Observational studyBMC ophthalmology2024
The impact of COVID-19 on aflibercept treatment of neovascular AMD in Sweden - data from the Swedish Macula Register.
Observational study in BMC ophthalmology, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Visual Acuity and Intraretinal Fluid as Predictive Factors for Legal Blindness and Macular Atrophy in Neovascular AMD Eyes Treated with Anti-VEGF: A Swedish Real-World Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Real World Data About the Treatment of Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration in Kuopio University Hospital During 2019-2021 Using a PRN Regimen.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Faricimab versus bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: Cost analysis based on real-world data from the Swedish Macula Registry.Acta ophthalmologica · 2025Article
- Comparing visual outcomes of nAMD treatment during and after the COVID-19 restrictions period.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of the study was to compare the real-world aflibercept treatment and visual outcomes, and to examine the adherence to pandemic guidelines in two groups of patients with treatment-naïve neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) before and during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden up to the 1-year follow-up.
methodsThis is a retrospective observational study including 2915 treatment naïve eyes with nAMD. Using data from the Swedish Macula Register (SMR), 1597 eyes initiating treatment between 1 July 2018 and 31 January 2019 (pre-pandemic group) were compared with 1318 eyes starting treatment between 1 February and 31 August 2020 (pandemic group). The eyes were then followed for 1 year ± 2 months, hence the first group was unaffected by the pandemic while the second group was affected. The focus was on baseline characteristics, visual acuity (VA) change from baseline, number of injections, treatment regimen, number of appointments and the frequency and length of appointment delays. The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was used to compare baseline VA to follow-up VA within the respective groups. The Mann-Whitney U-test and Fisher's exact test were used to compare outcomes between the groups.
resultsBaseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. The percentage of eyes with an available follow-up VA after 1 year was 58% in the pre-pandemic group vs. 44% in the pandemic group. VA in the pre-pandemic group had increased significantly after 1 year, from 62.2 ± 14.1 letters to 64.8 ± 16.1 letters (n = 921); p < 0.0001. In the pandemic group, VA increased from 61.1 ± 15.8 to 64.9 ± 16.9 (n = 575); p < 0.0001. There was no significant difference in mean VA change between the groups; p = 0.1734. The pre-pandemic group had significantly more delays than the pandemic group, 45% vs. 36%; p < 0.0001.
conclusionsThe pre-pandemic and pandemic groups had similar VA gains at 1-year follow-up, but with a reduced number of available VA in the pandemic group. Clinics were able to implement and prioritize injection visits excluding VA measurements, helping to reduce delays and maintain VA gains during the COVID-19 pandemic.
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.