English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Dear editor  In their recently published manuscript entitled “Visual outcomes of age-related macular degeneration patients undergoing intravitreal ranibizumab monotherapy in an urban population” Basheer et al1 reported on the prospectively acquired results of 123 eyes (106 patients) treated for 2 years with ranibizumab as needed. Visual acuity (VA) outcomes from this series were summarized by the following statement: “Although our results, and those from other clinical settings, do not quite match the degree of vision preservation and gain as the large clinical trials, they are not dramatically dissimilar”.1 Unfortunately, the authors provide no statistical analysis to support this statement.  The important visual outcomes – loss of <15 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters and gain of ≥15 ETDRS letters – at both 1 and 2 years were summarized by the authors in their Table 2. To directly compare the VA changes from CATT,2 MARINA,3 and ANCHOR4 with the present study, I have recreated the table (Table 1) and added the probability results (χ2 test of each trial versus the present study).    Table 1  The major visual acuity outcomes of the Basheer et al1 study compared with those from three pivotal ranibizumab trials    Contrary to the concluding statement by the authors, significant differences exist between the present study and the pivotal trials. Maintenance of VA (loss of <15 letters) was significantly better in CATT2 and ANCHOR4 trials at 12 months, but the results tended to equilibrate among all the studies by 24 months. Patients were significantly more likely to improve by at least 15 letters at both 1 and 2 years in all the three pivotal trials (except for CATT2 at 12 months).  The pro re nata regimen described by the authors effectively maintains VA for over 2 years, but compared to monthly therapy it reduces the patient’s likelihood of achieving a meaningful (15 letters) improvement in VA. These findings resemble CATT2 and IVAN5 where discontinuous therapy produced significantly inferior VA gains at 2 years compared to continuous therapy. Physicians should carefully weigh these important VA differences against the needs of the patient when deciding between continuous and discontinuous therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration.

clinical ophthalmology

Visual outcomes of age-related macular degeneration patients undergoing intravitreal ranibizumab monotherapy in an urban population: letter to the editor