Cited by 33Retinal Diseases and TreatmentsRetinal and Macular SurgeryOcular Diseases and Behçet’s Syndrome

Second-year visual acuity outcomes of nAMD patients treated with aflibercept: data analysis from the UK aflibercept users group

Open access
Almuhtaseb, H, Johnston, R L, Talks, J S, Lotery, A J·2017·Eye

Abstract

PurposeTo audit the visual acuity (VA) outcomes achieved at the end of year two in 17 UK centres, which followed the year 1 VIEW protocol in year 1, but a variable approach in year 2 for aflibercept for neovascular macular degeneration (nAMD).Patients and methodsRetrospective data analysis, from an electronic medical record, of a consecutive series of treatment-naive nAMD patients who received aflibercept for 2 consecutive years, having followed the VIEW protocol in year one, defined as eyes having received 7 or 8 injections from baseline.ResultsThe mean number of intravitreal injections (IVI)s during year 2 was 3.7 in 1180 eyes (1083 patients). The mean baseline VA of the whole cohort was 56.3 ETDRS letters, improving to 61.3 at 1 year (+5) and 59.1 (+2.8) at the end of year 2. The mean VA letter score at the end of year 2, stratified by number of IVIs into three groups was as follows: group A, 57.3 (gain of +1.7) (44% of eyes (</=3 IVIs)); group B, 59.8 (+3.8) (34% of eyes (4-5 IVIs)); group C, 61.7 (+3.7) (22% of eyes (>/=6 IVIs)). Even though there were VA gains in the three groups over the 2-years, there was a drop in VA in year one to two. Eyes that received >/=6 IVIs (group C) had a smaller reduction of VA during year 2 than those which received </=3 IVIs (group A) (P=0.0014).ConclusionsProviding a higher number of injections after a Q8 regime in year 1 results in higher VA gains in year 2 of treatment.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/eye.2017.108

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The requirement for lifelong injections imposes a substantial burden on patients and caregivers, and many patients fail to maintain initial therapeutic benefits owing to noncompliance with the burdensome treatment regimen.

    “However, the requirement for lifelong injections imposes a substantial burden on patients and caregivers, and many patients fail to maintain initial therapeutic benefits owing to noncompliance with the burdensome treatment regimen. 3 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 13 – 20”

    From Design and Characterization of a Novel Intravitreal Dual-Transgene Genetic Medicine for Neovascular Retinopathies (2024) · cites this paper as [16]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says that more injections in year two were associated with better preservation of first-year visual-acuity gains. It suggests that difficulty attending visits or reluctance to receive multiple injections might explain some lower injection frequencies, but says the reasons are unknown. It does not establish noncompliance as the cause of lost benefit or address lifelong treatment and caregiver burden. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Almuhtaseb, H., Johnston, R. L., Talks, J. S., & Lotery, A. J.
Affiliations
  • University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Lotery, A J
Venue
Eye
Published
2017-06-16
Volume
31
Issue
11
Pages
1582-1588
ISSN
  • 0078-5334 (ISSN-L)
  • 0950-222X
  • 1476-5454
OpenAlex
W2626334457
Cited by
33
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1
FWCI
4.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Eye (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0515-10020)
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, aflibercept, visual acuity outcomes, intravitreal injection, treatment-naive patients, long-term treatment
MeSH terms
Aged, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Drug Administration Schedule, Female, Fluorescein Angiography, Follow-Up Studies, Fundus Oculi, United Kingdom, Humans, Macula Lutea, Male, Middle Aged, Recombinant Fusion Proteins, Retrospective Studies, Time Factors, Visual Acuity, Treatment Outcome, Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor, Tomography, Optical Coherence, Wet Macular Degeneration, Electronic Health Records, 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.

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