T A Williams1, C P Blyth. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK. tawilli40@hotmail.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The beneficial effect of intravitreal ranibizumab in the treatment of neovascular age-related macula degeneration (nAMD) is well known. Outcome data for eyes presenting with visual acuity better than 6/12 is limited. AIMS: To assess the effect of baseline vision on outcome in ranibizumab-treated nAMD eyes, including a subgroup with baseline vision ≥6/12 (<0.30 logmar). DESIGN: Prospective, consecutive and interventional case series. METHODS: A consecutive cohort of patients treated with intravitreal ranibizumab for nAMD with 52-week follow-up were studied. Patients who had received previous treatment for nAMD were excluded. Eyes were stratified according to baseline logmar visual acuity into four groups: <0.30 (>6/12), 0.30-0.59 (6/12-6/24), 0.60-0.99 (6/24-6/60) and 1.00-1.20 (6/60-6/96). Intravitreal ranibizumab (0.5 mg in 0.05 ml) was administered in three loading monthly doses followed by PRN dosing according to optical coherence tomography (OCT) findings. RESULTS: A total of 615 eyes were studied including 88 eyes with baseline vision <0.30. The mean change in logmar letters at 52 weeks was +5.5 (entire study group), -0.5 (<0.30 subgroup), +2.2 (0.30-0.59 subgroup), +6.5 (0.60-0.99 subgroup) and +15.3 (1.00-1.20 subgroup). In the <0.30 subgroup, 60 of 88 eyes (68%) had best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) equal to or better than baseline and 82 of 88 eyes (93%) lost <15 letters at 52 weeks. Within this subgroup 56 of 67 eyes (84%) maintained UK driving standard BCVA visual acuity over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that intravitreal ranibizumab treatment stabilises good vision in nAMD presenting with vision better than 6/12 over 52 weeks follow-up.
BACKGROUND: The beneficial effect of intravitreal ranibizumab in the treatment of neovascular age-related macula degeneration (nAMD) is well known. Outcome data for eyes presenting with visual acuity better than 6/12 is limited. AIMS: To assess the effect of baseline vision on outcome in ranibizumab-treated nAMD eyes, including a subgroup with baseline vision ≥6/12 (<0.30 logmar). DESIGN: Prospective, consecutive and interventional case series. METHODS: A consecutive cohort of patients treated with intravitreal ranibizumab for nAMD with 52-week follow-up were studied. Patients who had received previous treatment for nAMD were excluded. Eyes were stratified according to baseline logmar visual acuity into four groups: <0.30 (>6/12), 0.30-0.59 (6/12-6/24), 0.60-0.99 (6/24-6/60) and 1.00-1.20 (6/60-6/96). Intravitreal ranibizumab (0.5 mg in 0.05 ml) was administered in three loading monthly doses followed by PRN dosing according to optical coherence tomography (OCT) findings. RESULTS: A total of 615 eyes were studied including 88 eyes with baseline vision <0.30. The mean change in logmar letters at 52 weeks was +5.5 (entire study group), -0.5 (<0.30 subgroup), +2.2 (0.30-0.59 subgroup), +6.5 (0.60-0.99 subgroup) and +15.3 (1.00-1.20 subgroup). In the <0.30 subgroup, 60 of 88 eyes (68%) had best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) equal to or better than baseline and 82 of 88 eyes (93%) lost <15 letters at 52 weeks. Within this subgroup 56 of 67 eyes (84%) maintained UK driving standard BCVA visual acuity over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that intravitreal ranibizumab treatment stabilises good vision in nAMD presenting with vision better than 6/12 over 52 weeks follow-up.
Authors: David M Brown; Peter K Kaiser; Mark Michels; Gisele Soubrane; Jeffrey S Heier; Robert Y Kim; Judy P Sy; Susan Schneider Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-10-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Philip J Rosenfeld; David M Brown; Jeffrey S Heier; David S Boyer; Peter K Kaiser; Carol Y Chung; Robert Y Kim Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-10-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Melissa M Brown; Gary C Brown; Joshua D Stein; Zachary Roth; Joseph Campanella; George R Beauchamp Journal: Can J Ophthalmol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 1.882
Authors: Daniel F Martin; Maureen G Maguire; Gui-shuang Ying; Juan E Grunwald; Stuart L Fine; Glenn J Jaffe Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-04-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: David S Boyer; Jeffrey S Heier; David M Brown; Steven F Francom; Tsontcho Ianchulev; Roman G Rubio Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2009-07-29 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Peter K Kaiser; David M Brown; Kang Zhang; Henry L Hudson; Frank G Holz; Howard Shapiro; Susan Schneider; Nisha R Acharya Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2007-10-22 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Carl D Regillo; David M Brown; Prema Abraham; Huibin Yue; Tsontcho Ianchulev; Susan Schneider; Naveed Shams Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: A H Ross; P H J Donachie; A Sallam; I M Stratton; Q Mohamed; P H Scanlon; J N Kirkpatrick; R L Johnston Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2012-11-23 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: W M Amoaku; U Chakravarthy; R Gale; M Gavin; F Ghanchi; J Gibson; S Harding; R L Johnston; S P Kelly; S Kelly; A Lotery; S Mahmood; G Menon; S Sivaprasad; J Talks; A Tufail; Y Yang Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Antonio Calcagni; Olivia Howells; Hannah Bartlett; Alastair K O Denniston; Jonathan M Gibson; Christopher R Hogg; Timothy D Matthews; Frank Eperjesi Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2022-01-20 Impact factor: 4.456
Authors: Sarah Sabour-Pickett; James Loughman; John M Nolan; Jim Stack; Konrad Pesudovs; Katherine A Meagher; Stephen Beatty Journal: J Ophthalmol Date: 2013-02-21 Impact factor: 1.909