4.6 Review

Different antivascular endothelial growth factor treatments and regimens and their outcomes in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a literature review

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 97, 期 12, 页码 1497-1507

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-303394

关键词

Drugs; Macula; Neovascularisation; Treatment Medical

资金

  1. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy has revolutionised the treatment of wet age-related macular degeneration (wAMD). Recent research has focused on evaluating competing agents and alternative dosage regimens, providing evidence to help determine optimal treatment strategies. We therefore conducted a review of clinical research studies in wAMD published since 2008 that compared anti-VEGF dosing regimens and therapies; seven studies met our inclusion criteria. Data on baseline disease characteristics, disease outcomes, safety (ocular and systemic) and treatment burden (injection and visit frequencies) were extracted on patients treated with ranibizumab 0.5mg, bevacizumab 1.25mg or aflibercept 2.0mg for up to 2years. For ranibizumab and bevacizumab, visual and anatomical outcomes at 1 and 2years were superior using scheduled monthly (or 4 weekly (q4w)) compared with as needed or scheduled quarterly dosing regimens. Treatment outcomes were generally better for both drugs when more aggressive retreatment criteria were used, which resulted in more frequent injections. Bevacizumab, however, was associated with a 30-35% elevated rate of serious systemic adverse events compared with ranibizumab, regardless of dosing interval; further study in larger patient populations will be required to determine the validity of this finding. Intravitreal aflibercept injection every 8 weeks was non-inferior to ranibizumab q4w on all visual and anatomical endpoints at week 52, had a similar safety profile and required five fewer anti-VEGF injections.

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