Clinical Characteristics and Long-Term Outcomes of Eyes With Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration Requiring Frequent Treatment.

IF 0.8 Q4 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Mirataollah Salabati, Hannah Garrigan, Bita Momenaei, Taku Wakabayashi, Jae-Chiang Wong, Dillan Patel, Raziyeh Mahmoudzadeh, Hana A Mansour, Michael Ammar, David Xu, Carl D Regillo
{"title":"Clinical Characteristics and Long-Term Outcomes of Eyes With Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration Requiring Frequent Treatment.","authors":"Mirataollah Salabati, Hannah Garrigan, Bita Momenaei, Taku Wakabayashi, Jae-Chiang Wong, Dillan Patel, Raziyeh Mahmoudzadeh, Hana A Mansour, Michael Ammar, David Xu, Carl D Regillo","doi":"10.1177/24741264251371007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Purpose:</b> To compare long-term visual outcomes in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) patients who received frequent vs infrequent antivascular endothelial growth factor injections. <b>Methods:</b> This retrospective case series included treatment-naïve AMD patients receiving either frequent injections (≤ 6-week intervals) or infrequent injections (≥ 10-week intervals). Best-available visual acuity (VA) and anatomic outcomes were assessed at the initial visit, 52 weeks, 104 weeks, and final visit. <b>Results:</b> A total of 151 eyes were studied over a mean follow-up of 42.6 months: 81 eyes (54%) in the frequent group and 70 eyes (46%) in the infrequent group. Baseline central foveal thickness (CFT) was higher in the frequent group (320 µm vs 265 µm; <i>P</i> = .002). Though CFT improved in both groups, it remained higher in the frequent group at 52 weeks (230 µm vs 185 µm; <i>P</i> = .004), 104 weeks (203 µm vs 173 µm; <i>P</i> = .004), and final visit (197 µm vs 165 µm; <i>P</i> = .015). The frequent group showed more subretinal and intraretinal fluid at all times. Baseline logMAR VA was 0.63 and 0.84 in the frequent and infrequent groups, respectively <i>(P</i> = .10). Visual improvement was similar between groups at 52 weeks (0.21 vs 0.22 logMAR; <i>P</i> = .916), 104 weeks (0.21 vs 0.18 logMAR; <i>P</i> = .714), and final visit (0.1 vs 0.05 logMAR; <i>P</i> = .510). Poor baseline VA (<i>P</i> < .001) and geographic atrophy (<i>P</i> = .025) were associated with worse outcomes. <b>Conclusions:</b> Over 4 years, despite higher CFT and more fluid, frequent injections showed similar visual improvement to infrequent injections. Baseline vision was the strongest predictor of final outcomes, regardless of injection frequency.</p>","PeriodicalId":17919,"journal":{"name":"Journal of VitreoRetinal Diseases","volume":" ","pages":"24741264251371007"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12440911/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of VitreoRetinal Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/24741264251371007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To compare long-term visual outcomes in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) patients who received frequent vs infrequent antivascular endothelial growth factor injections. Methods: This retrospective case series included treatment-naïve AMD patients receiving either frequent injections (≤ 6-week intervals) or infrequent injections (≥ 10-week intervals). Best-available visual acuity (VA) and anatomic outcomes were assessed at the initial visit, 52 weeks, 104 weeks, and final visit. Results: A total of 151 eyes were studied over a mean follow-up of 42.6 months: 81 eyes (54%) in the frequent group and 70 eyes (46%) in the infrequent group. Baseline central foveal thickness (CFT) was higher in the frequent group (320 µm vs 265 µm; P = .002). Though CFT improved in both groups, it remained higher in the frequent group at 52 weeks (230 µm vs 185 µm; P = .004), 104 weeks (203 µm vs 173 µm; P = .004), and final visit (197 µm vs 165 µm; P = .015). The frequent group showed more subretinal and intraretinal fluid at all times. Baseline logMAR VA was 0.63 and 0.84 in the frequent and infrequent groups, respectively (P = .10). Visual improvement was similar between groups at 52 weeks (0.21 vs 0.22 logMAR; P = .916), 104 weeks (0.21 vs 0.18 logMAR; P = .714), and final visit (0.1 vs 0.05 logMAR; P = .510). Poor baseline VA (P < .001) and geographic atrophy (P = .025) were associated with worse outcomes. Conclusions: Over 4 years, despite higher CFT and more fluid, frequent injections showed similar visual improvement to infrequent injections. Baseline vision was the strongest predictor of final outcomes, regardless of injection frequency.

需要频繁治疗的新生血管性年龄相关性黄斑变性的临床特征和长期预后。
目的:比较频繁和不频繁注射抗血管内皮生长因子的新生血管性年龄相关性黄斑变性(AMD)患者的长期视力结果。方法:本回顾性病例系列包括treatment-naïve频繁注射(≤6周间隔)或不频繁注射(≥10周间隔)的AMD患者。在初次就诊、52周、104周和最后一次就诊时评估最佳可用视力(VA)和解剖结果。结果:在平均42.6个月的随访中,共研究了151只眼:频繁组81只眼(54%),不频繁组70只眼(46%)。基线中央中央凹厚度(CFT)在频繁组较高(320µm vs 265µm; P = 0.002)。虽然两组的CFT都有所改善,但在52周(230µm vs 185µm, P = 0.004)、104周(203µm vs 173µm, P = 0.004)和最后一次就诊(197µm vs 165µm, P = 0.015)时,频繁组的CFT仍然更高。频繁尿频组在任何时候都表现出更多的视网膜下和视网膜内积液。频繁组和不频繁组的基线logMAR VA分别为0.63和0.84 (P = 0.10)。在52周(0.21 vs 0.22 logMAR; P = .916)、104周(0.21 vs 0.18 logMAR; P = .714)和最后一次就诊(0.1 vs 0.05 logMAR; P = .510)时,两组之间的视力改善相似。较差的基线VA (P < 0.001)和地理萎缩(P = 0.025)与较差的结果相关。结论:在4年多的时间里,尽管CFT更高,液体更多,但频繁注射与不频繁注射对视力的改善相似。无论注射频率如何,基线视力都是最终结果的最强预测因子。
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
1.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
0
×
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