June 2017
Volume 58, Issue 8
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2017
Wet AMD Quiescence with Visual Acuity Stability in a Sub-Group Following PRN Treatment
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Greg D Fliney
    University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, United States
  • Leonid Zukin
    University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, United States
  • Curtis Hagedorn
    Colorado Retina Associates, Denver, Colorado, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Greg Fliney, None; Leonid Zukin, None; Curtis Hagedorn, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2017, Vol.58, 898. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Greg D Fliney, Leonid Zukin, Curtis Hagedorn; Wet AMD Quiescence with Visual Acuity Stability in a Sub-Group Following PRN Treatment. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2017;58(8):898.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Little is known about the effect of clinically justified non-treatment on visual acuity (VA) for patients being treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents for wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD) following a PRN treatment schedule. A retrospective chart review was performed to compare the clinical courses of patients who gained or lost VA overall during such a treatment regimen and find factors predicting a better outcome.

Methods : This study consists of 105 eyes (34 male and 71 female) from 72 patients with an average age of 77.3±7.7 years at the time of first treatment. Patients selected for analysis were diagnosed with wet AMD, treatment naïve, treated PRN with Avastin, Lucentis, and/or Eyelea, and had a period of disease quiescence not requiring treatment for at least 180 days. Patients who had VA-altering eye surgery during the study period were excluded. VA was analyzed at the times of first treatment, last treatment, and final clinic visit for comparison between the groups with overall VA gain and loss. Statistical analyses were performed 2-tailed and included one-sample and independent samples t-tests, Pearson correlation, and a post-hoc power analysis.

Results : There was no statistically significant difference between the VA gainers or VA losers with respect to: age, gender, number of treatments, length of treatment, and length of quiescence (p>.05). The average change in VA for both groups are shown below (Figure 1). The VA gainers had a significant increase in VA during the treatment period (p<.001) and VA stability during the quiescent period (δ -.003 decimal units, p=.461; β=.43). VA losers had a significant decline in VA during both the treatment and quiescent periods (p<.001). There was a moderate correlation between VA during the treatment and quiescent phases (ρ=.478, p<.001).

Conclusions : While there were no significant demographic or treatment differences between the two groups, there was a significant difference in their clinical courses. VA stability during the quiescent period for the VA gainers indicates that there is a group of responding patients that might not require continued treatment throughout life. They could possibly be identified early by changes in VA during the treatment period.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2017 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Baltimore, MD, May 7-11, 2017.

 

Figure 1: Data points from left to right correspond with: normalized VA at first treatment, change in VA at last treatment, and change in VA at final visit.

Figure 1: Data points from left to right correspond with: normalized VA at first treatment, change in VA at last treatment, and change in VA at final visit.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×