ArticleInternational journal of retina and vitreous2024
Evaluating photodynamic therapy versus brolucizumab as a second-line treatment for polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy.
Article in International journal of retina and vitreous, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the one-year outcomes between intravitreal brolucizumab (IVBr) monotherapy and photodynamic therapy (PDT) as a second-line treatment in patients with polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV) who did not respond to first-line therapy.
methodsThis case-control study included eyes with PCV that do not respond to aflibercept or ranibizumab. The patients were retrospectively registered. We compared outcomes, including best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), anatomical results, and the need for additional treatments, between IVBr and a combination therapy using PDT as second-line treatments for refractory PCV, after adjusting for potential confounders. We analyzed E-values to evaluate the robustness of the results against unmeasured confounders.
resultsTwenty-two eyes received IVBr, and twenty-four underwent PDT. No apparent differences were observed in BCVA and central macular thickness (CMT) changes from baseline between the groups (IVBr vs. PDT: BCVA, 0.01 ± 0.47 logMAR vs. 0.04 ± 0.18 logMAR, P-value = 0.756; CMT: - 36.3 ± 99.4 μm vs. - 114.7 ± 181.4 μm, P-value = 0.146). Only in the PDT group, five eyes (20.8%) did not require additional treatment after the second-line treatment, the adjusted odds ratio indicating no further treatment needed was 11.98 (95% confidence interval: 1.42-2070.07, P-value = 0.019). The E-value for the adjusted odds ratio was 23.44.
conclusionsBoth second-line treatments for PCV exhibited similar visual and anatomical outcomes. Only in the PDT-treated eyes were there some patients who did not require further treatment after second-line therapy.
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.