4.6 Article

Estimated Cases of Blindness and Visual Impairment from Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration Avoided in Australia by Ranibizumab Treatment

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0101072

关键词

-

资金

  1. Novartis AG
  2. Genentech, Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Intravitreal injections of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents, such as ranibizumab, have significantly improved the management of neovascular age-related macular degeneration. This study used patient-level simulation modelling to estimate the number of individuals in Australia who would have been likely to avoid legal blindness or visual impairment due to neovascular age-related macular degeneration over a 2-year period as a result of intravitreal ranibizumab injections. The modelling approach used existing data for the incidence of neovascular age-related macular degeneration in Australia and outcomes from ranibizumab trials. Blindness and visual impairment were defined as visual acuity in the better-seeing eye of worse than 6/60 or 6/12, respectively. In 2010, 14 634 individuals in Australia were estimated to develop neovascular age-related macular degeneration who would be eligible for ranibizumab therapy. Without treatment, 2246 individuals would become legally blind over 2 years. Monthly 0.5 mg intravitreal ranibizumab would reduce incident blindness by 72% (95% simulation interval, 70-74%). Ranibizumab given as needed would reduce incident blindness by 68% (64-71%). Without treatment, 4846 individuals would become visually impaired over 2 years; this proportion would be reduced by 37% (34-39%) with monthly intravitreal ranibizumab, and by 28% (23-33%) with ranibizumab given as needed. These data suggest that intravitreal injections of ranibizumab, given either monthly or as needed, can substantially lower the number of cases of blindness and visual impairment over 2 years after the diagnosis of neovascular age-related macular degeneration.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据