Cited by 355Retinal Diseases and TreatmentsOcular Diseases and Behçet’s SyndromeRetinal Imaging and Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 81 of the 81 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 20 of the 94 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Defining response to anti-VEGF therapies in neovascular AMD

Open access

Abstract

The introduction of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) has made significant impact on the reduction of the visual loss due to neovascular age-related macular degeneration (n-AMD). There are significant inter-individual differences in response to an anti-VEGF agent, made more complex by the availability of multiple anti-VEGF agents with different molecular configurations. The response to anti-VEGF therapy have been found to be dependent on a variety of factors including patient's age, lesion characteristics, lesion duration, baseline visual acuity (VA) and the presence of particular genotype risk alleles. Furthermore, a proportion of eyes with n-AMD show a decline in acuity or morphology, despite therapy or require very frequent re-treatment. There is currently no consensus as to how to classify optimal response, or lack of it, with these therapies. There is, in particular, confusion over terms such as 'responder status' after treatment for n-AMD, 'tachyphylaxis' and 'recalcitrant' n-AMD. This document aims to provide a consensus on definition/categorisation of the response of n-AMD to anti-VEGF therapies and on the time points at which response to treatment should be determined. Primary response is best determined at 1 month following the last initiation dose, while maintained treatment (secondary) response is determined any time after the 4th visit. In a particular eye, secondary responses do not mirror and cannot be predicted from that in the primary phase. Morphological and functional responses to anti-VEGF treatments, do not necessarily correlate, and may be dissociated in an individual eye. Furthermore, there is a ceiling effect that can negate the currently used functional metrics such as >5 letters improvement when the baseline VA is good (ETDRS>70 letters). It is therefore important to use a combination of both the parameters in determining the response.The following are proposed definitions: optimal (good) response is defined as when there is resolution of fluid (intraretinal fluid; IRF, subretinal fluid; SRF and retinal thickening), and/or improvement of >5 letters, subject to the ceiling effect of good starting VA. Poor response is defined as <25% reduction from the baseline in the central retinal thickness (CRT), with persistent or new IRF, SRF or minimal or change in VA (that is, change in VA of 0+4 letters). Non-response is defined as an increase in fluid (IRF, SRF and CRT), or increasing haemorrhage compared with the baseline and/or loss of >5 letters compared with the baseline or best corrected vision subsequently. Poor or non-response to anti-VEGF may be due to clinical factors including suboptimal dosing than that required by a particular patient, increased dosing intervals, treatment initiation when disease is already at an advanced or chronic stage), cellular mechanisms, lesion type, genetic variation and potential tachyphylaxis); non-clinical factors including poor access to clinics or delayed appointments may also result in poor treatment outcomes. In eyes classified as good responders, treatment should be continued with the same agent when disease activity is present or reactivation occurs following temporary dose holding. In eyes that show partial response, treatment may be continued, although re-evaluation with further imaging may be required to exclude confounding factors. Where there is persistent, unchanging accumulated fluid following three consecutive injections at monthly intervals, treatment may be withheld temporarily, but recommenced with the same or alternative anti-VEGF if the fluid subsequently increases (lesion considered active). Poor or non-response to anti-VEGF treatments requires re-evaluation of diagnosis and if necessary switch to alternative therapies including other anti-VEGF agents and/or with photodynamic therapy (PDT). Idiopathic polypoidal choroidopathy may require treatment with PDT monotherapy or combination with anti-VEGF. A committee comprised of retinal specialists with experience of managing patients with n-AMD similar to that which developed the Royal College of Ophthalmologists Guidelines to Ranibizumab was assembled. Individual aspects of the guidelines were proposed by the committee lead (WMA) based on relevant reference to published evidence base following a search of Medline and circulated to all committee members for discussion before approval or modification. Each draft was modified according to feedback from committee members until unanimous approval was obtained in the final draft. A system for categorising the range of responsiveness of n-AMD lesions to anti-VEGF therapy is proposed. The proposal is based primarily on morphological criteria but functional criteria have been included. Recommendations have been made on when to consider discontinuation of therapy either because of success or futility. These guidelines should help clinical decision-making and may prevent over and/or undertreatment with anti-VEGF therapy.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/eye.2015.48

Cites

81 of 81 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

20 of 94 cited sources checked · 5 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

Show all 36 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 23
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 25
38 of 38
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There is currently no consensus on how to classify optimal response or lack of response to anti-VEGF therapies for n-AMD.

    “There is currently no consensus as to how to classify optimal response, or lack of it, with these therapies.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There is confusion over terms such as responder status after treatment for n-AMD, tachyphylaxis, and recalcitrant n-AMD.

    “There is, in particular, confusion over terms such as 'responder status' after treatment for n-AMD, 'tachyphylaxis' and 'recalcitrant' n-AMD.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Morphological and functional responses to anti-VEGF treatments do not necessarily correlate and may be dissociated in an individual eye.

    “Morphological and functional responses to anti-VEGF treatments, do not necessarily correlate, and may be dissociated in an individual eye.”
    “As function and morphology do not correlate, these responses may sometimes be mutually exclusive.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Morphological changes precede the loss of visual function.

    “Morphological changes precede the loss of visual function.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    At present there is no consensus on what constitutes responsiveness to treatment, and whether pre-existing ocular or genetic characteristics or bio-therapeutic interactions such as tachyphylaxis have any role in determining outcome.

    “At present there is no consensus on what constitutes responsiveness to treatment, and whether pre-existing characteristics such as ocular and or genetic make up and, or bio-therapeutic interactions such as tachyphylaxis have any role in determining outcome.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Clinical trial reports often do not include data on fellow or second eyes and are not designed to emphasise the importance of potential visual loss in this group.

    “Clinical trial reports often do not include data on fellow or second eyes and are not designed to emphasise the importance of potential visual loss in this group.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Retinal atrophy or thinning and subretinal fibrosis do not indicate poor response but confound visual acuity.

    “Retinal atrophy/thinning and/or subretinal fibrosis do not imply poor response, but confound VA.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Minimal change of fluid over scar tissue may not indicate poor response and may result from longstanding disease rather than treatment outcomes.

    “Similarly, minimal change of fluid over scar tissue etc may not imply poor response.These may resultfrom longstanding disease, rather than treatment outcomes.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Outer retinal tubulations do not represent active fluid leakage.

    “Outer retinal tubulations (ORT) do not represent active fluid leakage.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Evidence to date does not indicate that flattening of PED determines outcomes.

    “evidence to date does not indicate that flattening of PED determines outcomes”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    PED progression indicates active disease and requires ICGA to exclude IPCV and/or consideration of treatment change.

    “PED progression indicates active disease and requires ICGA to exclude IPCV, and/orconsideration of treatment change.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Morphological and functional features of response may not correlate.

    “Morphological and functional features (responses) may not correlate.”
12 of 12

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Unchanged fluid is inconsistently classified as non-response

    Major

    The abstract defines non-response by increased fluid, increased haemorrhage, or visual loss. Table 1 also classifies unchanged thickness or fluid as non-response, so its morphological criterion includes eyes without the deterioration specified in the abstract.

  • Good and partial responses share the same thickness-reduction range

    Minor

    The prose calls a reduction in central retinal thickness of up to 75% a good morphological response, while Table 1 assigns reductions between 25% and 75% to partial response. Eyes in that overlapping range therefore receive different classifications.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 80 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Hageman GS . Genetics in AMD. Vision Research Day. Novartis: Zurich, 2014 in press.
  2. Awad M, Amoaku W, Yang Y, Chong V, Alsop J . Early visual acuity (VA) gains with ranibizumab are predictive of good long-term VA outcomes in wet age-related macular degeneration (wAMD) —a sub-analysis of the EXCITE study. EURETINA Congress: Hamburg, Germany, 2013.
  3. Amoaku WM, Yang Y, Chong V, Brittain C, Alsop J, Osborne A et al Durability of visual acuity responses to ranibizumab in wet age-related macular degeneration patients of the EXCITE Study. EURETINA Congress: Hamburg, Germany, 2013.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 349

Metadata

Authors
Amoaku, W. M., Chakravarthy, U., Gale, R., Gavin, M., Ghanchi, F., Gibson, J., Harding, S., Johnston, R. L., Kelly, S., Lotery, A., Mahmood, S., Menon, G., Sivaprasad, S., Talks, J., Tufail, A., & Yang, Y.
Affiliations
  • Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust (GB)
  • Queen's University Belfast (GB)
  • York Hospital (GB)
  • Gartnavel General Hospital (GB)
  • Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Aston University (GB)
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Bolton NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University of Southampton (GB)
  • Manchester Royal Eye Hospital (GB)
  • Frimley Park Hospital (GB)
  • NIHR Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre (GB)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • New Cross Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Amoaku, W M
Venue
Eye
Published
2015-04-17
Volume
29
Issue
6
Pages
721-731
ISSN
  • 0078-5334 (ISSN-L)
  • 0950-222X
  • 1476-5454
OpenAlex
W2093646832
Cited by
355
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 7
FWCI
4.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2015-10-08)
Open access
Locations
  • Eye (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Aston Publications Explorer (Aston University) (submittedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Ocular Diseases and Behçet’s Syndrome
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
Keywords
neovascular age-related macular degeneration, anti-VEGF therapy, treatment response classification, tachyphylaxis, central retinal thickness, intraretinal fluid, subretinal fluid, visual acuity, ceiling effect, lesion duration, lesion characteristics
MeSH terms
Humans, Visual Acuity, Treatment Outcome, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Angiogenesis Inhibitors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A, Wet Macular Degeneration, Intravitreal Injections

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-29, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-29 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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