C Ehlken1, S Jungmann1, D Böhringer1, H T Agostini1, B Junker2, A Pielen2. 1. Eye Center, Albert-Ludwigs-University, Freiburg, Germany. 2. 1] Eye Center, Albert-Ludwigs-University, Freiburg, Germany [2] Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although anti-VEGF therapy of exudative AMD with bevacizumab and ranibizumab proved efficacious in the majority of patients, CNV activity does not respond to continued treatment after repeated injections in a considerable amount of patients. These are referred to as nonresponders. A change of the drug to bevacizumab or ranibizumab could possibly offer an alternative option for the treatment of nonresponding exudative AMD. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 138 nonresponders who switched therapy from bevacizumab to ranibizumab (n=114) or vice versa (n=24) were included in a retrospective study. Visual acuity (VA) and foveal thickness before and after the switch of therapy were compared. By means of linear regression analysis, we analyzed possible prognostic factors associated with a favorable outcome for visual acuity. RESULTS: Linear regression analysis revealed a statistically significant benefit for nonresponders when treatment was changed to a different anti-VEGF drug (bevacizumab or ranibizumab). VA at the time of the switch was positively correlated with a beneficial development of VA after changing the drug. There was no significant correlation with age, macular thickness, number of injections before the switch, or the development of VA under treatment before the switch. Both patients switching to Avastin and Lucentis benefitted without statistically significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: An exchange of bevacizumab with ranibizumab or vice versa should be considered in nonresponders in the treatment of exudative AMD. Further prognostic factors may help to identify patients who might benefit from a switch. These factors should be investigated in further studies.
BACKGROUND: Although anti-VEGF therapy of exudative AMD with bevacizumab and ranibizumab proved efficacious in the majority of patients, CNV activity does not respond to continued treatment after repeated injections in a considerable amount of patients. These are referred to as nonresponders. A change of the drug to bevacizumab or ranibizumab could possibly offer an alternative option for the treatment of nonresponding exudative AMD. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 138 nonresponders who switched therapy from bevacizumab to ranibizumab (n=114) or vice versa (n=24) were included in a retrospective study. Visual acuity (VA) and foveal thickness before and after the switch of therapy were compared. By means of linear regression analysis, we analyzed possible prognostic factors associated with a favorable outcome for visual acuity. RESULTS: Linear regression analysis revealed a statistically significant benefit for nonresponders when treatment was changed to a different anti-VEGF drug (bevacizumab or ranibizumab). VA at the time of the switch was positively correlated with a beneficial development of VA after changing the drug. There was no significant correlation with age, macular thickness, number of injections before the switch, or the development of VA under treatment before the switch. Both patients switching to Avastin and Lucentis benefitted without statistically significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: An exchange of bevacizumab with ranibizumab or vice versa should be considered in nonresponders in the treatment of exudative AMD. Further prognostic factors may help to identify patients who might benefit from a switch. These factors should be investigated in further studies.
Authors: Michael Larsen; Ursula Schmidt-Erfurth; Paolo Lanzetta; Sebastian Wolf; Christian Simader; Erika Tokaji; Stefan Pilz; Annemarie Weisberger Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-03-17 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Peter K Kaiser; David S Boyer; Alan F Cruess; Jason S Slakter; Stefan Pilz; Annemarie Weisberger Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-03-22 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Nishant Kumar; Marcela Marsiglia; Sarah Mrejen; Adrian Tien-Chin Fung; Jason Slakter; John Sorenson; K Bailey Freund Journal: Retina Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Julie L Gasperini; Amani A Fawzi; Ani Khondkaryan; Linda Lam; Lawrence P Chong; Dean Eliott; Alexander C Walsh; John Hwang; SriniVas R Sadda Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2011-07-26 Impact factor: 4.638
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: L Tiosano; O Segal; N Mathalone; A Pollack; R Ehrlich; I Klemperer; Y Barak; I Moroz; I Chowers; M Goldstein Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2017-02-17 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Janmeet S Saini; Barbara Corneo; Justine D Miller; Thomas R Kiehl; Qingjie Wang; Nathan C Boles; Timothy A Blenkinsop; Jeffrey H Stern; Sally Temple Journal: Cell Stem Cell Date: 2017-01-26 Impact factor: 24.633
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: Gui-shuang Ying; Maureen G Maguire; Ebenezer Daniel; Frederick L Ferris; Glenn J Jaffe; Juan E Grunwald; Cynthia A Toth; Jiayan Huang; Daniel F Martin Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Justis P Ehlers; Kevin Wang; Rishi P Singh; Amy S Babiuch; Andrew P Schachat; Alex Yuan; Jamie L Reese; Laura Stiegel; Sunil K Srivastava Journal: Ophthalmol Retina Date: 2018-03