4.1 Article

Remission and dropout rate of anti-VEGF therapy for age-related macular degeneration

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 21, 期 6, 页码 777-782

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.5301/EJO.2011.7430

关键词

Age-related macular degeneration; Pegaptanib; Ranibizumab

资金

  1. Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science, Tokyo, Japan [22791706]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22791706] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy is a first-line treatment for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) but frequent visits and injections can be a burden for patients. The purpose of this study is to estimate the remission rate and tolerability of anti-VEGF therapy for AMD in a clinical setting. METHODS. We investigated 90 eyes of 87 patients with AMD who underwent anti-VEGF therapy and were followed for more than 6 months. Ranibizumab and pegaptanib were used as anti-VEGF agents. Initial therapy was any of the following: a single injection, 3 consecutive monthly injections, or combination therapy with verteporfin. Additional injections were given as-needed during follow-up. An injection-free period greater than 6 months at the final observation was regarded as cessation; the reason for cessation was studied for each patient. Clinical characteristics were compared between patents with and without cessation. RESULTS. The mean follow-up period was 12.8 months. Mean logMAR before and 6 months after the treatment was 0.89 and 0.83, respectively. Cessation was noted in 32 eyes of 31 patients (35.6%). Remission was achieved in 13 (40.6%) of these eyes. The other cases either did not wish to undergo further treatment or dropped out. Poor baseline visual acuity (VA) was associated with cessation. CONCLUSIONS. With current anti-VEGF therapy, remission was achieved in a limited number of AMD cases. The high frequency of voluntary cessation warrants consideration of an alternative treatment and/or supportive care for those with poor baseline 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

4.1
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