4.6 Article

Association between visual acuity, lesion activity markers and retreatment decisions in neovascular age-related macular degeneration

Journal

EYE
Volume 34, Issue 12, Pages 2249-2256

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41433-020-0799-y

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/objectives To investigate the association between optical coherence tomography (OCT) markers of lesion activity and changes in visual acuity (VA) during anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy of eyes diagnosed with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD); and how VA and OCT markers are considered in physicians' decision to retreat with anti-VEGFs. Subjects/methods Retrospective, non-comparative, non-randomised cohort study involving electronic medical record data collected from 1190 patient eyes with nAMD diagnosis at two sites in the United Kingdom. Two sub-cohorts consisting of 321 and 301 eyes, respectively, were selected for analyses. Results In 321 eyes, absence of IRF or SRF at >= 2 clinic visits resulted in a gain of five ETDRS letters from baseline, compared with two letters gained in eyes with <2 clinic visits with absence of IRF (p = 0.006) or SRF (p = 0.042). Anti-VEGF treatment was administered at 421 clinic visits, and 308 visits were without treatment. Comparing treatment visits with non-treatment visits, the maximum difference in frequency of OCT markers of lesion activity were for intraretinal fluid (IRF; 24% versus 5%) and subretinal fluid (SRF; 32% versus 5%). Pigment epithelial detachment (PED) was reported in 58% of treatment visits compared with 36% in non-treatment visits. VA loss was not a consistent trigger for retreatment as it was present in 63% of injection visits and in 49% of non-injection visits. Conclusions Retreatment decision making is most strongly influenced by the presence of IRF and SRF and less by the presence of PED or VA loss.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available