[HTML][HTML] Treat and extend versus pro re nata regimens of ranibizumab and aflibercept in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a comparative study

M Augsburger, GM Sarra, P Imesch - Graefe's Archive for Clinical and …, 2019 - Springer
M Augsburger, GM Sarra, P Imesch
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, 2019Springer
Purpose To compare treatment efficacy of anti-VEGF medications following pro re nata
(PRN,“as needed”, monthly injections only in case of active disease) or treat and extend
(T&E, progressive extension of treatment intervals up to 12 weeks depending on the clinical
findings) treatment protocols in real-world conditions. Methods Retrospective, observational
study. Patients diagnosed with age-related macular degeneration and without pre-treatment
undergoing routine anti-VEGF treatment in one eye clinic in Switzerland were included …
Purpose
To compare treatment efficacy of anti-VEGF medications following pro re nata (PRN, “as needed”, monthly injections only in case of active disease) or treat and extend (T&E, progressive extension of treatment intervals up to 12 weeks depending on the clinical findings) treatment protocols in real-world conditions.
Methods
Retrospective, observational study. Patients diagnosed with age-related macular degeneration and without pre-treatment undergoing routine anti-VEGF treatment in one eye clinic in Switzerland were included. Treatment was performed according to local practices, using ranibizumab or aflibercept, and following T&E or PRN regimens. Changes in logMAR and injection intervals (time between two injections) for specific treatment periods were evaluated descriptively and using mixed models.
Results
In total, 1071 patients with 1332 treated eyes (ranibizumab/PRN 722, ranibizumab/T&E 191, aflibercept/T&E 419) were included in the analyses. At baseline, logMAR (mean ± SD) was similar in both ranibizumab treatment groups (PRN 0.63 ± 0.43, T&E 0.57 ± 0.42). In the ranibizumab/PRN group, logMAR was about 0.1 lower for all time intervals in the initial and maintenance phases in comparison with baseline, indicating an improvement in VA. By comparison, logMAR improved more strongly in the ranibizumab/T&E group (16 to < 22 months, − 0.19 [− 0.23–0.15]) in comparison with baseline. Comparing ranibizumab/T&E vs. aflibercept/T&E groups, improvements in logMAR were similar over time. In the maintenance phase, the rate of patients with a clinically relevant improvement in visual acuity (> 0.2 logMAR) was higher in both T&E groups compared with the ranibizumab/PRN group. Injection intervals in the maintenance phase in ranibizumab/T&E group gradually expanded over time; whereas in the aflibercept/T&E group, injection intervals remained relatively stable.
Conclusions
Ranibizumab used according to T&E protocol yielded a stronger improvement in logMAR, compared with PRN protocol with longer injection intervals than aflibercept/T&E. This large real-world data assessment supports previous data on the superiority of T&E treatment.
Springer