4.6 Review

Evolution of treatment paradigms in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a review of real-world evidence

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 105, Issue 11, Pages 1475-1479

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-317434

Keywords

Epidemiology; Macula; Neovascularisation; Retina; Vision

Categories

Funding

  1. Bayer Consumer Health AG, Pharmaceuticals, Basel

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study aimed to evaluate the contribution of real-world evidence in changing anti-VEGF therapy treatment practices for nAMD. The findings suggest that T&E regimens optimize visual outcomes while reducing burden on patients, clinics and physicians, making it the most likely to adequately balance clinical outcomes and treatment burden for nAMD patients.
The aim of this work was to evaluate the contribution of real-world evidence (RWE) in changing anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy treatment practices and improving real-world treatment strategies for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). A PubMed literature search was performed to review the large number of English-language studies conducted to investigate the real-world effectiveness of anti-VEGF (aflibercept and ranibizumab) treatment paradigms available for nAMD. The evidence for pro re nata (PRN), treat-and-extend (T&E) and fixed bimonthly dosing regimens for anti-VEGF treatment of nAMD were reviewed and findings are summarised. RWE demonstrated that T&E regimens optimise visual outcomes while reducing burden on patients, clinics and physicians, compared with both fixed-dose and PRN regimens. RWE has helped to develop and improve real-world treatment strategies in nAMD, with the aim of optimising visual outcomes and reducing treatment burden in clinical practice. Of the various regimens, a T&E regimen is most likely to adequately balance clinical outcomes and treatment burden for patients with 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available