Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025
One-Year Outcomes in Subjects Developing Macular Neovascularization While Undergoing Avacincaptad Pegol Therapy for Geographic Atrophy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rush Ryan B, Klein Westin, Rush Sloan W, Reinauer Robert
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To assess the 12-month outcomes in subjects developing macular neovascularization (MNV) during intravitreal avacincaptad pegol (IVA) treatment for geographic atrophy (GA) secondary to age-related macular degeneration (AMD).
METHODS: This research was conducted as a case-controlled, retrospective study of AMD subjects undergoing IVA treatment for GA from two private practice institutions. Subjects were divided into 1) a Study Group of patients who developed MNV and then underwent anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy during the study period, and 2) a Control Group of patients who were complication-free during the study period. Both cohorts had a baseline Snellen visual acuity of ≥ 20/200, a baseline GA total area of ≥ 1 mm2and ≤ 17.5 mm2, and 12 months of follow-up after initiation of IVA for GA.
RESULTS: There were 56 patients analyzed. There were no significant differences in baseline features between cohorts. The Study Group had a greater decrease in visual acuity [-0.22 logMAR (-0.27 to -0.17) versus -0.06 logMAR (-0.12 to 0.00); p=<0.0001], and greater GA total lesion growth [1.78 mm2 (1.53-2.03) versus 0.78 mm2 (0.54-1.02); p=<0.0001] during the 12-month study period compared to the Control Group.
CONCLUSION: Patients developing MNV while undergoing IVA treatment for GA secondary to AMD have worse clinical outcomes despite undergoing anti-VEGF therapy compared to patients who were complication-free at 12-months. This highlights the seriousness of MNV in this patient population and may help specialists counsel patients when considering treatment for GA secondary to AMD.
METHODS: This research was conducted as a case-controlled, retrospective study of AMD subjects undergoing IVA treatment for GA from two private practice institutions. Subjects were divided into 1) a Study Group of patients who developed MNV and then underwent anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy during the study period, and 2) a Control Group of patients who were complication-free during the study period. Both cohorts had a baseline Snellen visual acuity of ≥ 20/200, a baseline GA total area of ≥ 1 mm2and ≤ 17.5 mm2, and 12 months of follow-up after initiation of IVA for GA.
RESULTS: There were 56 patients analyzed. There were no significant differences in baseline features between cohorts. The Study Group had a greater decrease in visual acuity [-0.22 logMAR (-0.27 to -0.17) versus -0.06 logMAR (-0.12 to 0.00); p=<0.0001], and greater GA total lesion growth [1.78 mm2 (1.53-2.03) versus 0.78 mm2 (0.54-1.02); p=<0.0001] during the 12-month study period compared to the Control Group.
CONCLUSION: Patients developing MNV while undergoing IVA treatment for GA secondary to AMD have worse clinical outcomes despite undergoing anti-VEGF therapy compared to patients who were complication-free at 12-months. This highlights the seriousness of MNV in this patient population and may help specialists counsel patients when considering treatment for GA secondary to AMD.