PURPOSE: To describe outcomes of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) eyes that were stable on aflibercept but switched to ranibizumab compared to eyes maintained on aflibercept over the same period. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, eyes switched from aflibercept to ranibizumab due to intraocular inflammation (IOI) concerns with aflibercept were identified. Data was gathered from 3 visits pre-switch, switch visit (Sw), and 3 visits post-switch (P1, P2, P3). Similar data was gathered on eyes eligible to switch but continued on aflibercept with the middle visit considered the "presumed switch." Outcome measures included visual acuity (VA) and central foveal thickness (CFT). RESULTS: A total of 142 eyes were analyzed with 71 in each of the switch and aflibercept groups. In the switch group, mean CFT increased from 165.7 µm at Sw to 184.7 µm at P1 (p = 0.009), 180.9 µm at P2 (p = 0.007), and 183.3 µm at P3 (p = 0.004). VA changed from logMAR 0.43 (20/54) at Sw to 0.49 (20/61) at P1 (p = 0.02), 0.54 (20/69) at P2 (p = 0.008), and 0.53 (20/68) at P3 (p = 0.04). In the aflibercept group, no significant change in CFT was found over the same period. VA changed from logMAR 0.56 (20/72) at the "presumed switch" to 0.58 (20/76) at P1 (p = 0.085), 0.62 (20/83) at P2 (p = 0.001), and 0.59 (20/77) at P3 (p = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: nAMD eyes that were stable or improving on aflibercept but were switched to ranibizumab worsened, while those in a comparable group maintained on aflibercept remained fairly stable, suggesting a potential efficacy difference between the two drugs.
PURPOSE: To describe outcomes of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) eyes that were stable on aflibercept but switched to ranibizumab compared to eyes maintained on aflibercept over the same period. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, eyes switched from aflibercept to ranibizumab due to intraocular inflammation (IOI) concerns with aflibercept were identified. Data was gathered from 3 visits pre-switch, switch visit (Sw), and 3 visits post-switch (P1, P2, P3). Similar data was gathered on eyes eligible to switch but continued on aflibercept with the middle visit considered the "presumed switch." Outcome measures included visual acuity (VA) and central foveal thickness (CFT). RESULTS: A total of 142 eyes were analyzed with 71 in each of the switch and aflibercept groups. In the switch group, mean CFT increased from 165.7 µm at Sw to 184.7 µm at P1 (p = 0.009), 180.9 µm at P2 (p = 0.007), and 183.3 µm at P3 (p = 0.004). VA changed from logMAR 0.43 (20/54) at Sw to 0.49 (20/61) at P1 (p = 0.02), 0.54 (20/69) at P2 (p = 0.008), and 0.53 (20/68) at P3 (p = 0.04). In the aflibercept group, no significant change in CFT was found over the same period. VA changed from logMAR 0.56 (20/72) at the "presumed switch" to 0.58 (20/76) at P1 (p = 0.085), 0.62 (20/83) at P2 (p = 0.001), and 0.59 (20/77) at P3 (p = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: nAMD eyes that were stable or improving on aflibercept but were switched to ranibizumab worsened, while those in a comparable group maintained on aflibercept remained fairly stable, suggesting a potential efficacy difference between the two drugs.
Authors: Jonathan P Greenberg; Peter Belin; John Butler; Daniel Feiler; Christian Mueller; Andrew Tye; Steven M Friedlander; Geoffrey G Emerson; Philip J Ferrone Journal: Ophthalmol Retina Date: 2019-04-11
Authors: Mark C Gillies; Alex P Hunyor; Jennifer J Arnold; Robyn H Guymer; Sebastian Wolf; Paul Ng; Francois L Pecheur; Ian L McAllister Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 7.389
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: 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: Paul Hahn; Mina M Chung; Harry W Flynn; Suber S Huang; Judy E Kim; Tamer H Mahmoud; SriniVas R Sadda; Pravin U Dugel Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Benjamin Bakall; James C Folk; H Culver Boldt; Elliott H Sohn; Edwin M Stone; Stephen R Russell; Vinit B Mahajan Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2013-05-22 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Andrew A Chang; Haitao Li; Geoffrey K Broadhead; Thomas Hong; Timothy E Schlub; Wijeyanthy Wijeyakumar; Meidong Zhu Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2013-10-18 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Yoshihiro Yonekawa; Christopher Andreoli; John B Miller; John I Loewenstein; Lucia Sobrin; Dean Eliott; Demetrios G Vavvas; Joan W Miller; Ivana K Kim Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2013-05-10 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Ursula Schmidt-Erfurth; Peter K Kaiser; Jean-François Korobelnik; David M Brown; Victor Chong; Quan Dong Nguyen; Allen C Ho; Yuichiro Ogura; Christian Simader; Glenn J Jaffe; Jason S Slakter; George D Yancopoulos; Neil Stahl; Robert Vitti; Alyson J Berliner; Yuhwen Soo; Majid Anderesi; Olaf Sowade; Oliver Zeitz; Christiane Norenberg; Rupert Sandbrink; Jeffrey S Heier Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2013-09-29 Impact factor: 12.079
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