4.4 Article

Bimonthly, treat-and-extend and as-needed ranibizumab in naive neovascular age-related macular degeneration patients: 12-month outcomes of a randomized study

Journal

ACTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA
Volume 98, Issue 7, Pages E820-E829

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/aos.14399

Keywords

best-corrected visual acuity; fixed bimonthly; intravitreal anti-VEGF; neovascular age-related macular degeneration; pro re nata; ranibizumab; treat-and-extend

Categories

Funding

  1. Spanish Ministry of Health, Institutode SaludCarlos III, Red Tematicade Investigacion Cooperativa en Salud: 'Prevencion, deteccion precoz, y tratamiento de la patologia ocular prevalente, degenerativa y cronica' [RD16/0008/0021]
  2. Novartis Farmaceutica, S.A.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To assess the noninferiority of the treat-and-extend (T&E) and fixed bimonthly regimens of 0.5 mg intravitreal ranibizumab as compared with the pro re nata (PRN) in naive patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). Methods Phase IV, randomized, 12-month, multicentre trial. Patients aged >= 50 years with nAMD and visual impairment [best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between 23 and 78 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters] were eligible. Patients (one eye per patient) were randomized to bimonthly, n = 103, T&E, n = 99 or PRN, n = 104. Noninferiority was established at five letters ETDRS. Results The mean (95% CI) difference in BCVA at 12 months was 7.2 (4.2-10.2), 6.4 (2.9-9.8), and 8.0 (51.1-11.0) in the bimonthly, T&E and PRN, respectively. The bimonthly or T&E regimens were not inferior to the PRN scheme. All regimens were associated with a significant reduction of central subfield thickness and volume. The mean (95% CI) number of injections in the bimonthly regimen (7.6, 7.5-7.7) was similar as compared with the PRN regimen (7.4, 6.7-8.0) (p = 0.159) but lower than in the T&E regimen (9.3, 8.9-9.7) (p < 0.001). Conclusion At 12 months, bimonthly and T&E ranibizumab were noninferior to PRN in naive nAMD.

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