Trial reportDocumenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology2022
Electrophysiological evaluation and 18-month follow-up of two regimens with aflibercept for neovascular age-related macular degeneration.
Trial report in Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology, 2022. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intravitreal Injection of ZYAN1 Restored Autophagy and Alleviated Oxidative Stress in Degenerating Retina via the HIF-1α/BNIP3 Pathway.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare two aflibercept treatment regimens and the electrophysiological outcome concerning cone and rod function in age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) over 18 months.
methods41 patients with treatment-naïve nAMD were randomized 1:1 to either arm 1 or 2. Arm 1 received three consecutive monthly aflibercept injections, followed by bimonthly treatment until week 52. Thereafter, a treat-and-extend (TAE) regimen was applied. Arm 2 was treated according to a TAE protocol throughout the 18-month follow-up. We assessed visual acuity (VA), central retinal thickness (CRT), injection rate and interval, and evaluated cone and rod function with full-field and multifocal electroretinography (ffERG, mERG).
resultsThere were no statistically significant differences in mean baseline VA, lesion type, age, gender, or symptom duration between the two arms. During the 18-month follow-up, mean VA improved in arm 1 (n = 19) from 63.5 ± 10.5 to 69.1 ± 9.2 letters; p = 0.098; and in arm 2 (n = 20) from 66.8 ± 13.6 to 73.9 ± 9.0 letters; p = .002. In both arms, mean CRT was significantly reduced; p < 0.000. At month 18, we found no significant difference in the number of injections or injection intervals between groups. Arm 1 had received 11.3 ± 1.7 injections vs. 10.9 ± 2.0 in arm 2. The mean injection interval was 9.2 ± 3.4 weeks vs. 9.5 ± 3.1, with 52% (n = 10) on the maximum 12-week interval in arm 1, and 50% (n = 10) in arm 2. The combined rod-cone a-wave amplitude significantly decreased over time; p = 0.043. The isolated rod b-wave amplitude showed a statistically significant decline; p = 0.026. The overall mERG amplitude and implicit time remained unchanged over time; p = 0.878 vs. p = 0.922. The central ring 1 mERG amplitude improved; p = 0.041, with an unaffected implicit time.
conclusionsAfter 18 months, both treatments arms have received a similar number of injections at comparable intervals. Electrophysiological evaluation shows no signs of toxicity concerning cone function. But ffERGs for the combined and isolated rod response have declined, possibly reflecting either toxic effects of the drug to rods or the natural course of the disease itself.
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.