Background and aim There is still no established treatment regimen for eyes with inflammatory choroidal neovascularisation (iCNV) treated with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections. This study compared the 24-month outcomes of two treatment regimens of anti-VEGF injections in eyes with iCNV.
Methods Eyes with iCNV treated with anti-VEGF injections were divided into two groups: eyes treated with a loading phase of 3 monthly injections and then re-treated as needed (LOADING group) and eyes treated as needed from the beginning (PRN group). Visual acuity (VA), number of injections and iCNV recurrences at 24 months were compared between the groups.
Results Eighty-two eyes were included, 42 in the LOADING and 40 in the PRN group. Baseline VA (mean(SD)) was 57.3 (15.8) letters in the LOADING vs 60.7 (15.6) letters in the PRN group (p=0.32). The VA (mean (95% CI)) increased at 3 months (+14.8 (10.6 to 18.9) and +11.2 (6.4 to 16) letters in the LOADING and PRN group, respectively) and remained significantly higher than baseline over the entire follow-up in both groups (all p<0.001). At 24 months, there was no difference in VA between the LOADING and PRN group (72.3 (14.0) vs 74.7 (11.3) letters, p=0.36) but the LOADING group received significantly more injections (median (Q1–Q3)) than the PRN (4.5 (3–7) vs 2.5 (2–3.2), p<0.0001). The iCNV recurrences were similar in both groups.
Conclusions iCNV responded well to anti-VEGF with significant and sustained VA improvement. The loading phase did not confer any advantage in terms of outcomes. PRN regimen from the beginning was as effective as more intensive treatment.
- inflammatory choroidal neovascularization
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Correction notice This paper has been corrected since it was published Online First. There was a unit conversion error when the authors converted the visual acuity values from LogMAR to ETDRS letters. These have now been corrected in the manuscript.
Contributors AI and PJM were involved in the conception and design of the study. AI, FP, RS, SZ, AKA, SE, AX, LDS and LC were involved in the data collection. AI, MCG, PN and PJM were involved in the analysis and interpretation of the data. AI wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors were involved in the critical revision and final approval of the article.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests AI: Allergan (financial support), Novartis (consultant), Bayer (consultant). FP: Zeiss (consultant), Bayer (speaker), Novartis (speaker), Allergan (consultant), AbbVie (consultant). LC: Abbvie Code C (consultant), Santen Code C (consultant). MCG: Novartis (consultant), Bayer (recipient), Ophtea (consultant), Novartis (recipient), Allergan (consultant), Allergan (recipient), Bayer (consultant), Ophtea (recipient). PJM: AbbVie (financial support), AbbVie (consultant), AbbVie (recipient), Allergan (financial support), Allergan (consultant), Allergan (recipient), Shire (consultant), Shire (recipient), Zeiss (financial support).
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplementary information.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.