Treat-and-extend versus fixed bimonthly treatment regimens for treatment-naive neovascular age-related macular degeneration: real world data from the Fight Retinal Blindness registry

Purpose To compare the outcomes of two different antivascular endothelial growth factor treatment regimens for treatment-naive eyes with neovascular age-related macular degeneration in routine clinical care at 12 and 24 months in Spain. Methods Observational study using the Fight Retinal Blindness (FRB) outcomes registry platform. Eyes were treated with fixed bimonthly (FB) aflibercept group at one center and a treat-and-extend (TAE) regimen using either aflibercept or ranibizumab at the other center. Results We included 192 eyes. Of these, 160 eyes (83%) completed 12 months (86 TAE and 74 FB) and 79 (41%) completed 24 months (46 for TAE and 33 for FB) of follow-up. No statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) were found regarding mean visual acuity (VA, logMAR letters) at baseline (12 month cohort TAE 59.6 vs FB 57.9; 24 month cohort TAE 61.7 vs FB 62.6), final mean VA (12 month cohort TAE 61.1 vs FB 63.0; 24 month cohort TAE 64.8 vs FB 66.4), and median number of injections (12 months TAE 7 vs FB 7; 24 months TAE 11 vs FB 12). However, the distribution of injection frequencies for the TAE group was larger, with 35% of TAE eyes receiving <= 6 injections at 12 months compared with only 19% of FB eyes (p = 0.024). Conclusion Similar VA results were observed with TAE and FB regimens, with no differences in the median number of injections. However, the TAE approach seemed to deliver a wider distribution of injection frequencies due to its individualized approach, which may help reduce the burden of injections in some eyes.

Automated summary

The study compared the outcomes of two different antivascular endothelial growth factor treatment regimens for treatment-naive eyes with neovascular age-related macular degeneration in routine clinical care at 12 and 24 months in Spain. The results showed similar visual acuity results with TAE and FB regimens, with no differences in the median number of injections. However, the TAE approach seemed to deliver a wider distribution of injection frequencies due to its individualized approach, which may help reduce the burden of injections in some eyes.