ArticleNorthern clinics of Istanbul2024
Real-life neovascular AMD treatment considering reimbursement in Turkiye: One-year comparison of switching to intravitreal ranibizumab or aflibercept after treatment failure with three loading intravitreal bevacizumab injections.
Article in Northern clinics of Istanbul, 2024. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare one-year anatomical and functional results of switching to an on-label intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agent (intravitreal ranibizumab [IVR] or aflibercept [IVA]) after treatment failure with three loading doses of off-label intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB), which is mandatory in the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) to get reimbursement from Social Security Institution in Turkiye.
methodsThis comparative, real-life, retrospective cohort study included treatment-naïve nAMD patients treated starting with three loading doses of IVB, switched to three loading doses of IVR and IVA due to treatment failure after IVB loading, and followed up one year with a treat-and-extend (T&E) protocol with 2-week extension/shortening intervals. The primary outcomes were changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA; logMAR) and central macular thickness (CMT, µm) one year after the switch, and the secondary outcomes were maximum treatment intervals, number of injections, and disease activity rates.
resultsThe mean age (72.9±8.2 and 72.2±6.7, p=0.677) and gender (60.0% and 47.4% females, p=0.398) were similar among the IVR (35 eyes/patients) and IVA (38 eyes/patients) groups. The median BCVA and CMT were significantly improved during the study period (p<0.001) with no significant intergroup differences. The ratio of 4-, 6-, 8-, 10-, and 12-week maximum treatment intervals were 28.6%, 17.1%, 14.3%, 8.6%, and 31.4% in the IVR, and 13.2%, 15.8%, 21.1%, 15.8%, and 34.2% in the IVA group (p=0.492). The median (IQR) number of injections in the IVA group (8 [7-9]) was significantly lower than the IVR group (9 [8-12]) during the one-year T&E period (p=0.026). The disease activity rates were 34.3% and 26.4% one month (p=0.610) and 37.1% and 21.1% one year (p=0.195) after the switch in IVR and IVA groups.
conclusionThis real-life comparison study indicates that, after the treatment failure with three loading doses of IVB, switching to either on-label anti-VEGF agent can be regarded as comparable considering functional and anatomical results. However, although maximum treatment intervals were not significantly different, fewer injections were required with aflibercept during the one-year T&E follow-up period.
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.