ObjectiveTo 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. MethodsA 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. ResultsAmong 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). ConclusionsThe 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.
ObjectiveTo observe the correlation between blood cell-related inflammatory markers and diabetic retinopathy (DR). MethodsA cross-sectional study. From June 2020 to February 2022, the phase Ⅰ data of Beichen Eye Study in Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital were included in the study. The research contents included questionnaires, routine systemic and ocular examinations, and laboratory blood cell-related indicators including mean platelet volume (MPV), platelet distribution width (PDW), neutrophils, and lymphocytes were performed. Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet/lymphocyte ratio (PLR) were calculated. The diagnosis and classification of DR referred to the international clinical classification standard of DR. Monocular or binocular DR was defined as DR patients. Participants were categorized into different groups based on whether they had diabetes and whether they had DR. The groups included the no-diabetes group, the diabetes without DR group, and the DR group. The Kruskal-Wallis H test was used for the comparison of quantitative data among multiple groups. Wilcoxon test was used for comparison between the two groups. The χ2 test was used to compare the categorical variables between groups. The variables was adjusted step by step, an unadjusted univariate model was built and the different parameters of the model Ⅰ, Ⅱ, Ⅲ were adjusted. The correlation between MPV, PDW, NLR, PLR, and DR in different models was analyzed by logistic regression. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to analyze the diagnostic efficacy of different NLR models for DR. ResultsA total of 3 328 subjects were recruited. Among them, 1 121 (33.68 %, 1 121/3 328) were males and 2 207 (66.32 %, 2 207/3 328) were females. The median age of the included participants was 61.84 (6.05) years. The no-diabetes group, the diabetes without DR group, and the DR group were 2 679, 476, and 173, respectively. There was no significant difference in MPV and PLR among the three groups (H=5.98, 1.94; P=0.051, 0.379). However, compared with no-diabetes group and the diabetes without DR group, PDW and NLR in the DR group showed an upward trend. In model Ⅲ with completely adjusted related factors, NLR was an independent risk factor for DR in no-diabetes group and DR group [odds ratio (OR)=1.440, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.087-1.920, P=0.041], diabetes without DR group and DR group [OR=1.990, 95% CI 1.440-2.749, P＜0.001]. The results of ROC curve analysis showed that the diagnostic efficiency of NLR model Ⅲ was the highest, the area under the curve was 0.751 (95%CI 0.706-0.796, P＜0.001), the optimal cutoff value was 0.390, and the sensitivity and specificity were 74.3% and 64.8%, respectively. ConclusionsThe NLR of the DR group is significantly higher than that of the no-diabetes group and diabetes without DR group. NLR is an independent risk factor for DR.