years to remain at that level of vision in both eyes. However, they also had a 17% chance of losing vision in one (transition to vision states 1 and 3) and a 13% chance of losing vision in both eyes (transition to vision state 4-6) at 5 years and 8% and 6% chance at 10 years, respectively. Irrespective of baseline VA, patients had a 58% to 66% chance at 5 years and a 84% to 87% chance at 10 years of transitioning into dropout (Table 2).

    Based on the estimated transition probabilities, we calculated treatment outcomes at 5 and 10 years and for the remaining life expectancy for our sample (Table 3). Average life expectancy was 11 years (mean, 10.9; median, 9.7; range, 2.1-31.3 years). After 5 years of anti-VEGF treatment, 26% of the sample (n = 841; vision states 1-3; 95% CI, 800-884) retained driving VA in at least 1 eye. Similarly, a total of 32% of the sample (n = 1020; vision states 1-5; 95% CI, 978-1068) retained reading VA in at least 1 eye after 5 years of treatment (Table 3) while 62% of the sample (n = 1976; 95% CI, 1925-2022) had dropped out. Over the remaining life expectancy, 12% of the sample (n = 371, vision states 1-3; 95% CI, 345-400) retained driving VA, and 15% (n = 463, vision states 1-5; 95% CI, 434-495) retained reading VA in at least 1 eye. At that time, 82% of the sample (n = 2629; 95% CI, 2590-2660) had dropped out (Table 3).

    Factors Associated With Treatment Outcomes

    Younger age at baseline as well as a higher number of injections during the first year were associated with better functional outcomes at both 5 and 10 years (Figure). In all modeled scenarios, both for driving and reading VA and both after 5 and 10 years, VA outcomes improved steadily from 5 or fewer injections to 6 to 7 injections to 8 or more injections given during the first year of treatment. Similarly, in all modeled scenarios, persons aged 70 to 79 years at baseline compared with those aged 80 to 89 years had better outcomes. Patients with 8 or more injections were treated for longer before they dropped out (mean, 3.3 vs 2.4 years; median, 2.8 vs 1.4 years; first quartile, 1.8 vs 0.4 years; third quartile, 4.6 vs 4.2 years). Patients with good baseline vision, ie, driving and reading VA (vision state 1-3), had the highest probability to retain good visual acuity at both 5 and 10 years (Table 2) as well as over their remaining lifetime (Table 3) irrespective of their baseline age.

    Model Assessment

    The observed and expected prevalence rates for each vision state and the absorbing health state are depicted in eFigure 2 in the Supplement. Vision states 4 and 5 demonstrate the best fit (eFigure 2 in the Supplement). Those who ceased treatment or dropped out for any other reason such as loss to follow-up or death are somewhat underestimated from month 40 onwards (panel 7 in eFigure 2 in the Supplement).

    Discussion

    With anti-VEGF treatment of nAMD in routine medical practice, a large proportion of patients retained useful VA in at least 1 eye for 5 years and a smaller proportion over their estimated remaining lifetime. An increasing proportion of patients will cease treatment over time, with more than 80% not being treated any longer toward the end of their remaining life expectancy. These findings emphasize that ongoing anti-VEGF treatment is associated with better outcomes and prevention of severe vision loss in a considerable proportion of patients in the long term. It also highlights that a large proportion of patients cease treatment for various reasons, and more work is required to lower this proportion.

    Several studies have demonstrated a reduction in blindness registrations owing to nAMD of up to 50% since the introduction of anti-VEGF treatment,17-19 but no study to our knowledge has assessed whether patients retain useful vision instead of just avoiding legal blindness. The natural history of nAMD is devastating, with almost 80% of patients (77.6%) becoming blind (VA ≤20/200) by 3 years.4 Based on our modeled lifetime outcomes, the effect of anti-VEGF treatment is immense, with a considerable proportion retaining useful VA in at least 1 eye rather than just avoiding legal blindness. However, a large proportion of patients will cease treatment (ie, drop out), which is reflected in virtually all real-world case series in the literature, with treatment cessation in the first year of up to 50%.20

    Multistate models are commonly used to assess disability or chronic disease progression with discrete health states.7,13,21 Using MSMs to assess and extrapolate VA outcomes has not been done before to our knowledge, most likely because VA is a continuous variable and not commonly thought of as a vision or health state. However, given the cutoffs we chose in this study, it is not only possible but sensible to assess the proportion of patients who retain VA useful for driving and/or reading, ie, avoid visual disability.

    Our model may slightly overestimate prevalence in several vision states and underestimate transition into the dropout state. Because the dropout state includes persons who discontinued treatment with good vision owing to disease inactivity as well as persons who continued treatment at another clinician with potentially good visual outcomes as well, albeit only small numbers in both groups, the dropout state includes persons with good VA outcomes. Thus, the observed prevalence in the dropout state is higher than the expected, ie, modeled, and higher than the real prevalence. In addition, this group of elderly patients has a high and increasing background mortality over the last 10 years of their life, which was impossible to account for in a separate health state owing to the study design.

    Strengths and Limitations

    Strengths of this study include the setting in routine medical practice, capturing real-life treatment patterns and outcomes. Our treatment outcomes are in keeping with published literature of real-world outcomes and we considered treatment and outcomes for both eyes because this reflects clinical reality. In previous work, we have demonstrated that independent of the better eye, the worse eye significantly affects a person’s quality of life and utilities, and the effect of treatment on VA and thus patients’ quality of life is independent of whether the better or worse eye is treated.9,22,23

    The MSM used in this work has the advantage that it analyzes the driving forces behind the transitions between vision states, accounting for both risk factors and the lengths of the time spans between transitions. Of note, the assumed structure of our transition probabilities is related to a 2019 modeling approach by Grand et al,24 who analyzed the effects of risk factors and time spans by fitting a Cox-type MSM with a constant baseline hazard to analyze visual acuity (measured on a continuous scale) within a joint modeling framework. Unlike this model, the MSM for vision states considered here is not based on eye-level measurements but on person-level measurements because this is the most appropriate level when assessing patients’ everyday functioning.

    Limitations include the comparatively small sample size for such a modeling study, the relatively short follow-up in comparison with the remaining lifetime modeled, the somewhat inhomogeneous data characteristic for registries and case series, and the attrition of patients over time. However, our sample size is no smaller than samples used in other MSM studies for outcome prediction,7,13,21 and the uncertainty in our estimates is well reflected in the widths of the bootstrap confidence intervals. Also, the MSMs considered here explicitly account for attrition over time because we included a separate state to account for death and/or dropout. While MSM is an excellent means to extrapolate transition between health states in continuous time, predicting future outcomes with as much accuracy as statistically possible, we emphasize that the specification of our model is not without limitations. First, owing to the sampling design and the characteristics of the data set, only 2 covariates (age at baseline and number of injections) of potentially many variables affecting the transition probabilities could be analyzed. Second, again owing to the sampling design, we had to collapse both “death” and “dropout for other reasons” into 1 state, which implied that our model was not able to separate the (potentially different) associations between these events and the various vision states. Still, despite these limitations, our probability estimates and conclusions are plausible and appear to be well supported by the data at hand. Third, including all FRB participants irrespective of ocular comorbidities or cataract surgery during follow-up affected our ability to attribute VA gains or losses to anti-VEGF treatment. However, it increases external validity because it reflects actual patient cohorts treated in real life. Fourth, the dropout state likely contains patients with good VA who discontinued treatment owing to disease inactivity, which should be considered when interpreting the data. Finally we note that generalizing results from a setting in the Australian, New Zealand, or Swiss health care system requires caution. Similarly, generalizing results to samples with different sex or age distributions, injection frequencies, or a different distribution of baseline VA requires caution.

    Conclusions

    In conclusion, anti-VEGF treatment preserves useful VA in almost 20% of patients for their average remaining life span. However, a large proportion of patients will cease treatment over that time, of whom many may have experienced a deterioration of VA. Given the almost uniformly rapid progressive vision loss associated with the natural history of nAMD, this is a remarkable outcome for any chronic disease, underlining the public health necessity of providing anti-VEGF treatment to persons in need as early as possible. However, more can be done to understand how to increase the proportion of those maintaining good VA over their remaining life span, so that more people are able to age well.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Corresponding Author: Robert P. Finger, MD, PhD, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Bonn, Ernst-Abbe-Str 2, 53127 Bonn, Germany (robert.finger@ukbonn.de).

    Accepted for Publication: August 22, 2020.

    Published Online: October 15, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2020.3989

    Author Contributions: Drs Finger and Schmid had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

    Concept and design: Finger, Schmid, Guymer.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

    Drafting of the manuscript: Finger.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

    Statistical analysis: Puth, Schmid.

    Obtained funding: Finger, Barthelmes, Guymer.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: Finger, Barthelmes, Guymer, Gillies.

    Supervision: Finger, Schmid, Guymer.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Schmid reported personal fees from Pixium Vision outside the submitted work. Dr Barthelmes reported grants from Novartis and Bayer during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Alcon outside the submitted work; in addition, Dr Barthelmes had a patent to Fight Retinal Blindness software issued. Dr Guymer reported personal fees from Roche outside the submitted work. Dr Gillies reported grants and personal fees from Novartis and Bayer during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work. Dr Finger reported personal fees from Novartis, Bayer, Roche/Genentech, Allergan, Alimera, Santhera, Opthea, Inositec, and Ellex outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

    Funding/Support: This work was in part supported by the German Scholars Organization/Else Kröner Fresenius Stiftung (GSO/EKFS-16). The Fight Retinal Blindness Project was supported by a grant from the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists Eye Foundation (2007-2009); a grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia (NHMRC 2010-2012); and a grant from the Macular Disease Foundation, Australia. Dr Gillies is a Sydney Medical Foundation Fellow and is supported by an National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia practitioner fellowship. Dr Barthelmes was supported by Walter Gertrud Siegenthaler Foundation, Zurich, Switzerland, and the Swiss National Foundation. Dr Guymer was supported by National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia fellowship grant GNT1103013. Centre for Eye Research receives operational infrastructure support from the Victorian government.

    Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding sources had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

    References
    1.
    Lim  LS, Mitchell  P, Seddon  JM, Holz  FG, Wong  TY.  Age-related macular degeneration.   Lancet. 2012;379(9827):1728-1738. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60282-7PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    2.
    Chakravarthy  U, Biundo  E, Saka  RO, Fasser  C, Bourne  R, Little  JA.  The economic impact of blindness in Europe.   Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2017;24(4):239-247. doi:10.1080/09286586.2017.1281426PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    3.
    Brown  DM, Kaiser  PK, Michels  M,  et al; ANCHOR Study Group.  Ranibizumab versus verteporfin for neovascular age-related macular degeneration.   N Engl J Med. 2006;355(14):1432-1444. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa062655PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    4.
    Wong  TY, Chakravarthy  U, Klein  R,  et al.  The natural history and prognosis of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis.   Ophthalmology. 2008;115(1):116-126. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.03.008PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    5.
    Maguire  MG, Martin  DF, Ying  GS,  et al; Comparison of Age-related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials (CATT) Research Group.  Five-year outcomes with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: the comparison of age-related macular degeneration treatments trials.   Ophthalmology. 2016;123(8):1751-1761. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.03.045PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    6.
    Gillies  MC, Campain  A, Barthelmes  D,  et al; Fight Retinal Blindness Study Group.  Long-term outcomes of treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: data from an observational study.   Ophthalmology. 2015;122(9):1837-1845. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.05.010PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    7.
    Sweeting  MJ, Farewell  VT, De Angelis  D.  Multi-state Markov models for disease progression in the presence of informative examination times: an application to hepatitis C.   Stat Med. 2010;29(11):1161-1174. doi:10.1002/sim.3812PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    8.
    Gillies  MC, Walton  R, Liong  J,  et al.  Efficient capture of high-quality data on outcomes of treatment for macular diseases: the fight retinal blindness! Project.   Retina. 2014;34(1):188-195. doi:10.1097/IAE.0b013e318296b271PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    9.
    Finger  RP, Fenwick  E, Hirneiss  CW,  et al.  Visual impairment as a function of visual acuity in both eyes and its impact on patient reported preferences.   PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e81042. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0081042PubMedGoogle Scholar
    10.
    Keeffe  JE, Jin  CF, Weih  LM, McCarty  CA, Taylor  HR.  Vision impairment and older drivers: who’s driving?   Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86(10):1118-1121. doi:10.1136/bjo.86.10.1118PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    11.
    Colenbrander  A, Fletcher  DC.  Basic concepts and terms for low vision rehabilitation.   Am J Occup Ther. 1995;49(9):865-869.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    12.
    Petiot  V, Quantin  C, Le Teuff  G,  et al.  Disability evolution in multiple sclerosis: how to deal with missing transition times in the Markov model?   Neuroepidemiology. 2007;28(1):56-64. doi:10.1159/000098518PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    13.
    Jackson  CH, Sharples  LD.  Hidden Markov models for the onset and progression of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome in lung transplant recipients.   Stat Med. 2002;21(1):113-128. doi:10.1002/sim.886PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    14.
    Minicuci  N, Noale  M, Grp  I; ISLA group.  Influence of level of education on disability free life expectancy by sex: the ILSA study.   Exp Gerontol. 2005;40(12):997-1003. doi:10.1016/j.exger.2005.08.011PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    15.
    Jackson  CH.  Multi-state models for panel data: the msm package for R.   J Stat Softw. 2011;38(8):1-28. doi:10.18637/jss.v038.i08Google ScholarCrossref
    16.
    Finger  RP, Wickremasinghe  SS, Baird  PN, Guymer  RH.  Predictors of anti-VEGF treatment response in neovascular age-related macular degeneration.   Surv Ophthalmol. 2014;59(1):1-18. doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2013.03.009PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    17.
    Bloch  SB, Larsen  M, Munch  IC.  Incidence of legal blindness from age-related macular degeneration in denmark: year 2000 to 2010.   Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153(2):209-213.e2.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    18.
    Skaat  A, Chetrit  A, Belkin  M, Kinori  M, Kalter-Leibovici  O.  Time trends in the incidence and causes of blindness in Israel.   Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153(2):214-221.e1.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    19.
    Borooah  S, Jeganathan  VS, Ambrecht  AM,  et al.  Long-term visual outcomes of intravitreal ranibizumab treatment for wet age-related macular degeneration and effect on blindness rates in south-east Scotland.   Eye (Lond). 2015;29(9):1156-1161. doi:10.1038/eye.2015.83PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    20.
    Westborg  I, Rosso  A.  Risk factors for discontinuation of treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration.   Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2018;25(2):176-182. doi:10.1080/09286586.2017.1397701PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    21.
    Gil  J, Preux  PM, Alioum  A,  et al.  Disease progression and survival in ALS: first multi-state model approach.   Amyotroph Lateral Scler. 2007;8(4):224-229. doi:10.1080/17482960701278562PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    22.
    Finger  RP, Hoffmann  AE, Fenwick  EK,  et al.  Patients’ preferences in treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in clinical routine.   Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96(7):997-1002. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2011-301201PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    23.
    Finger  RP, Guymer  RH, Gillies  MC, Keeffe  JE.  The impact of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment on quality of life in neovascular age-related macular degeneration.   Ophthalmology. 2014;121(6):1246-1251. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.12.032PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    24.
    Grand  MK, Vermeer  KA, Missotten  T, Putter  H.  A joint model for dynamic prediction in uveitis.   Stat Med. 2019;38(10):1802-1816. doi:10.1002/sim.8069PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    ×