Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39797140›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024

Beyond Longer Intervals: Advocating for Regular Treatment of Neovascular AMD.

Alexandra K Gilligan, David J Ramsey

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Alexandra K GilliganDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY 10467, USA.
David J RamseyDivision of Ophthalmology, Department of Surgery, UMass Chan-Lahey School of Medicine, Burlington, MA 01805, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5504-812X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

neovascular age-related macular degenerationretinatreat and extendvascular endothelial growth factor

Identifiers

PMID39797140
PMCPMC11721943

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.