4.4 Article

Treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in Sweden: outcomes at seven years in the Swedish Macula Register

期刊

ACTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA
卷 95, 期 8, 页码 787-795

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/aos.13539

关键词

age-related macular degeneration; anti-vascular endothelial growth factor; anti-VEGF; ETDRS; neovascular AMD; Swedish Macula Register

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeTo present Swedish Macula Register (SMR) data regarding treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) in clinical practice since 2008. MethodsA retrospective register-based study was conducted. Evaluation of baseline demographics, visual outcome and number of injections during this period is presented. ResultsMean age at diagnosis was 79(SD) 8years; 65% were female. The proportion of patients with <2months' duration of symptoms increased from 26% in 2008 to 41% in 2014 (p=0.001). Mean visual acuity (VA) at baseline increased from 54.3 +/- 15.0 early treatment diabetic retinopathy study (ETDRS) letters in 2008 to 57.8 +/- 15.6 letters in 2014 (CI95 2.6; 4.3; p<0.001). Mean VA after 1year of treatment increased from 57.8 +/- 17.7 ETDRS letters for patients who started the treatment in 2008 to 62.8 +/- 16.4 ETDRS letters in patients starting treatment in 2014 (CI95 2.67; 4.64; p<0.001). During all study years, the proportion of patients with an improvement in VA of between 5 and 15 letters was around 30%, while 14% had VA improvement of more than 15 letters. The mean number of injections during the first treatment year increased from 4.3 +/- 1.9 in 2008 to 5.9 +/- 2.9 in 2014 (CI95 1.40; 1.67; p<0.001). Seven-year follow-up of 322 eyes showed a mean change of -1 letters from baseline, with a mean of 21 injections for the entire period. ConclusionThe duration of symptoms before treatment decreased, while VA at baseline and after 1year of treatment increased over the years and so did the number of injections. Long-term follow-up demonstrated stable VA.

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

4.4
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