Enhancing Diabetic Macular Edema Treatment Outcomes: Exploring the ESASO Classification and Structural OCT Biomarkers

Abstract

Introduction: This study assessed the European School of Advanced Studies in Ophthalmology (ESASO) classification’s prognostic value for diabetic macular edema (DME) in predicting intravitreal therapy outcomes. Methods: In this retrospective, multicenter study, patients aged > 50 years with type 1 or 2 diabetes and DME received intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents (ranibizumab, bevacizumab, and aflibercept) or steroids (dexamethasone). The primary outcome was visual acuity (VA) change post-treatment, termed as functional response, measured 4–6 weeks post-third anti-VEGF or 12–16 weeks post-steroid injection, stratified by initial DME stage. Results: Of the 560 eyes studied (62% male, mean age 66.7 years), 31% were classified as stage 1 (early), 50% stage 2 (advanced), 17% stage 3 (severe), and 2% stage 4 (atrophic). Visual acuity (VA; decimal) improved by 0.12–0.15 decimals in stages 1–2 but only 0.03 decimal in stage 3 (all p < 0.0001) and 0.01 in stage 4 (p = 0.38). Even in eyes with low baseline VA ≤ 0.3, improvements were significant only in stages 1 and 2 (0.12 and 0.17 decimals, respectively). Central subfield thickness (CST) improvement was greatest in stage 3 (−229 µm, 37.6%, p < 0.0001), but uncorrelated with VA gains, unlike stages 1 and 2 (respectively: −142 µm, 27.4%; − 5 µm, 12%; both p < 0.0001). Stage 4 showed no significant CST change. Baseline disorganization of retinal inner layers and focal damage of the ellipsoid zone/external limiting membrane did not influence VA improvement in stages 1 and 2. Treatment patterns varied, with 61% receiving anti-VEGF and 39% dexamethasone, influenced by DME stage, with no significant differences between therapeutic agents. Conclusion: The ESASO classification, which views the retina as a neurovascular unit and integrates multiple biomarkers, surpasses single biomarkers in predicting visual outcomes. Significant functional improvement occurred only in stages 1 and 2, suggesting reversible damage, whereas stages 3 and 4 likely reflect irreversible damage.