Comparison of Characteristics and Treatment Outcomes of Type 1 and Type 2 Myopic Choroidal Neovascularization After Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy.

IF 2.1 2区 医学 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Teck Boon Tew, Yi-Ting Hsieh, Mei-Chi Tsui, Yun Hsia, Cheng-Yung Lee, Shih-Wen Wang, Chien-Jung Huang, I-Hsin Ma, Kuo-Chi Hung, Tso-Ting Lai, Chang-Hao Yang, Chung-May Yang, Tzyy-Chang Ho
{"title":"Comparison of Characteristics and Treatment Outcomes of Type 1 and Type 2 Myopic Choroidal Neovascularization After Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy.","authors":"Teck Boon Tew, Yi-Ting Hsieh, Mei-Chi Tsui, Yun Hsia, Cheng-Yung Lee, Shih-Wen Wang, Chien-Jung Huang, I-Hsin Ma, Kuo-Chi Hung, Tso-Ting Lai, Chang-Hao Yang, Chung-May Yang, Tzyy-Chang Ho","doi":"10.1097/IAE.0000000000004611","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aims to compare baseline characteristics and treatment outcomes of type 1 and type 2 myopic choroidal neovascularization (CNV) after one year of anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGF) therapy and identify clinical factors associated with visual outcomes, recurrence rates, and injection numbers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective study, we reviewed 171 patients with active mCNV treated with anti-VEGF therapy and followed for at least one year. CNV types were classified using optical coherence tomography (OCT). Baseline characteristics, including best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), myopic maculopathy grade, and OCT findings, were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Type 1 CNVs (19.3% of cases) exhibited worse baseline BCVA and more advanced macular degeneration than type 2 CNVs. Both types showed significant visual improvement equivalent to 2.2 lines post-therapy, with no difference in recurrence rates or injection numbers. Multivariate analysis revealed that baseline BCVA, severity of myopic macular degeneration, and presence of subretinal hyperreflective exudation were significant predictors of final BCVA, while CNV type was not an independent predictor.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite more severe macular degeneration in type 1 CNV, both types myopic CNVs benefit significantly from anti-VEGF therapy. These findings support extending treatment to type 1 CNVs and highlight the need for individualized management strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":54486,"journal":{"name":"Retina-The Journal of Retinal and Vitreous Diseases","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Retina-The Journal of Retinal and Vitreous Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000004611","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to compare baseline characteristics and treatment outcomes of type 1 and type 2 myopic choroidal neovascularization (CNV) after one year of anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGF) therapy and identify clinical factors associated with visual outcomes, recurrence rates, and injection numbers.

Methods: In this retrospective study, we reviewed 171 patients with active mCNV treated with anti-VEGF therapy and followed for at least one year. CNV types were classified using optical coherence tomography (OCT). Baseline characteristics, including best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), myopic maculopathy grade, and OCT findings, were compared.

Results: Type 1 CNVs (19.3% of cases) exhibited worse baseline BCVA and more advanced macular degeneration than type 2 CNVs. Both types showed significant visual improvement equivalent to 2.2 lines post-therapy, with no difference in recurrence rates or injection numbers. Multivariate analysis revealed that baseline BCVA, severity of myopic macular degeneration, and presence of subretinal hyperreflective exudation were significant predictors of final BCVA, while CNV type was not an independent predictor.

Conclusion: Despite more severe macular degeneration in type 1 CNV, both types myopic CNVs benefit significantly from anti-VEGF therapy. These findings support extending treatment to type 1 CNVs and highlight the need for individualized management strategies.

抗血管内皮生长因子治疗后1型与2型近视脉络膜新生血管的特点及疗效比较。
目的:本研究旨在比较1型和2型近视脉络膜新生血管(CNV)在接受抗血管内皮生长因子(VEGF)治疗一年后的基线特征和治疗结果,并确定与视力结果、复发率和注射次数相关的临床因素。方法:在这项回顾性研究中,我们回顾了171例接受抗vegf治疗的活动性mCNV患者,并随访至少一年。利用光学相干断层扫描(OCT)对CNV类型进行分类。比较基线特征,包括最佳矫正视力(BCVA)、近视黄斑病变等级和OCT表现。结果:1型CNVs(19.3%的病例)比2型CNVs表现出更差的基线BCVA和更晚期的黄斑变性。两种类型治疗后的视力都有显著改善,相当于2.2条线,复发率和注射次数没有差异。多因素分析显示,基线BCVA、近视黄斑变性的严重程度和视网膜下高反射性渗出的存在是最终BCVA的重要预测因素,而CNV类型不是独立的预测因素。结论:尽管1型CNV的黄斑变性更为严重,但抗vegf治疗对两种近视CNV均有显著益处。这些发现支持将治疗扩展到1型CNVs,并强调了个性化管理策略的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
9.10%
发文量
554
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: ​RETINA® focuses exclusively on the growing specialty of vitreoretinal disorders. The Journal provides current information on diagnostic and therapeutic techniques. Its highly specialized and informative, peer-reviewed articles are easily applicable to clinical practice. In addition to regular reports from clinical and basic science investigators, RETINA® publishes special features including periodic review articles on pertinent topics, special articles dealing with surgical and other therapeutic techniques, and abstract cards. Issues are abundantly illustrated in vivid full color. Published 12 times per year, RETINA® is truly a “must have” publication for anyone connected to this field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信