Patient adherence to therapy after switch to aflibercept from bevacizumab or ranibizumab for treatment-refractory neovascular age-related macular degeneration
Purpose: Clinical trials have demonstrated that switching patients from intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) or ranibizumab (IVR) to aflibercept (IVA) for treatment-refractory neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) can decrease the injection frequency. This study evaluated whether there was a...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
2024-01-01
|
| Series: | Indian Journal of Ophthalmology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.ijo.in/article.asp?issn=0301-4738;year=2024;volume=72;issue=13;spage=101;epage=1015;aulast=Archambault |
| Summary: | Purpose: Clinical trials have demonstrated that switching patients from intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) or ranibizumab (IVR) to aflibercept (IVA) for treatment-refractory neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) can decrease the injection frequency. This study evaluated whether there was a difference in the rate of injections or nonadherent events after switching therapies. Methods: The study comprised a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of patients treated for nAMD from 2010 to 2018 who received ≥3 intravitreal injections of IVB/IVR prior to switching to IVA because of treatment-refractory nAMD. The treatment index, outcomes, and adherence to treatment were compared between both treatment regimens. Results: Sixty-two patients (67 eyes) met inclusion criteria. There was no change in the treatment index (0.65 versus 0.66, P = 0.650) or the number of nonadherent events (33 versus 36, P = 0.760) after the switch from IVB/IVR to IVA. Central macular thickness (CMT) increased 7.7%±13.8% in eyes that had a nonadherent event (283±69 μm to 304±75 μm after resuming care, P = 0.039). There was no short-term impact on visual acuity (VA) for this subset of eyes (0.387±0.202 LogMAR versus 0.365±0.156 LogMAR, P = 0.636). Patients who had nonadherent events ended the study with similar VA compared with patients who had no treatment lapses (0.370±0.616 LogMAR versus 0.337±0.638 LogMAR, P = 0.843). Conclusion: Switching from IVB/ IVR to IVA for treatment-refractory nAMD in a real-world setting does not reduce the treatment index or increase adherence to treatment. Although there were short-term anatomical effects resulting from missed treatments, VA remained stable. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0301-4738 1998-3689 |