Systemic factors associated with poor anatomical response to anti-VEGF therapy in patients with diabetic macular edema: evidence from a large clinical cohort - Summary - MDSpire

Systemic Influences Linked to Suboptimal Anatomical Outcomes Following Anti-VEGF Treatment in Diabetic Macular Edema Patients: Insights from a Large Clinical Cohort

  • By

  • Xinru Jia

  • Yan Shi

  • Mengxiang He

  • Dongwei Yao

  • Chengfei Lin

  • July 21, 2026

Share

Objective:

To identify independent systemic factors associated with poor anatomical response to intravitreal Conbercept in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME).

Approach:
  • Study Design: Retrospective cohort study analyzing 1,039 eyes from 691 patients with DME who underwent a standardized loading phase of intravitreal Conbercept.
  • Outcome Measures: Primary outcomes included absolute and percentage change in central macular thickness (CMT) from baseline to one month after the third injection.
  • Statistical Analysis: Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models were used to identify independent factors while accounting for intra-subject correlation.
Key Findings:
  • Median CMT decreased from 325.00 μm at baseline to 291.00 μm at three months (P < 0.001).
  • Median best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improved from 0.30 to 0.40 (P < 0.001).
  • 431 eyes (41.48%) were classified as responders, while 608 eyes (58.52%) were non-responders.
  • Baseline CMT, baseline BCVA, LDL-C, fasting blood glucose, and HbA1c were independently associated with CMT reduction.
  • Lower baseline CMT, higher baseline BCVA, elevated fasting blood glucose, and elevated HbA1c were associated with poor anatomical response.
Interpretation:

Systemic metabolic status, particularly HbA1c and fasting glucose levels, along with baseline ocular morphology, are independently associated with anatomical response to intravitreal Conbercept in DME.

Limitations:
  • Retrospective design may introduce bias.
  • Findings may not be generalizable to all DME populations.
  • Potential confounding factors not accounted for in the analysis.
Conclusion:

Original Source(s)

Related Content