4.4 Article

CHANGES IN VISUAL ACUITY IN PATIENTS WITH WET AGE-RELATED MACULAR DEGENERATION TREATED WITH INTRAVITREAL RANIBIZUMAB IN DAILY CLINICAL PRACTICE The LUMIERE Study

Journal

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0b013e31827b6324

Keywords

compliance; everyday clinical practice; ranibizumab; visual acuity; wet age-related macular degeneration

Categories

Funding

  1. Novartis Pharma SAS, France

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To survey compliance with recommended intravitreal ranibizumab treatment protocols in daily clinical practice in France, with reference to outcomes. Methods: A retrospective, descriptive, observational study in patients with subfoveal wet age-related macular degeneration treated with ranibizumab. All historical data for the study period, including demographic, treatment, and disease details and visual acuity measurements (baseline, Month 3, and Month 12), were recorded retrospectively at least 12 months after the beginning of treatment. Results: In 551 patients followed by 16 ophthalmologists, 12 months of intravitreal ranibizumab treatment induced a mean visual acuity gain of 3.2 +/- 14.8 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study-equivalent letters. Fewer than 40% of patients received the recommended treatment of initial 3 monthly injections. More than 50% had to wait >8 days between diagnosis and treatment. At Month 3, visual acuity gain was greater in patients who had received recommended induction and in whom treatment was initiated quickly. At Month 12, the induction-related effect had largely disappeared but the time-to-treatment effect persisted. Patients had an average of 5.1 injections (2.6 during induction period). No patients were monitored monthly as stipulated in the guidelines. Conclusion: Although poor compliance with recommendations has been reflected in mediocre outcomes, there is evidence that practice is improving. RETINA 33:474-481, 2013

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available