Founded Year

2017

Stage

Series E | Alive

Total Raised

$287.8M

Last Raised

$150M | 5 mos ago

Mosaic Score

+50 points in the past 30 days

What is a Mosaic Score?
The Mosaic Score is an algorithm that measures the overall financial health and market potential of private companies.

About Verana Health

Verana Health assembles clinical databases in medicine to empower physicians and accelerate research for patients. The databases produce drug lifecycle and medical practice insights.

Verana Health Headquarter Location

600 Harrison Street #250

San Francisco, California, 94107,

United States

650-223-5560

ESPs containing Verana Health

The ESP matrix leverages data and analyst insight to identify and rank leading companies in a given technology landscape.

EXECUTION STRENGTHMARKET STRENGTHLEADERHIGHFLIEROUTPERFORMERCHALLENGER
Healthcare / Biopharmaceuticals

Companies in this market offer alternative datasets that can supplement clinical trial data and improve the likelihood of trial success. These companies collect data from a variety of sources, such as patient registries, EHRs, insurance databases, social media, and patient research networks.

Verana Health named as Highflier among 15 other companies, including Datavant, Syapse, and Evidation.

Predict your next investment

The CB Insights tech market intelligence platform analyzes millions of data points on venture capital, startups, patents , partnerships and news mentions to help you see tomorrow's opportunities, today.

Verana Health's Products & Differentiation

See Verana Health's products and how their products differentiate from alternatives and competitors

  • Product is in the process of being renamed.

    Will have new titles and descriptions in the next two weeks.

Expert Collections containing Verana Health

Expert Collections are analyst-curated lists that highlight the companies you need to know in the most important technology spaces.

Verana Health is included in 6 Expert Collections, including Clinical Trials Tech.

C

Clinical Trials Tech

326 items

Companies developing products and services to streamline drug R&D, from drug discovery, pre-clinical testing, and clinical trials.

A

Artificial Intelligence

9,051 items

This collection includes startups selling AI SaaS, using AI algorithms to develop their core products, and those developing hardware to support AI workloads.

D

Digital Health 150

300 items

2019's cohort of the most promising digital health startups transforming the healthcare industry

D

Digital Health

13,070 items

Technologies, platforms, and systems that engage consumers for lifestyle, wellness, or health-related purposes; capture, store, or transmit health data; and/or support life science and clinical operations. (DiME, DTA, HealthXL, & NODE.Health)

C

Clinical Trials Tech Market Map

108 items

This CB Insights Tech Market Map highlights 100+ clinical trials tech companies that are addressing 8 distinct technology priorities that pharmaceutical companies and CROs face.

B

Biopharma Tech

326 items

Verana Health Patents

Verana Health has filed 5 patents.

The 3 most popular patent topics include:

  • Astronomical imaging
  • Classification algorithms
  • Diseases of the eye and adnexa
patents chart

Application Date

Grant Date

Title

Related Topics

Status

6/17/2016

1/29/2019

Ophthalmology, Diseases of the eye and adnexa, Photography equipment, Medical equipment, Geometrical optics

Grant

Application Date

6/17/2016

Grant Date

1/29/2019

Title

Related Topics

Ophthalmology, Diseases of the eye and adnexa, Photography equipment, Medical equipment, Geometrical optics

Status

Grant

Latest Verana Health News

Academy IRIS® Registry Analysis of Incidence of Laser Capsulotomy Due to Posterior Capsule Opacification After Intraocular Lens Implantation

Jun 1, 2022

Jeffrey D Horn,1 Bret L Fisher,2 Daniel Terveen,3 Helene Fevrier,4 Mohinder Merchea,5 Xiaolin Gu5 1Vision for Life, Nashville, TN, USA; 2Eye Center of North Florida, Panama City, FL, USA; 3Vance Thompson Vision, Sioux Falls, SD, USA; 4Verana Health, San Francisco, CA, USA; 5Alcon Vision LLC, Fort Worth, TX, USA Correspondence: Jeffrey D Horn, Vision for Life, Nashville, TN, USA, Tel +1 615-588-2020, Email [email protected] Purpose: Academy IRIS® (Intelligent Research in Sight) Registry was used to determine the incidence of postoperative neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet laser capsulotomy (Nd:YAG) and time to posterior capsular opacification (PCO) diagnosis based on intraocular lens (IOL) type and brand. Methods: This retrospective analysis included eyes implanted with 1 of 2 IOL brands, with ≥ 365 days of follow-up available in the IRIS Registry, and ≥ 2 visits within 180 days of surgery. Analyses included Nd:YAG incidence due to PCO within 1 year after surgery by IOL type and brand, mean time to PCO diagnosis, and mean time to Nd:YAG. Results: Of 89,947 eyes after cataract surgery, 24,834 (28%) had PCO diagnosis within 365 days, and 9262 (10%) underwent Nd:YAG; 4.1% of 57,523 eyes with monofocal and 21.2% of 32,424 eyes with diffractive multifocal (MF) or diffractive extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOLs had Nd:YAG. Nd:YAG was 3.2 times more likely in eyes with diffractive MF or diffractive EDOF IOLs versus monofocal. For monofocal IOLs, 3.2% of eyes with AcrySof® and 8.1% of eyes with Tecnis® had Nd:YAG (PPPPConclusion: Real-world data for AcrySof and Tecnis IOLs revealed lower Nd:YAG rates and longer time to PCO diagnosis and Nd:YAG after monofocal versus diffractive multifocal or diffractive EDOF implantation. Nd:YAG rates were significantly lower with AcrySof versus Tecnis IOLs. Keywords: monofocal intraocular lenses, diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses, diffractive extended depth of focus intraocular lenses Introduction Posterior capsular opacification (PCO) is a common complication of cataract surgery and typically develops 1 to 3 years after surgery. 1 , 2 PCO is caused by the migration of postoperative residual lens epithelial cells to the posterior capsule. 2 The increased opacity impairs vision, with a reduction in visual acuity and contrast sensitivity, as well as glare disability. 2 , 3 Clinically significant visual impairment induced by PCO such as a decrease in best corrected distance visual acuity, increased glare, or decreased contrast sensitivity, can be readily and effectively treated with neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet laser capsulotomy (Nd:YAG). 2 , 3 Nd:YAG capsulotomy is a simple and generally safe procedure that results in the immediate improvement of the subject’s vision. 2 , 4 However, potential complications include damage to the optic portion of the intraocular lens (IOL), retinal detachment (eg, high myopes), cystoid macular edema, and a transient elevation in intraocular pressure. 5 , 6 Moreover, surgical complications such as vitreous loss during lens exchange have been associated with prior Nd:YAG capsulotomy. 7 A number of risk factors have been associated with PCO development, including younger age, dry eye disease, glaucoma, uveitis, age-related macular degenerations, surgery type, and experience of the surgeon. 8–10 Several studies have shown that the rates of PCO and Nd:YAG as well as the time to Nd:YAG after cataract surgery are influenced by the IOL biomaterial and its optic edge design. 3 , 4 , 11–14 A systemic review of the literature reported the incidence of PCO was from 5% to 32% for hydrophobic IOLs and from 18% to 65% for hydrophilic IOLs within 3 years of cataract surgery. 14 During the same time period, Nd:YAG rates were 0% to 25% for hydrophobic IOLs and 3% to 51% for hydrophilic IOLs. 14 The American Academy of Ophthalmology IRIS® (Intelligent Research in Sight) Registry was developed as a centralized data repository and reporting tool for patient data collected from physicians’ electronic health records (EHRs). 15 , 16 It is the largest EHR-based comprehensive eye disease and condition registry in the world, with over 60 million unique patients and 349 million encounters. 15 The IRIS Registry includes patient demographics, diagnosis codes, and visit rates that can be used to generate real-world clinical evidence and address clinical questions. 15 , 16 In this report, we describe a real-world study using IRIS Registry data to compare the incidence of Nd:YAG due to PCO by optical design type (monofocal or multifocal) and brand type (AcrySof®, Alcon Research LLC, Fort Worth, TX, USA; or Tecnis®, Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision, Santa Ana, CA, USA) of implanted hydrophobic acrylic IOLs. Additional analyses included the mean time to PCO diagnosis and Nd:YAG treatment within 365 days after IOL implantation. Methods Study Design and Study Population This was a retrospective database analysis using data from the IRIS Registry. The analysis included the medical records from eyes implanted with IOLs from January 1, 2016, to March 31, 2018, and required the respective practices to have ≥365 days of follow-up available in the registry. Data extraction and analysis were independently performed by Verana Health (San Francisco, CA). Patient records were eligible for inclusion if they were aged ≥45 years at the time of cataract surgery; had a Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code of 66984 (extracapsular cataract removal with insertion of IOL prosthesis [1 stage procedure], manual or mechanical technique [eg, irrigation and aspiration or phacoemulsification]); had a diagnosis of age-related cataract as shown by an International Classification of Disease (ICD)-10 diagnosis code ( Supplementary Table 1 ) 30 days before and including the day of the surgery and with ≥2 visits included in the IRIS Registry within 180 days of cataract procedure; had surgery at a practice that contributed data to the IRIS Registry for ≥365 days following the date of the procedure; and both the brand (AcrySof, Alcon Vision LLC, Fort Worth, TX; Tecnis, Johnson & Johnson, New Brunswick, NJ) and optical design type (toric/non-toric monofocal, diffractive multifocal, or diffractive extended depth of focus [EDOF]) of the implanted IOL could be identified ( Supplementary Table 2 ). Patient records were excluded if they showed an ICD-10 code indicating specific exclusion conditions indicative of pre-existing conditions that could potentially confound the outcomes ( Supplementary Table 1 ); had unspecified laterality of the diagnosis code for mature cataract or the procedure code for cataract removal; or their records showed a CPT code for specific procedures indicative of surgical complications ( Supplementary Table 2 ). Patient attrition is summarized in Supplementary Figure 1 . Outcomes The primary analyses compared the incidence of Nd:YAG due to PCO, the mean time to first diagnosis of PCO, and mean time to Nd:YAG procedure after IOL implantation by brand and type of IOL within 365 days after implantation. Nd:YAG due to PCO was defined as the presence of a Nd:YAG procedure code (CPT 66821) with an accompanying PCO diagnosis code (ICD-10 code H26.491, H26.492, H26.493, or H26.499) for the same eye on the date of the Nd:YAG procedure or between the Nd:YAG procedure and the cataract procedure. Statement of Ethics Data were extracted automatically from the practice’s EHR system and placed in a clinical data repository, while maintaining compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act data protection, security, quality, and audits. This analysis of de-identified data did not qualify as human subjects research, and no ethics committee review or approval was required or undertaken. An Institutional Review Board waiver was not applicable to the Submission because (i) the research and analysis were conducted on anonymized data in accordance with de-identification standard promulgated under 45 CFR § 164.514 and (ii) no research was conducted on human subjects. To ensure consistent results during the data analysis, the incidence of Nd:YAG post-implantation was calculated for model type, brand, and both model type and brand. Statistical Analysis All statistical analyses were performed by Verana Health (San Francisco, CA), the vendor retained by the American Academy of Ophthalmology for the curation and analysis of the IRIS Registry data. Verana Health applied a set of policies and procedures to ensure data equality, integrity, security, and traceability. Data quality at Verana Health was assessed based on a matrix of 6 data quality dimensions (completeness, accuracy, traceability, consistency, generalizability, timeliness) across 3 data quality classifications (technical, clinical, scientific). Categorical and continuous variables were summarized using chi-square and analysis of variance, respectively. Odds ratios were calculated using logistic regression to determine the risk of Nd:YAG due to PCO. Descriptive analysis included mean ± SD. Results Study Population A total of 89,947 eyes were identified from the IRIS Registry as meeting all the inclusion and exclusion criteria and comprised the master cohort ( Table 1 ). In the master cohort, the most frequently implanted IOL types were monofocal (55%) and diffractive EDOF (44%). Demographics and baseline characteristics were generally balanced between patients receiving AcrySof or Tecnis IOLs. Of the 89,947 eyes in the master cohort, 24,834 eyes (28%) received a diagnosis of PCO within 365 days of cataract surgery ( Table 2 ). Most patients were female (64%) and white (85%). Overall, 71% of surgeries were conducted in the South and Midwest regions of the United States. Table 1 Demographics and Baseline Characteristics of Master Cohort Table 2 Demographics and Baseline Characteristics of Patients with a Diagnosis of PCOa After Cataract Surgery Outcomes Overall, 9262 of 89,947 enrolled eyes (10.3%) had a Nd:YAG procedure. Across all eyes, the rates of Nd:YAG were significantly lower in eyes with monofocal IOLs versus those with diffractive multifocal or diffractive EDOF IOLs (P<0.0001, Figure 1A ). Across brands, the rates of Nd:YAG were significantly lower in eyes implanted with AcrySof monofocal versus Tecnis monofocal (P<0.0001) or AcrySof multifocal versus Tecnis multifocal or diffractive EDOF IOLs (P<0.0001, Figure 1B ). The risk of Nd:YAG treatment was 3 times higher in eyes with diffractive multifocal or diffractive EDOF lenses compared with monofocal lenses, and 2 times higher in eyes with Tecnis compared with AcrySof lenses ( Figure 2 ). Figure 1 Incidence of Nd:YAG due to PCO (A) by type and (B) by brand of IOL. Nd:YAG laser capsulotomy due to PCO was defined as the presence of an Nd:YAG procedure code (CPT 66821) with an accompanying PCO diagnosis code (ICD-10 code H26.491 or H26.492 or H26.493 or H26.499) for the same eye on the date of the Nd:YAG procedure or between the Nd:YAG procedure and the cataract procedure. Abbreviations: CPT, current procedural terminology; EDOF, extended depth of focus; ICD-10, International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision; IOL, intraocular lens; PCO, posterior capsular opacification; Nd:YAG, neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet. Figure 2 Risk of Nd:YAG due to PCO by IOL type or brand, baseline characteristics, and region. Nd:YAG laser capsulotomy due to PCO was defined as the presence of an Nd:YAG procedure code (CPT 66821) with an accompanying PCO diagnosis code (ICD-10 code H26.491 or H26.492 or H26.493 or H26.499) for the same eye on the date of the Nd:YAG procedure or between the Nd:YAG procedure and the cataract procedure. Abbreviations: CPT, current procedural terminology; EDOF, extended depth of focus; ICD-10, International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision; IOL, intraocular lens; OR, odds ratio; PCO, posterior capsular opacification; Nd:YAG, neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet. Among all eyes diagnosed with PCO that completed at least 1-year follow-up (n=24,834), the mean time ± SD to PCO was 150.7±96.0 days. The time to PCO was significantly greater for eyes implanted with monofocal IOLs compared with diffractive multifocal and diffractive EDOF IOLs (P<0.0001; Figure 3A ). Similarly, the time to PCO was greater for AcrySof monofocal IOLs compared with Tecnis monofocal IOLs (P<0.0001; Figure 3B ). Mean ± SD time to Nd:YAG (defined as the presence of Nd:YAG procedure code within 1 year of the cataract surgery) for all eyes was 180.7±86.8 days. The time to Nd:YAG was significantly greater for eyes implanted with monofocal compared with diffractive multifocal or diffractive EDOF IOLs (P<0.05; Figure 4A ). The time to Nd:YAG was significantly greater for AcrySof diffractive multifocal IOLs compared with Tecnis diffractive multifocal and diffractive EDOF IOLs (P<0.05 for both; Figure 4B ). Figure 3 Time to PCO diagnosis (A) by type and (B) by brand. PCO was defined as the presence of a PCO diagnosis code (ICD-10 code H26.491 or H26.492 or H26.493 or H26.499) within 365 days of the cataract procedure. Abbreviations: ICD-10, International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision; PCO, posterior capsular opacification. Figure 4 Time to Nd:YAG diagnosis (A) by type and (B) by brand. Nd:YAG was defined as the presence of an Nd:YAG procedure code (CPT code 66821) within 365 days of the cataract procedure. Abbreviations: CPT, current procedural terminology; Nd:YAG, neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet. Discussion This real-world study analyzed data from 89,947 eyes in the IRIS Registry that underwent cataract surgery and found the overall rate of Nd:YAG was 10.3% at 1 year after surgery. Significantly lower rates of Nd:YAG were reported for patients implanted with monofocal (4.1%) versus those implanted with diffractive multifocal or diffractive EDOF IOLs (21.2%). This difference held whether comparing AcrySof monofocal lenses (3.2%) to AcrySof multifocal (ReSTOR®) lenses (13.0%) or Tecnis monofocal lenses (8.1%) to Tecnis multifocal (22.5%) or Tecnis EDOF (21.5%) lenses. The rates of Nd:YAG in patients receiving AcrySof IOLs were significantly lower compared with those receiving Tecnis IOLs. A greater risk of Nd:YAG treatment was associated with implanting diffractive multifocal or diffractive EDOF lenses as well as Tecnis lenses. The mean time to PCO diagnosis was significantly greater for patients implanted with monofocal IOLs (toric and non-toric) versus patients implanted with diffractive multifocal or diffractive EDOF IOLs. Time to PCO diagnosis was also longer in patients implanted with monofocal AcrySof compared with those implanted with monofocal Tecnis IOLs. Mean time to PCO diagnosis data were consistent with mean time to Nd:YAG procedure. There was a significantly longer time to Nd:YAG procedure for patients with AcrySof multifocal IOLs compared with Tecnis multifocal or Tecnis EDOF IOLs. Differences in PCO development and Nd:YAG rates have been attributed to the biocompatibility of the lens material and its design (eg, optic edge). 1 , 9 , 12 , 17 Several studies indicate that hydrophobic lenses, 11 , 17 , 18 especially lenses made of acrylic material, 12 are more effective in preventing PCO and lowering Nd:YAG rates. A meta-analysis showed that hydrophobic lenses generally result in lower subjective and estimated PCO scores, as well as Nd:YAG rates, compared with hydrophilic lenses. 18 A review of EHRs from ophthalmology clinics in the United Kingdom found that 2 hydrophobic acrylic IOLs (AcrySof, Tecnis) had the lowest 3- and 5-year incidence of Nd:YAG compared with their hydrophilic counterparts. 4 Patients with hydrophilic lenses showed a significantly greater severity and area of PCO (P<0.001) 1 year after cataract surgery than patients with hydrophobic lenses. 17 Systematic reviews have shown that in addition to lens material, sharp-edged IOLs have a mitigating effect on PCO development. 3 , 12 Both the longer time to PCO diagnosis and the lower Nd:YAG rate and risk of Nd:YAG treatment observed with monofocal IOLs compared with diffractive multifocal and diffractive EDOF IOLs were consistent with the findings of several studies. 19–22 In a retrospective chart review, the Nd:YAG rates for 2 monofocal groups were 17% and 4% versus 25% for a multifocal group. 19 In a case-controlled study, patients with multifocal IOLs needed to undergo treatment with Nd:YAG earlier compared with patients implanted with a monofocal IOL (8.8 vs 10.4 months, respectively). 20 The AcrySof and Tecnis diffractive multifocal and diffractive EDOF IOLs were based on the AcrySof and Tecnis platforms, respectively, sharing the edge and haptic designs and using the same biomaterials as their monofocal counterparts, but with the addition of diffractive optics. 23–28 The observed differences in PCO and Nd:YAG rates between monofocal and diffractive multifocal/EDOF IOLs were consistent regardless of the brand of the lens, suggesting that the diffractive multifocal and diffractive EDOF IOL optical design and the related visual outcomes play an important role in post-surgical complications. Reduced contrast sensitivity and photic phenomena are typically experienced more often by patients receiving diffractive multifocal and diffractive EDOF IOLs because light is distributed among multiple focal points to provide an extended range of vision. 20 , 29–32 Mild PCO in such patients may lead to greater intolerance or greater sensitivity to early functional vision loss and worse quality of vision than in patients implanted with monofocal IOLs with the same level of PCO, consequently decreasing the time to Nd:YAG treatment. 20 , 21 , 33 Moreover, the higher expectations of patients receiving diffractive multifocal/EDOF IOLs may be associated with the higher out-of-pocket costs related to multifocal/EDOF IOLs. 34 , 35 Photic phenomena, such as glare and halos, occurring after implantation with a multifocal IOL may not be caused by PCO, but rather by the properties inherent to the optic design. An Nd:YAG procedure will not resolve photic phenomena caused by optic design and could lead to complications if a subsequent IOL exchange is needed. 36 Therefore, it is important to differentiate the cause of glare and halos before Nd:YAG treatment. The AcrySof and Tecnis IOLs, regardless of type (ie, monofocal vs diffractive multifocal/EDOF), have similar characteristics that include hydrophobic acrylic material and a posterior square-edged design. 25 , 26 , 28 However, there were significantly lower rates of Nd:YAG and risk of Nd:YAG treatment in eyes implanted with the AcrySof lens compared with the Tecnis lens. The mean time to PCO diagnosis was longer in patients implanted with either brand of monofocal IOL, but there was also a significantly longer time to PCO for patients receiving monofocal AcrySof compared with those receiving monofocal Tecnis. The resulting differences may be attributed to slight distinctions between the lenses. AcrySof is composed of an acrylate and methacrylate copolymer, and its posterior square edge is interrupted at the haptic-optic junction. 23 , 24 , 28 Tecnis is composed of an acrylic material and has a continuous 360° edge. 25 , 26 Previous studies have indicated that the material of a lens and its surface properties contribute to PCO formation. In a comparison of monofocal hydrophobic and hydrophilic acrylic IOLs, including the hydrophobic AcrySof lens, the incidence of Nd:YAG for eyes implanted with AcrySof was 2–4 times lower than the non-AcrySof hydrophobic and hydrophilic IOLs, respectively, 3 years after cataract surgery. 37 A retrospective study comparing 3 hydrophobic IOLs (Hoya FY60AD, Hoya PY60AD, AcrySof SN60WF), reported that the sharper-edged Hoya PY60AD had a significantly lower Nd:YAG rate than its predecessor (4.3% vs 8.9%). 28 The AcrySof lens had a still lower Nd:YAG rate (1.4%) than either Hoya IOL, although it had a slightly rounder edge than the Hoya PY60AD. 28 Similarly, a prospective randomized contralateral eye study comparing 2 single-piece, sharp-edged hydrophobic acrylic IOLs (iMiCs NY-60, AcrySof SN60WF) 3 years after cataract surgery, reported a significantly lower PCO score and Nd:YAG rate in eyes implanted with AcrySof (36% vs 14%). 38 These data suggest that modern IOL materials and edge design may each play a role in the incidence of PCO and Nd:YAG after cataract surgery. 17 , 28 , 37 The low PCO incidence observed with AcrySof lenses may result from its posterior edge design. 39 However, comparisons against sharper-edged IOLs suggest that the biocompatibility of its acrylic polymer strengthens its binding to the capsule and minimizes PCO formation. 14 , 28 , 38 Successful mitigation of PCO development has been attributed to the formation of a physical barrier caused by the IOL adhering tightly to the capsular bag, which deters the migration of residual lens epithelial cells. 2 , 14 This resulting barrier may be formed by either the edge of the IOL causing the capsule to bend and wrap more tightly around the IOL, 40 , 41 or by the binding of a sandwich-like structure (fibronectin-lens, epithelial cell, monolayer-fibronectin) to the bioactive material of the IOL and to the posterior capsule, thus creating a blockade to migrating cells. 42 Results from assays testing the bioadhesive properties of different IOLs have demonstrated that the AcrySof IOL’s material adhered strongly to collagen film, 43 and when compared with Tecnis, fibronectin bonded better to the AcrySof lens. 44 Consequently, the AcrySof biomaterial attaches to the capsule through fibronectin, creating an effective barrier to migrating cells and minimizing PCO formation. 14 , 44 Limitations of these analyses included reliance on EHR and physician’s documentation in the EHR. There could be potential errors in documentation or variations among the EHR systems. The pre-collected data in the EHR were fixed and were not collected by the investigators; therefore, not all relevant information was available or provided at the level of detail comparable to clinical studies. 45 For example, Nd:YAG due to PCO may not be captured in patients who changed their physician to one not participating in the IRIS Registry. Moreover, other factors that could contribute to the observed differences in the Nd:YAG rates or the elapsed time to PCO or Nd:YAG, such as the differences in surgical technique, criteria used for PCO diagnosis and Nd:YAG, or patient history (eg, uveitis, glaucoma, or diabetes), may not have been captured in the EHR. 9 , 13 , 46 The follow-up period of 365 days may have been insufficient to capture PCO development. Future analyses should consider extending to 2, 5, or 10 years as PCO development has been observed up to 10 years after cataract surgery, 14 and the risk of PCO development that requires treatment with Nd:YAG is associated with follow-up time. 47 Outcomes of this analysis suggest that retrospective studies using comprehensive clinical databases, such as the IRIS Registry, can generate real-world evidence to answer clinically important questions. Additional analytic applications and user interfaces can be designed to further enhance the value of the IRIS Registry. The IRIS Registry data revealed that overall Nd:YAG rates were lower, and the time to PCO diagnosis and Nd:YAG was longer after monofocal implantation than diffractive multifocal or diffractive EDOF implantation when using AcrySof and Tecnis IOLs. AcrySof Nd:YAG rates were significantly lower than Tecnis Nd:YAG rates. Data Sharing Statement Study level data for this study can be provided by Dr. Xiaolin Gu ( [email protected] ) upon reasonable request. Acknowledgments Medical writing assistance was provided by Lauriaselle Afanador, PhD, of ICON plc (Blue Bell, PA), and was funded by Alcon Vision LLC (Fort Worth, TX). Data contained in this manuscript were presented at the American Academy of Ophthalmology annual meeting; October 12–15, 2019; San Francisco, CA: Fisher BL, Gu X, Relucio A. Comparison of time to PCO in two hydrophobic intraocular lens materials: An analysis of the AAO clinical registry. Horn J, Relucio A, Gu X. Incidence of YAG due to PCO following intraocular lens implantation: an analysis of Academy IRIS Registry. Terveen D, Relucio A, Gu X. Description of a retrospective study using EHR-based registry to correlate IOL biocompatibility with YAG. Funding This study was funded by Alcon Vision LLC (Fort Worth, TX). Alcon participated in the design, interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, and approval of the manuscript. Disclosure JDH is a consultant and clinical investigator for Alcon Vision LLC, has received speaker fees from Alcon, and is a clinical investigator for Bausch & Lomb. BLF is a consultant for Alcon, AcuFocus, CorneaGen, and Imprimis Pharmaceuticals and a Medical Monitor for Ziemer NA. DT reports personal fees for medical monitor from Rayner; grants from Glaukos, Sight Sciences, and Alcon, outside the submitted work. HF is an employee of Verana Health, which was contracted by Alcon Vision LLC to conduct this study. MM and XG are employees of Alcon Vision LLC. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work. References 1. Sinha R, Shekhar H, Sharma S, Titiyal JS, Vajpayee RB. Posterior capsular opacification: a review. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2013;61(7):371–376. doi:10.4103/0301-4738.115787 2. Chan E, Mahroo OA, Spalton DJ. Complications of cataract surgery. Clin Exp Optom. 2010;93(6):379–389. doi:10.1111/j.1444-0938.2010.00516.x 3. Buehl W, Findl O. Effect of intraocular lens design on posterior capsule opacification. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34(11):1976–1985. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.07.029 4. Ursell PG, Dhariwal M, O’Boyle D, Khan J, Venerus A. 5 year incidence of YAG capsulotomy and PCO after cataract surgery with single-piece monofocal intraocular lenses: a real-world evidence study of 20,763 eyes. Eye (Lond). 2020;34(5):960–968. doi:10.1038/s41433-019-0630-9 5. Grzybowski A, Kanclerz P. Does Nd:YAG capsulotomy increase the risk of retinal detachment? Asia Pac J Ophthalmol. 2018;7(5):339–344. 6. Karahan E, Er D, Kaynak S. An overview of Nd: YAG laser capsulotomy. Med Hypothesis Discov Innov Ophthalmol. 2014;3(2):45–50. 7. Leysen I, Bartholomeeusen E, Coeckelbergh T, Tassignon MJ. Surgical outcomes of intraocular lens exchange: five-year study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009;35(6):1013–1018. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.01.024 8. Chen HC, Lee CY, Sun CC, et al. Risk factors for the occurrence of visual-threatening posterior capsule opacification. J Transl Med. 2019;17(1):209. doi:10.1186/s12967-019-1956-6 9. Fong CS, Mitchell P, Rochtchina E, et al. Three-year incidence and factors associated with posterior capsule opacification after cataract surgery: the Australian Prospective Cataract Surgery and Age-related Macular Degeneration study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;157(1):171–179.e1. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2013.08.016 10. Wu S, Tong N, Pan L, et al. Retrospective analyses of potential risk factors for posterior capsule opacification after cataract surgery. J Ophthalmol. 2018;2018:9089285. doi:10.1155/2018/9089285 11. Li Y, Wang J, Chen Z, Tang X. Effect of hydrophobic acrylic versus hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lens on posterior capsule opacification: meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2013;8(11):e77864. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0077864 12. Cheng JW, Wei RL, Cai JP, et al. Efficacy of different intraocular lens materials and optic edge designs in preventing posterior capsular opacification: a meta-analysis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143(3):428–436. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2006.11.045 13. Tokko HA, Hussain F, Al-Awadi A, et al. Factors associated with the development of posterior capsule opacification requiring yttrium aluminum garnet capsulotomy. Optom Vis Sci. 2019;96(7):492–499. doi:10.1097/OPX.0000000000001396 14. Perez-Vives C. Biomaterial influence on intraocular lens performance: an overview. J Ophthalmol. 2018;2018:2687385. doi:10.1155/2018/2687385 15. American Academy of Ophthalmology. IRIS registry data analysis. Available from: https://www.aao.org/iris-registry/data-analysis/requirements . Accessed

Verana Health Web Traffic

Rank
Page Views per User (PVPU)
Page Views per Million (PVPM)
Reach per Million (RPM)
CBI Logo

Verana Health Rank

  • When was Verana Health founded?

    Verana Health was founded in 2017.

  • Where is Verana Health's headquarters?

    Verana Health's headquarters is located at 600 Harrison Street, San Francisco.

  • What is Verana Health's latest funding round?

    Verana Health's latest funding round is Series E.

  • How much did Verana Health raise?

    Verana Health raised a total of $287.8M.

  • Who are the investors of Verana Health?

    Investors of Verana Health include Google Ventures, Casdin Capital, Brook Byers, Novo Growth, Johnson & Johnson Innovation and 14 more.

  • Who are Verana Health's competitors?

    Competitors of Verana Health include Curebase and 4 more.

  • What products does Verana Health offer?

    Verana Health's products include Product is in the process of being renamed..

You May Also Like

Evidation Logo
Evidation

Evidation measures health in everyday life and enables anyone to participate in research and health programs. Evidation is a two-sided platform that connects individuals and enterprises. On the consumer side, the company assists individuals to participate in research including testing of digital health programs. On the enterprise side, Evidation provides biopharma, med-tech, big tech, academic institutions, professional societies, and government partners the ability to: generate evidence; and design, test, and deploy programs that motivate evidence-based action.

Notal Vision Logo
Notal Vision

Notal Vision is a healthtech startup focused on advancing eye care with precision medicine by extending disease management from the clinic to the home.

Post Acute Analytics Logo
Post Acute Analytics

Post Acute Analytics provides real-time tracking of patients throughout the continuum of care. The company's offerings Total Patient Tracker and Care Pathway Agent provide fully automated insights for proven outcomes.

Reify Health Logo
Reify Health

Reify Health provides cloud-based software that accelerates the development of new and life-saving therapies. Reify Health aims to change how clinical trials are run through its StudyTeam and Care Access platforms. StudyTeam delivers a technology platform for optimizing patient recruitment and enrollment. Care Access, which conducts decentralized trials at scale, is a decentralized research organization that aims to bring clinical trial infrastructure directly to patients, healthcare providers, and communities. Reify Health was founded in 2012 and is based in Boston, Massachusetts.

StoriiCare Logo
StoriiCare

StoriiCare is a care coordination and resident engagement software for senior care providers with an emphasis on simplicity, visual design, and ease-of-use. Staff can use StoriiCare to record the day-to-day care they provide, improving efficiency and enabling relatives to connect with their loved ones in care.

N
Netsmart Technologies

Netsmart Technologies is an American company that develops and sells health information technology, including electronic health records, especially for organizations and entities in the behavioral health field.

Discover the right solution for your team

The CB Insights tech market intelligence platform analyzes millions of data points on vendors, products, partnerships, and patents to help your team find their next technology solution.

Request a demo

CBI websites generally use certain cookies to enable better interactions with our sites and services. Use of these cookies, which may be stored on your device, permits us to improve and customize your experience. You can read more about your cookie choices at our privacy policy here. By continuing to use this site you are consenting to these choices.