Daniel Barthelmes1,2, Vuong Nguyen2, Richard Walton2, Mark C Gillies2, Vincent Daien3,4,5. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 2. The Save Sight Institute, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 3. The Save Sight Institute, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. vincent.daien@sydney.edu.au. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, Montpellier University Hospital, Montpellier, France. vincent.daien@sydney.edu.au. 5. National Institute of Health and Medical Research, INSERM 1061 unit, Villejuif, France. vincent.daien@sydney.edu.au.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To report 12-month pharmacoepidemiologic data on aflibercept and ranibizumab use in treatment-naïve eyes with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). METHODS: Participants were treatment-naïve eyes with nAMD tracked by the Fight Retinal Blindness! registry starting therapy with aflibercept or ranibizumab treatment between January 1st, 2013 and 31st December, 2016. Demographic and clinical characteristics were compared between treatment groups. RESULTS: During the study period, 689 eyes initiated treatment with ranibizumab compared to 568 with aflibercept. We found a similar rate of use of both drugs. Ranibizumab-treated patients were older than aflibercept-treated patients (overall mean [SD] 82.0 [8.4] vs. 78.6 [8.1], P < 0.001). Median (Q1, Q3) lesion size was significantly larger in aflibercept-treated patients (2450 μm [1242, 3000]) compared with ranibizumab patients (2000 μm [1148, 2890], P = 0.008). Eyes treated with ranibizumab and aflibercept received a similar mean number of injections in the first 3 months (3.1 [0.7] vs. 3.0 [0.6]; P = 0.233) and at 12 months (7.3 [2.4] vs. 7.2 [2.2]; P = 0.139). The 12-month switching rates from 2013 onwards for eyes completing 12 months of follow-up were much higher for switching from ranibizumab to aflibercept (19.2%) compared with switching from aflibercept to ranibizumab (5.4%). The proportion of eyes that did not complete 12 months of treatment was 23.2% for ranibizumab and 22.2% for aflibercept-treated groups. CONCLUSION: A similar rate of use for ranibizumab and aflibercept among Australian practitioners was observed between 2013 and 2016. Ranibizumab was used more often in older patients while aflibercept tended to be used more often in eyes with larger lesions.
INTRODUCTION: To report 12-month pharmacoepidemiologic data on aflibercept and ranibizumab use in treatment-naïve eyes with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). METHODS:Participants were treatment-naïve eyes with nAMD tracked by the Fight Retinal Blindness! registry starting therapy with aflibercept or ranibizumab treatment between January 1st, 2013 and 31st December, 2016. Demographic and clinical characteristics were compared between treatment groups. RESULTS: During the study period, 689 eyes initiated treatment with ranibizumab compared to 568 with aflibercept. We found a similar rate of use of both drugs. Ranibizumab-treated patients were older than aflibercept-treated patients (overall mean [SD] 82.0 [8.4] vs. 78.6 [8.1], P < 0.001). Median (Q1, Q3) lesion size was significantly larger in aflibercept-treated patients (2450 μm [1242, 3000]) compared with ranibizumabpatients (2000 μm [1148, 2890], P = 0.008). Eyes treated with ranibizumab and aflibercept received a similar mean number of injections in the first 3 months (3.1 [0.7] vs. 3.0 [0.6]; P = 0.233) and at 12 months (7.3 [2.4] vs. 7.2 [2.2]; P = 0.139). The 12-month switching rates from 2013 onwards for eyes completing 12 months of follow-up were much higher for switching from ranibizumab to aflibercept (19.2%) compared with switching from aflibercept to ranibizumab (5.4%). The proportion of eyes that did not complete 12 months of treatment was 23.2% for ranibizumab and 22.2% for aflibercept-treated groups. CONCLUSION: A similar rate of use for ranibizumab and aflibercept among Australian practitioners was observed between 2013 and 2016. Ranibizumab was used more often in older patients while aflibercept tended to be used more often in eyes with larger lesions.
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: Mark C Gillies; Vuong Nguyen; Vincent Daien; Jennifer J Arnold; Nigel Morlet; Daniel Barthelmes Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2016-10-01 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Jocelyn Holash; Sam Davis; Nick Papadopoulos; Susan D Croll; Lillian Ho; Michelle Russell; Patricia Boland; Ray Leidich; Donna Hylton; Elena Burova; Ella Ioffe; Tammy Huang; Czeslaw Radziejewski; Kevin Bailey; James P Fandl; Tom Daly; Stanley J Wiegand; George D Yancopoulos; John S Rudge Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2002-08-12 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Wan Ling Wong; Xinyi Su; Xiang Li; Chui Ming G Cheung; Ronald Klein; Ching-Yu Cheng; Tien Yin Wong Journal: Lancet Glob Health Date: 2014-01-03 Impact factor: 26.763
Authors: Jeffrey S Heier; David M Brown; Victor Chong; Jean-Francois Korobelnik; Peter K Kaiser; Quan Dong Nguyen; Bernd Kirchhof; Allen Ho; Yuichiro Ogura; George D Yancopoulos; Neil Stahl; Robert Vitti; Alyson J Berliner; Yuhwen Soo; Majid Anderesi; Georg Groetzbach; Bernd Sommerauer; Rupert Sandbrink; Christian Simader; Ursula Schmidt-Erfurth Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-10-17 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Nicholas Papadopoulos; Joel Martin; Qin Ruan; Ashique Rafique; Michael P Rosconi; Ergang Shi; Erica A Pyles; George D Yancopoulos; Neil Stahl; Stanley J Wiegand Journal: Angiogenesis Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 9.596
Authors: Daniel Barthelmes; Anna Campain; Phuc Nguyen; Jennifer J Arnold; Ian L McAllister; Judy M Simpson; Alex P Hunyor; Robyn Guymer; Rohan W Essex; Nigel Morlet; Mark C Gillies Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2016-03-18 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Frank D Verbraak; Dirk L Ponsioen; Odette A M Tigchelaar-Besling; Vuong Nguyen; Mark C Gillies; Daniel Barthelmes; Caroline C W Klaver Journal: Acta Ophthalmol Date: 2020-12-23 Impact factor: 3.761