Abstract

To explore the comparative efficacy and safety of higher dose intravitreal bevacizumab, ranibizumab, or aflibercept for treatment-resistant neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). Retrospective analysis of 37 eyes of 35 patients with treatment-resistant nAMD divided into 3 cohorts based on high-dose treatment received: 3mg aflibercept, 0.75mg or 1.0mg ranibizumab, and 1.8mg or 2.5mg bevacizumab. The eyes were analyzed at standardized time points up to 48months. Included eyes demonstrated active nAMD with persistent exudation on imaging for at least 6months with at least 4 anti-VEGF injections during this time. Outcomes included change in visual acuity (VA), central retinal thickness (CRT), intraocular pressure (IOP), retinal morphology, adverse event occurrence, and yearly intravitreal injection (IVI) rate. There was no significant difference in VA or IOP change compared to the initiation of high-dose treatment for any agent or comparing between agents at any time point (p > 0.05). CRT improved at month 1, 3, 6, and 12 with all 3 agents (p < 0.05 for all) with a greater CRT reduction seen for ranibizumab than aflibercept at month 6 (p < 0.05), although baseline CRT was greater in the ranibizumab group than the aflibercept group (p < 0.05). Mean absolute CRT was similar at month 6 for all agents (p > 0.05). IVI rates pre- and post-conversion to higher-dose therapy were similar (1 injection per 5.7-6.4weeks). Mean follow-up was 22.8months. Higher dose therapy may achieve improved anatomic outcomes and maintain vision, but frequent injections are required to achieve this. There was no detected difference in efficacy or safety between agents.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.