4.4 Article

Three-Year Outcomes of Aflibercept Treatment for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Evidence from a Clinical Setting

Journal

OPHTHALMOLOGY AND THERAPY
Volume 7, Issue 2, Pages 361-368

Publisher

SPRINGER INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING AG
DOI: 10.1007/s40123-018-0139-5

Keywords

Aflibercept; AMD; Anti-VEGF; Clinical settings; Ophthalmology; Real-life outcomes

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

IntroductionTo report 3-year treatment outcomes with intravitreal aflibercept injections for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) in routine clinical practice.MethodsThis was a retrospective, single-centre, non-randomized interventional case series analysis. Data from treatment-naive patients with nAMD treated between 1 October 2013 and 31 February 2014 were included in the analysis. Data including age, gender, vision acuity (VA) measured on Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study charts (ETDRS) and injection numbers were recorded. Spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) data including presence or absence of macular fluid and automated central subfield macular thickness (CSMT) at year 1, 2 and 3 were also recorded.ResultsOf the 157 eyes of 148 patients treated, data from 108 eyes of 102 patients were available at 3-year follow-up. The mean (SD) age was 80.6 +/- 8.3years with a mean of 154.5 +/- 5.4weeks follow-up. The mean VA changed from 54.4 +/- 16 letters at baseline to 60.3 +/- 18.1 letters (VA gain 5.9 +/- 13.8 letter gain) at 1year, to 60.8 +/- 17.4 letters (VA gain 6.4 +/- 14.9 letters) at 2years and to 61.0 +/- 16.6 letters (VA gain 6.6 +/- 15.4 letters) at 3years. The reduction in CSMT was 77.9 +/- 101.4 mu m with absence of macular fluid in 71% of eyes. The total mean number of injections was 15.9 +/- 6.1 at year 3.Conclusion p id=Par4 The results suggest that good long-term morphological and functional treatment outcomes can be achieved using aflibercept for nAMD in a clinical setting.

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