ReviewAmerican journal of ophthalmology2012
Uveitis, the Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials (CATT), and intravitreal biologics for ocular inflammation.
Review in American journal of ophthalmology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Pharmacological treatment strategies and surgical options for uveitis].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2019Review
- A Large Outbreak of Fulminant Bacterial Endophthalmitis after Intravitreal Injection of Counterfeit Bevacizumab.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2016Article
- [Therapy of intermediate uveitis].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2014Article
- Intravitreal Injection of Normal Saline Induces Retinal Degeneration in the C57BL/6J Mouse.Translational vision science & technology · 2014Article
- Acute sterile endophthalmitis following intravitreal bevacizumab: case series.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo provide perspective on the implications of the Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials (CATT) on intravitreal biologic agents in uveitis and retinal diseases in which ocular inflammatory pathways are central to their pathogenesis.
designInterpretative essay.
methodsLiterature review and interpretation.
resultsBesides the clear importance of CATT from a patient treatment perspective in age-related macular degeneration (AMD), these data highlight the critical relevance of highly specific protein immunotherapies offered with biologic agents. The CATT trial also provides a reminder regarding the importance of rigorous efficacy and safety monitoring required when administering intravitreal biologic therapy. Within the field of uveitis, systemic and local biologics have been used to effectively treat uveitis, targeting pathways implicated in both angiogenesis and inflammation (eg, tumor necrosis factor-α [TNF-α] and interleukin-2 pathways), and research on intravitreal biologic therapy for uveitis and AMD will continue to expand. With over 25 ongoing clinical trials on intravitreal biologic therapy for AMD, enthusiasm for vanguard biologic therapies should be tempered by judicious monitoring for adverse events.
conclusionThe importance of the CATT trial encompasses day-to-day treatment decisions for AMD, as well as lessons on how biologics for ocular disease should be implemented into clinical practice. Specifically, the introduction of intravitreal biologic therapies into clinical practice for uveitis, AMD, and other ocular diseases in which inflammation is involved should be guided by a clear understanding of the immunotherapeutic agent and its molecular target and with rigorous monitoring for both patient benefit and patient safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.