Factors Affecting Visual Acuity After Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Multicenter Study in Japan

Le résumé fourni par la source

Background/Objectives: Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy is the first-line treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nvAMD). While proactive and adequate treatment generally leads to better visual outcomes, various factors, including the disease type, ocular findings, lifestyle, and systemic status, affect the visual prognosis in clinical settings. This study aimed to identify the factors that affect the visual prognosis in patients with nvAMD treated with anti-VEGF therapy. Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study at eight tertiary referral centers in Japan, where we reviewed the medical records of patients newly diagnosed with nvAMD between January 2014 and December 2019. These patients had started treatment with either ranibizumab (0.5 mg) or aflibercept (2.0 mg) and were followed for at least 1 year. We evaluated the impact of the disease type, systemic factors, and initial fundus findings on the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 1 year. Results: This study included 182 patients (129 men, 53 women), with a mean age of 75.0 ± 8.6 years. The disease types were categorized as typical AMD (53%), polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV) (43%), and retinal angiomatous proliferation (RAP) (4%). Univariate analysis identified age, the baseline logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution BCVA, intraretinal fluid (IRF), pigment epithelial detachment (PED), and subretinal hyperreflective material (SHRM). Multivariate analysis identified the following significant risk factors associated with vision worsening: age, smoking history, diabetes, and the presence of IRF and PED. Conclusions: The presence of IRF, PED, and SHRM at the start of treatment and a history of smoking and diabetes may be associated with a poor visual prognosis in patients with nvAMD.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.