Vision-threatening lesions developing with longer-term follow-up after treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration
Open accessAbstract
Purpose To assess the development of vision-threatening lesions at least 3.5 years after initiating anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) for choroidal neovascularization (CNV) in eyes with age-related macular degeneration (AMD).Design Retrospective cohort study.Participants A total of 75 patients (81 eyes) with CNV secondary to AMD who received intravitreous anti-VEGF treatment and were followed for at least 3.5 years after initiating treatment.Methods Retrospective record review of patients initiating anti-VEGF treatment between November 2005 and June 2008 at a university-based institution for whom at least 3.5 years of follow-up was available at the same institution.Main outcome measures Predominantly hemorrhagic lesions or geographic atrophy (GA).Results Among 75 patients (81 eyes; 59% were women; median age, 78 years), mean follow-up was 4.9 years and at least 6 years for 40%. Median visual acuity (VA) was 20/80 (interquartile range [IQR], 20/50-20/100) initially, 20/63 (IQR, 20/40-20/160) at 2 years, 20/80 (IQR, 20/40-20/200) at 3.5 years, and 20/63 (IQR 20/32-20/200) at 6 years. Six eyes (7%) had predominantly hemorrhagic lesions initially, whereas this developed in an additional 3 eyes (4%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1% to 10%) in 3.5 years and in 1 additional eye (1%, 95% CI, 0.03% to 7%) at more than 3.5 years of follow-up. Initially, GA within or overlapping the boundary of the entire CNV was present in 4 eyes (5%) and outside this boundary in 8 eyes (10%). Geographic atrophy enlarged in each eye over time. The only eyes that developed GA outside the CNV boundary were those that had GA outside the lesion at baseline. Additional atrophy within the boundary of CNV defined at baseline, termed "atrophic disciform scars," developed in 5 eyes (6%), all within 4 years of treatment initiation.Conclusions Longer-term follow-up of neovascular AMD managed with anti-VEGF therapy suggests that predominantly hemorrhagic lesions may develop within 3.5 years of initiating therapy and more than 3.5 years after initiating therapy. In contrast, new areas of GA beyond the boundaries of the CNV lesion as defined at initiation of anti-VEGF therapy seem unlikely to develop if there is no GA outside of the CNV lesion initially.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Long-term follow-up of geographic atrophy after anti-VEGF therapy has been reported, but long-term follow-up of scars after anti-VEGF initiation has received little attention.
“While long-term follow up of geographic atrophy after anti-VEGF therapy, more recently referred to as macular atrophy, has been described, long term follow-up of scars after the initiation of anti-VEGF therapy has not received much attention.10,11”
From Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials (2018) · cites this paper as [10]
The Abstract reports geographic atrophy during at least 3.5 years of follow-up after anti-VEGF initiation and says that little information was available on sight-threatening conditions beyond 3.5 years. It does not specifically assess how much attention long-term scar follow-up had received; it reports five cases of atrophic disciform scars but does not establish the claim about the literature on scars. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPublished reports on nAMD-related macular atrophy have not separated atrophy accompanying fibrotic scar from atrophy without pre-existing fibrosis.
“Reports on macular atrophy as a result of nAMD have not distinguished atrophy associated with fibrotic scar from macular atrophy without any pre-existing fibrosis.5,10, 33-35”
From Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials (2018) · cites this paper as [10]
The Methods and Discussion (page unavailable) distinguish atrophy by its location relative to the CNV lesion and note that atrophic scars can mimic geographic atrophy. Neither those passages nor the searched passages on prior reports and fibrotic scars say that published reports failed to separate scar-associated atrophy from atrophy without pre-existing fibrosis. (LLM, conf=0.70)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 29 · Cited by 39
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Treatment of Age-Related Macular Degeneration with Photo- dynamic Therapy (TAP) and Verteporfin in Photodynamic Therapy (VIP) Study Groups. Photodynamic therapy of sub- foveal choroidal neovascularization with verteporfin: fluores- cein angiographic guidelines for evaluation and treatmenteTAP and VIP report no. 2. Arch Ophthalmol 2003;121:1253-68.
- Authors
- Tanaka, E., Chaikitmongkol, V., Bressler, S. B., & Bressler, N. M.
- Affiliations
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bressler, Neil M.
- Venue
- Ophthalmology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-01
- Volume
- 122
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 153-161
- ISSN
- 0161-6420 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2120293472
- Cited by
- 39
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 5
- FWCI
- 5.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Ophthalmology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Research to Prevent Blindness
- GlaxoSmithKline
- Sanofi
- Northwestern University
- Johns Hopkins University
- Regeneron Pharmaceuticals
- Bayer HealthCare
- Chiang Mai University
- National Institutes of Health
- Genentech
- Novartis Pharma
- Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal and Macular Surgery
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Ocular Diseases and Behçet’s Syndrome
- Keywords
- neovascular age-related macular degeneration, choroidal neovascularization, anti-VEGF therapy, geographic atrophy, hemorrhagic lesions, long-term follow-up, visual acuity outcomes, treatment safety, retinal pigment epithelium atrophy, retinal pigment epithelium thickening
- MeSH terms
- Bevacizumab, Ranibizumab, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Fluorescein Angiography, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Retinal Hemorrhage, Retrospective Studies, Vision Disorders, Visual Acuity, Cohort Studies, Angiogenesis Inhibitors, Tomography, Optical Coherence, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A, Geographic Atrophy, Wet Macular Degeneration, Intravitreal Injections, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review