ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024
Beyond Longer Intervals: Advocating for Regular Treatment of Neovascular AMD.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Switching from Aflibercept to Faricimab in the Treatment of Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Short-Term Results from Real-Life Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Navigating the Decision to Discontinue Intravitreal Injection Therapy in End-Stage Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration.Journal of personalized medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Personalizing the management of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) poses significant challenges for practicing retina specialists and their patients. This commentary addresses some of these complexities, particularly those that arise in the context of an expanding array of intravitreal agents targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and related retinal disease targets. Many of these newer agents approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of nAMD have labeling that indicates that they can provide non-inferior visual outcomes when compared head-to-head with previously available treatments and can be used at significantly extended dosing intervals in some patients. It can be difficult to know if patients should be transitioned to these agents, especially those who are doing well on existing therapies. Although offering extended intervals may be appropriate for some patients with excellent disease control, retina specialists know that undertreatment risks the loss of visual acuity (VA). It can also be challenging for clinicians to interpret the results delivered by clinical trial treatment protocols compared with what is likely to occur in real-world office settings. Many retina specialists use less liberal treatment paradigms than employed in clinical study protocols and consequently many patients experience shorter injection intervals. Since VA is most closely linked to quality of life, it should be prioritized compared with other endpoints. The authors advocate for maintaining consistent treatment schedules dictated by disease control instead of switching therapies even in the presence of small amounts of macular fluid that may occur with longer injection intervals.
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.