ArticleBMC ophthalmology2018
Clinical outcomes of switching to aflibercept using a pro re nata treatment regimen in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration who incompletely responded to ranibizumab.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short-Term Results of Switch from Conbercept to Bevacizumab or Ranibizumab in Eyes with Persistent Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration.Journal of ophthalmology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo assess the effect of switching patients previously incompletely treated with ranibizumab (RBZ) to aflibercept (AFL) using a pro re nata (PRN) treatment strategy in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nvAMD).
methodsA retrospective case series was conducted on patients who had persistent or recurrent intra- and/or sub-retinal fluid treated initially with RBZ and subsequently switched to AFL. The main outcome measures were best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) measured at different stages of the study. Friedman analysis of variance and Wilcoxon test were used to examine differences in BCVA and CRT.
resultsTwo hundred and seven eyes from 182 patients were included. BCVA and CRT improved significantly initially following 3 RBZ injections with a mean gain of 3.7 letters (p < 0.001) and a mean loss of 69 μm (p < 0.001) respectively. Following PRN RBZ therapy and immediately prior to switching to AFL (mean 129 weeks), there was a mean loss of 6.7 letters (p < 0.001) BCVA and a mean gain of 24 μm (p < 0.001) CRT. AFL loading resulted in a mean improvement of 0.7 letters (p = 0.28) BCVA and 55 μm (p < 0.001) CRT. At final follow-up following AFL PRN therapy (mean 85 weeks), there was a mean loss of 8.9 letters (p < 0.001) BCVA and a mean gain of 12 μm (p < 0.05) CRT.
conclusionAFL loading resulted in a significant anatomical improvement but no significant change in visual acuity. However, the benefits of switching were gradually lost over time with AFL PRN dosing despite an increased injection rate when compared with RBZ PRN treatment.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.