4.3 Review

Effectiveness of intravitreal ranibizumab for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration in a Canadian retina practice: a retrospective review

出版社

CANADIAN OPHTHAL SOC
DOI: 10.3129/i10-082

关键词

ranibizumab; lucentis; age-related macular degeneration; efficacy; effectiveness

资金

  1. Novartis Ophthalmics Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To assess the effectiveness of intravitreal ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) in a tertiary care retina practice and compare these results with published efficacy data from randomized clinical trials. Design: Nonrandomized, consecutive, single-centre, retrospective chart review analysis. Participants: Ninety-four patients (95 eyes) with neovascular AMD. Methods: All treatment-naive patients with neovascular AMD who received ranibizumab and for whom 1 year of follow-up was available were included in the analysis. The following information was gathered from each patient's chart: age, sex, ocular history, treated eye, duration of symptoms at presentation, subtype of choroidal neovascular membrane, Snellen visual acuity at each visit, number of injections, visits, and optical coherence tomography measurements. Results: Subjects had a mean age of 81 (SD 7.11) years. The mean number of injections was 5.1 (SD 2.85) with a mean of 9.4 (SD 2.27) visits in the 12-month period. Overall, there was a gain of 2.88 (SD 24.6) letters in all eyes, and a loss of 2.5 (SD 23.1) letters in patients who met the visual acuity inclusion criteria for the clinical trials. Of the patients who met the inclusion criteria, 75% lost fewer than 15 letters and 11% gained more than 15 letters. Conclusions: Visual outcomes in our study patients compared poorly with the clinical trials. Possibilities for the disparity include gaps in the number and frequency of follow-up visits, patient or doctor assessment fatigue, or gaps in optical coherence tomography utilization and the number of injections administered.

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

4.3
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