4.6 Article

Determinants of visual acuity outcomes in eyes with neovascular AMD treated with anti-VEGF agents: an instrumental variable analysis of the AURA study

期刊

EYE
卷 30, 期 8, 页码 1063-1071

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/eye.2016.90

关键词

-

资金

  1. Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Leverkusen, Germany
  2. Bayer Pharmaceuticals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To identify the strongest variable(s) linked with the number of ranibizumab injections and outcomes in AURA, and to identify ways to improve outcomes using this association. Methods AURA was a large observational study that monitored visual acuity over a 2-year period in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) who received ranibizumab injections. Baseline characteristics, resource use, and outcomes were analyzed using an instrumental variable approach and regression analysis. Results Data were analyzed from 2227 patients enrolled in AURA. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) and ophthalmoscopy were the most common diagnostic tests used, and this combination was the strongest instrumental variable. Use of OCT and ophthalmoscopy affected the number of injections given and resulted in an increase in visual acuity gains from baseline of 17.6 letters in year 1 and 2.5 letters in year 2. Regression models using the instrumental variable (OCT and ophthalmoscopy combined) showed that >= 5.1 (95% CI: 3.3-11.4) ranibizumab injections were needed to maintain visual acuity from baseline to year 1 and >= 8.3 (95% CI: 5.3-18.8) injections were needed to maintain visual acuity from year 1 to year 2. To gain >= 15 letters, >= 7.9 (95% CI: 5.1-17.5) ranibizumab injections would be needed in year 1 and >= 16.1 (95% CI: 10.3-36.4) injections would be needed over 2 years. Conclusions These findings highlight the role that regular monitoring plays in guiding neovascular AMD therapy and they showed that the number of ranibizumab injections needed to maintain visual acuity is higher than that administered in AURA.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据