Treat-and-extend dosing of intravitreal anti-VEGF agents in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a meta-analysis.

Abstract

Intravitreal injections of antiangiogenic agents are pivotal in treating neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). The comparative efficacy and safety of treat-and-extend (T&E) versus bimonthly, monthly, and pro re nata (PRN) dosing remains unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis of English-language RCTs reporting on efficacy and/or safety outcomes of dosing regimens of anti-VEGF agents in nAMD was performed. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA, ETDRS letters) at last follow-up represented the primary endpoint, while central subfield thickness (CSFT, μm), injection burden, and ocular adverse events were secondary endpoints. A random effects meta-analysis was performed, and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Across six RCTs, 781 T&E-, 663 monthly-, 130 PRN-, and 123 bimonthly treated eyes were included. Mean changes in BCVA and CSFT at last follow-up were similar between T&E versus monthly (WMD, -0.62 letters; 95% CI, -2.12 to 0.87; P = 0.41; WMD, 5.30 microns; 95% CI, -10.67 to 21.26; P = 0.52, respectively), bimonthly (WMD, 1.68 letters; 95% CI, -3.55 to 6.91; P = 0.53; WMD, -18.91 microns; 95% CI, -46.41 to 8.60; P = 0.18, respectively), and PRN (BCVA WMD, 1.08 letters; 95% CI, -2.95 to 5.11; P = 0.60) regimens. T&E was associated with a reduced injection burden versus monthly (WMD, -4.52 injections; 95% CI, -6.66 to 2.39; P < 0.001) but higher injection burden versus PRN (WMD, 1.81 injections; 95% CI, 1.12 to 2.51; P < 0.001) dosing. There was no significant difference in safety outcomes amongst comparators. There was no significant difference in efficacy and safety between T&E, bimonthly, monthly, and PRN dosing. T&E resulted in fewer injections versus monthly and fewer clinic visits versus PRN.