Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33211064›Full record

Observational studyJAMA ophthalmology2021

Insights From Survival Analyses During 12 Years of Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration.

Dun Jack Fu, Tiarnan D Keenan, Livia Faes, Ernest Lim, Siegfried K Wagner, Gabriella Moraes, Josef Huemer, Christoph Kern, Praveen J Patel, Konstantinos Balaskas and 4 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in JAMA ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Dun Jack FuMoorfields Eye Hospital National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Tiarnan D KeenanDepartment of Epidemiology and Clinical Applications, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Livia FaesMoorfields Eye Hospital National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Ernest LimMoorfields Eye Hospital National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Siegfried K WagnerMoorfields Eye Hospital National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Gabriella MoraesMoorfields Eye Hospital National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Josef HuemerMoorfields Eye Hospital National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Christoph KernMoorfields Eye Hospital National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Praveen J PatelMoorfields Eye Hospital National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Konstantinos BalaskasMoorfields Eye Hospital National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Dawn A SimMoorfields Eye Hospital National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Catey BunceGloucestershire Retinal Research Group, Gloucester, United Kingdom.
Irene StrattonNational Institute for Health and Research Biomedical Center, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Pearse A KeaneMoorfields Eye Hospital National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Department of Health CS-2014-14-023Medical Research Council MC_PC_19005Medical Research Council MR/T000953/1Medical Research Council MR/T019050/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Although multiple imputation models for missing data and the use of mixed-effects models generally provide better outcome estimates than using only observed data or last observation carried forward in clinical trials, such approaches usually cannot be applied to visual outcomes from retrospective analyses of clinical practice settings, also called real-world outcomes. Objective: To explore the potential usefulness of survival analysis techniques for retrospective clinical practice visual outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study covered a 12-year observation period at a tertiary eye center. Of 10 744 eyes with neovascular age-related macular degeneration receiving anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy between October 28, 2008, and February 1, 2020, 7802 eyes met study criteria (treatment-naive, first-treated eyes starting anti-VEGF therapy). Eyes were excluded from the analysis if they received photodynamic therapy or macular laser, any previous anti-VEGF therapy, treatment with anti-VEGF agents other than ranibizumab or aflibercept, or had an unknown date or visual acuity (VA) value at first injection. Main Outcomes and Measures: Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards modeling were used to consider VA reaching an Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letter score of 70 (Snellen equivalent, 20/40) or better, duration of VA sustained at or better than 70 (20/40), and VA declining to 35 (20/200) or worse. Results: A total of 7802 patients (mean [SD] age, 78.7 [8.8] years; 4776 women [61.2%]; and 4785 White [61.3%]) were included in the study. The median time to attaining a VA letter score greater than or equal to 70 (20/40) was 2.0 years (95% CI, 1.87-2.32) after the first anti-VEGF injection. Predictive features were baseline VA (hazard ratio [HR], 1.43 per 5 ETDRS letter score or 1 line; 95% CI, 1.40-1.46), baseline age (HR, 0.88 per 5 years; 95% CI, 0.86-0.90), and injection number (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.10-1.15). Of the 4439 of 7802 patients (57%) attaining this outcome, median time sustained at an ETDRS letter score of 70 (20/40) or better was 1.1 years (95% CI, 1.1-1.2). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration beginning anti-VEGF therapy were more likely to experience positive visual outcomes within the first 2.0 years after treatment, typically maintaining this outcome for 1.1 years but then deteriorating to poor vision within 8.7 years. These findings demonstrate the potential usefulness of the proposed analyses. This data set, combined with the statistical approach for retrospective analyses, may provide long-term prognostic information for patients newly diagnosed with this condition.

Indexed as

Neovascularization, PathologicAgedAged, 80 and overAngiogenesis InhibitorsDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansIntravitreal InjectionsMacular DegenerationMaleRanibizumabReceptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth FactorRecombinant Fusion ProteinsRecovery of FunctionRetrospective StudiesTime FactorsafliberceptAngiogenesis InhibitorsRanibizumabReceptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth FactorRecombinant Fusion ProteinsVascular Endothelial Growth Factor AVEGFA protein, human

Identifiers

PMID33211064
PMCPMC7677877

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.