雷珠单抗和阿弗利百普治疗新生血管性老年性黄斑变性的 "治疗-延长 "方案与 "临终方案"：常规临床实践比较研究》。

IF 2.6 3区医学 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY

Ophthalmology and Therapy Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-08 DOI:10.1007/s40123-024-00983-2

Eloi Debourdeau, Helene Beylerian, Vuong Nguyen, Daniel Barthelmes, Mark Gillies, Pierre Henry Gabrielle, Stela Vujosevic, Louise Otoole, Martin Puzo, Catherine Creuzot-Garcher, Benjamin Wolff, Vincent Daien

{"title":"雷珠单抗和阿弗利百普治疗新生血管性老年性黄斑变性的 \"治疗-延长 \"方案与 \"临终方案\"：常规临床实践比较研究》。","authors":"Eloi Debourdeau, Helene Beylerian, Vuong Nguyen, Daniel Barthelmes, Mark Gillies, Pierre Henry Gabrielle, Stela Vujosevic, Louise Otoole, Martin Puzo, Catherine Creuzot-Garcher, Benjamin Wolff, Vincent Daien","doi":"10.1007/s40123-024-00983-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is generally given using pro re nata or \"treat-and-extend\" (T&E) regimens for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). Randomized clinical trials have reported that T&E is superior to Pro re nata (PRN), but results from clinical trials may not always be replicated in clinical practice. Real-world data comparing T&E and PRN regimens for nAMD are limited. The objective of this work was to report 24-month outcomes of PRN versus T&E regimens for ranibizumab and aflibercept to treat nAMD in routine clinical practice.Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of data from a prospectively designed observational outcomes registry, the Fight Retinal Blindness! Project (FRB). Treatment-naïve eyes starting nAMD treatment with at least three injections using a T&E or PRN regimen were tracked by using the FRB. The primary outcome was the mean change in visual acuity (VA) measured by the number of letters read on a logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution chart at 2 years versus baseline. The secondary outcome was the number of injections at 2 years.Results: From January 1, 2015 to January 31, 2019, 3313 eyes from 2948 patients with nAMD were included: 1243 eyes from 1065 patients were classified as PRN and 2070 eyes from 1935 patients started a T&E regimen. At 24 months, patients on the T&E regimen experienced significantly greater mean (95% confidence interval) improvement in VA than those on PRN (+ 4.2 [3.1, 5.2] vs. + 1.3 [0.1, 2.6] letters; p < 0.001), with more injections (14.9 standard deviation(SD) 4.3) vs. 9.8(SD 4.3); p < 0.001).Conclusions: Eyes treated with a T&E regimen had better VA outcomes from VEGF inhibitors than eyes treated PRN. This large real-world data assessment supports previous data from randomized clinical trials that the T&E regimen delivers better outcomes than PRN.","PeriodicalId":19623,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmology and Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"2343-2355"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11341503/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Treat-and-Extend Versus Pro re nata Regimens of Ranibizumab and Aflibercept in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Comparative Study from Routine Clinical Practice.\",\"authors\":\"Eloi Debourdeau, Helene Beylerian, Vuong Nguyen, Daniel Barthelmes, Mark Gillies, Pierre Henry Gabrielle, Stela Vujosevic, Louise Otoole, Martin Puzo, Catherine Creuzot-Garcher, Benjamin Wolff, Vincent Daien\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40123-024-00983-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is generally given using pro re nata or \\\"treat-and-extend\\\" (T&E) regimens for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). Randomized clinical trials have reported that T&E is superior to Pro re nata (PRN), but results from clinical trials may not always be replicated in clinical practice. Real-world data comparing T&E and PRN regimens for nAMD are limited. The objective of this work was to report 24-month outcomes of PRN versus T&E regimens for ranibizumab and aflibercept to treat nAMD in routine clinical practice.Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of data from a prospectively designed observational outcomes registry, the Fight Retinal Blindness! Project (FRB). Treatment-naïve eyes starting nAMD treatment with at least three injections using a T&E or PRN regimen were tracked by using the FRB. The primary outcome was the mean change in visual acuity (VA) measured by the number of letters read on a logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution chart at 2 years versus baseline. The secondary outcome was the number of injections at 2 years.Results: From January 1, 2015 to January 31, 2019, 3313 eyes from 2948 patients with nAMD were included: 1243 eyes from 1065 patients were classified as PRN and 2070 eyes from 1935 patients started a T&E regimen. At 24 months, patients on the T&E regimen experienced significantly greater mean (95% confidence interval) improvement in VA than those on PRN (+ 4.2 [3.1, 5.2] vs. + 1.3 [0.1, 2.6] letters; p < 0.001), with more injections (14.9 standard deviation(SD) 4.3) vs. 9.8(SD 4.3); p < 0.001).Conclusions: Eyes treated with a T&E regimen had better VA outcomes from VEGF inhibitors than eyes treated PRN. This large real-world data assessment supports previous data from randomized clinical trials that the T&E regimen delivers better outcomes than PRN.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19623,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ophthalmology and Therapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2343-2355\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11341503/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ophthalmology and Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-024-00983-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/8 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmology and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-024-00983-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

导言：抗血管内皮生长因子（VEGF）治疗新生血管性年龄相关性黄斑变性（nAMD）通常采用 "原位 "或 "治疗-延长"（T&E）方案。随机临床试验报告显示，T&E优于Pro re nata（PRN），但临床试验的结果并不总能在临床实践中得到复制。比较 T&E 和 PRN 方案治疗 nAMD 的真实世界数据非常有限。本研究旨在报告常规临床实践中使用雷尼珠单抗和阿弗利贝赛普治疗 nAMD 的 PRN 与 T&E 方案的 24 个月疗效：方法：我们对前瞻性设计的观察结果登记处--抗击视网膜失明项目（FRB）的数据进行了回顾性分析！项目（FRB）的数据进行了回顾性分析。我们通过 FRB 追踪了开始接受 nAMD 治疗并使用 T&E 或 PRN 方案进行至少三次注射的未接受过治疗的眼睛。主要结果是视力（VA）的平均变化，以 2 年后最小解像角对数图上读取的字母数与基线相比来衡量。次要结果是两年内的注射次数：从2015年1月1日至2019年1月31日，共纳入了2948名nAMD患者的3313只眼睛：1065名患者中的1243只眼睛被归类为PRN，1935名患者中的2070只眼睛开始接受T&E治疗。24 个月后，接受 T&E 方案治疗的患者视力改善的平均值（95% 置信区间）明显高于接受 PRN 方案治疗的患者（+ 4.2 [3.1, 5.2] vs. + 1.3 [0.1, 2.6] 个字母；P 结论：接受 T&E 方案治疗的患者视力改善的平均值（95% 置信区间）明显高于接受 PRN 方案治疗的患者：采用 T&E 方案治疗的患者与接受 PRN 治疗的患者相比，血管内皮生长因子抑制剂的 VA 效果更好。这一大型真实世界数据评估支持了之前的随机临床试验数据，即 T&E 方案比 PRN 方案的疗效更好。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

Treat-and-Extend Versus Pro re nata Regimens of Ranibizumab and Aflibercept in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Comparative Study from Routine Clinical Practice.

查看原文本刊更多论文

Treat-and-Extend Versus Pro re nata Regimens of Ranibizumab and Aflibercept in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Comparative Study from Routine Clinical Practice.

Introduction: Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is generally given using pro re nata or "treat-and-extend" (T&E) regimens for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). Randomized clinical trials have reported that T&E is superior to Pro re nata (PRN), but results from clinical trials may not always be replicated in clinical practice. Real-world data comparing T&E and PRN regimens for nAMD are limited. The objective of this work was to report 24-month outcomes of PRN versus T&E regimens for ranibizumab and aflibercept to treat nAMD in routine clinical practice.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of data from a prospectively designed observational outcomes registry, the Fight Retinal Blindness! Project (FRB). Treatment-naïve eyes starting nAMD treatment with at least three injections using a T&E or PRN regimen were tracked by using the FRB. The primary outcome was the mean change in visual acuity (VA) measured by the number of letters read on a logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution chart at 2 years versus baseline. The secondary outcome was the number of injections at 2 years.

Results: From January 1, 2015 to January 31, 2019, 3313 eyes from 2948 patients with nAMD were included: 1243 eyes from 1065 patients were classified as PRN and 2070 eyes from 1935 patients started a T&E regimen. At 24 months, patients on the T&E regimen experienced significantly greater mean (95% confidence interval) improvement in VA than those on PRN (+ 4.2 [3.1, 5.2] vs. + 1.3 [0.1, 2.6] letters; p < 0.001), with more injections (14.9 standard deviation(SD) 4.3) vs. 9.8(SD 4.3); p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Eyes treated with a T&E regimen had better VA outcomes from VEGF inhibitors than eyes treated PRN. This large real-world data assessment supports previous data from randomized clinical trials that the T&E regimen delivers better outcomes than PRN.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Ophthalmology and Therapy OPHTHALMOLOGY-

CiteScore

4.20

自引率

3.00%

发文量

157

审稿时长

6 weeks

期刊介绍： Aims and Scope Ophthalmology and Therapy is an international, open access, peer-reviewed (single-blind), and rapid publication journal. The scope of the journal is broad and will consider all scientifically sound research from preclinical, clinical (all phases), observational, real-world, and health outcomes research around the use of ophthalmological therapies, devices, and surgical techniques. The journal is of interest to a broad audience of pharmaceutical and healthcare professionals and publishes original research, reviews, case reports/series, trial protocols and short communications such as commentaries and editorials. Ophthalmology and Therapy will consider all scientifically sound research be it positive, confirmatory or negative data. Submissions are welcomed whether they relate to an international and/or a country-specific audience, something that is crucially important when researchers are trying to target more specific patient populations. This inclusive approach allows the journal to assist in the dissemination of quality research, which may be considered of insufficient interest by other journals. Rapid Publication The journal’s publication timelines aim for a rapid peer review of 2 weeks. If an article is accepted it will be published 3–4 weeks from acceptance. The rapid timelines are achieved through the combination of a dedicated in-house editorial team, who manage article workflow, and an extensive Editorial and Advisory Board who assist with peer review. This allows the journal to support the rapid dissemination of research, whilst still providing robust peer review. Combined with the journal’s open access model this allows for the rapid, efficient communication of the latest research and reviews, fostering the advancement of ophthalmic therapies. Open Access All articles published by Ophthalmology and Therapy are open access. Personal Service The journal’s dedicated in-house editorial team offer a personal “concierge service” meaning authors will always have an editorial contact able to update them on the status of their manuscript. The editorial team check all manuscripts to ensure that articles conform to the most recent COPE, GPP and ICMJE publishing guidelines. This supports the publication of ethically sound and transparent research. Digital Features and Plain Language Summaries Ophthalmology and Therapy offers a range of additional features designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. Each article is accompanied by key summary points, giving a time-efficient overview of the content to a wide readership. Articles may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand the scientific content and overall implications of the article. The journal also provides the option to include various types of digital features including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations. All additional features are peer reviewed to the same high standard as the article itself. If you consider that your paper would benefit from the inclusion of a digital feature, please let us know. Our editorial team are able to create high-quality slide decks and infographics in-house, and video abstracts through our partner Research Square, and would be happy to assist in any way we can. For further information about digital features, please contact the journal editor (see ‘Contact the Journal’ for email address), and see the ‘Guidelines for digital features and plain language summaries’ document under ‘Submission guidelines’. For examples of digital features please visit our showcase page https://springerhealthcare.com/expertise/publishing-digital-features/ Publication Fees Upon acceptance of an article, authors will be required to pay the mandatory Rapid Service Fee of €5250/$6000/£4300. The journal will consider fee discounts and waivers for developing countries and this is decided on a case by case basis. Peer Review Process Upon submission, manuscripts are assessed by the editorial team to ensure they fit within the aims and scope of the journal and are also checked for plagiarism. All suitable submissions are then subject to a comprehensive single-blind peer review. Reviewers are selected based on their relevant expertise and publication history in the subject area. The journal has an extensive pool of editorial and advisory board members who have been selected to assist with peer review based on the afore-mentioned criteria. At least two extensive reviews are required to make the editorial decision, with the exception of some article types such as Commentaries, Editorials, and Letters which are generally reviewed by one member of the Editorial Board. Where reviewer recommendations are conflicted, the editorial board will be contacted for further advice and a presiding decision. Manuscripts are then either accepted, rejected or authors are required to make major or minor revisions (both reviewer comments and editorial comments may need to be addressed). Once a revised manuscript is re-submitted, it is assessed along with the responses to reviewer comments and if it has been adequately revised it will be accepted for publication. Accepted manuscripts are then copyedited and typeset by the production team before online publication. Appeals against decisions following peer review are considered on a case-by-case basis and should be sent to the journal editor. Preprints We encourage posting of preprints of primary research manuscripts on preprint servers, authors’ or institutional websites, and open communications between researchers whether on community preprint servers or preprint commenting platforms. Posting of preprints is not considered prior publication and will not jeopardize consideration in our journals. Authors should disclose details of preprint posting during the submission process or at any other point during consideration in one of our journals. Once the manuscript is published, it is the author’s responsibility to ensure that the preprint record is updated with a publication reference, including the DOI and a URL link to the published version of the article on the journal website. Please follow the link for further information on preprint sharing: https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/journal-author/journal-author-helpdesk/submission/1302#c16721550 Copyright Ophthalmology and Therapy''s content is published open access under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License, which allows users to read, copy, distribute, and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited. The author assigns the exclusive right to any commercial use of the article to Springer. For more information about the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License, click here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0. Contact For more information about the journal, including pre-submission enquiries, please contact christopher.vautrinot@springer.com.