Outcomes of Pro Re Nata versus Treat-and-Extend Anti-VEGF Injections for Myopic Macular Neovascularization in Multiethnic Patients in the United States.

Abstract

To compare visual outcomes and recurrence rates between pro re nata (PRN), treat-and-extend and stop (TES), and treat-and-extend with chronic maintenance dosing (TEM) regimens of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections for myopic macular neovascularization (MNV) in multiethnic patients. This retrospective study included patients treated with PRN, TES, or TEM for myopic MNV using intravitreal bevacizumab or ranibizumab. The primary outcome measure was visual improvement at 12 months. We included 127 eyes of 117 patients (75 females and 42 males). The mean follow-up duration was 37.9 months. We compared the outcomes of PRN (47 eyes [37%]), TES (52 eyes [41%]), and TEM (28 eyes [22%]). All groups showed significant visual improvement at 12 months and at the final follow-up (all P<0.05). Visual outcomes did not differ significantly between the three groups at 12 months and final follow-up (all P>0.05). However, the number of eyes with recurrences was significantly higher in the PRN group and significantly lower in the TEM group during follow-up (38%, 21%, and 11% in the PRN, TES, and TEM groups, respectively; P=0.020). The PRN group received the fewest injections during follow-up (5.3, 10.9, and 19.9 injections in the PRN, TES, and TEM groups respectively; P<0.001). Anti-VEGF injections with PRN, TES, or TEM regimens are effective for myopic MNV and have comparable visual outcomes. Since PRN provides favorable outcomes with fewer injections, it should be the first-line approach. However, a treat-and-extend approach with TES and TEM may be an option given individual patient factors.