ArticleEye (London, England)2023
Effectiveness of bevacizumab step therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bevacizumab: The future of chronic subdural hematoma.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2026Review
- Advances in the molecular signaling mechanisms of VEGF/VEGFR2 in fundus neovascularization disease (Review).Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2025Review
- Long-term choroidal thickness changes based on the subtype of macular neovascularization in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (5-year follow-up).Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024Article
- Enhancing the Inhibition of Corneal Neovascularization Efficacy by Self-Assembled into Supramolecular Hydrogel of Anti-Angiogenic Peptide.International journal of nanomedicine · 2024Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the effectiveness of bevacizumab step therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) in routine clinical practice.
methodsIn this retrospective case series, eyes initiating treatment for nAMD at an academic medical centre from 2011-2019 were included. Exclusion criteria included previous intravitreal anti-VEGF injections, prior non-cataract intraocular surgery, <1 year of treatment, and not starting on monthly bevacizumab therapy. Of 895 eligible eyes, 548 were excluded, yielding 347 eyes in the study population. These eyes were treated for nAMD under the bevacizumab step therapy protocol with an option to switch to another agent in the event of predefined treatment failure. Treatment failure was defined as losing 15 or more Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters or switching to an alternative anti-VEGF agent. Eyes that did not meet these criteria were deemed treatment successes. Annual change in mean VA from baseline (ΔVA) was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included treatment success rate, medication switch rate, and post-switch ΔVA.
resultsAfter 1 year, mean ΔVA was +8.4 letters (95% CI: +6.1 to +10.6 letters). 86% had treatment success, and 6% of eyes had switched to aflibercept. In years 2-7, ΔVA ranged from +7.0 to -0.7 letters, and treatment success rates ranged from 68 to 82%. 11% (n = 38) of eyes were switched to aflibercept. The post-switch ΔVA in these eyes was -7.1 letters (95% CI: -13.3 to -0.1) after a mean of 17.7 ± 12.6 injections over an average of 2.7 ± 2.0 years.
conclusionA bevacizumab step therapy protocol in routine clinical practice is effective for long-term treatment of nAMD.
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.