Intravitreal Pegaptanib Sodium for Choroidal Neovascularisation Secondary to Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Pan-European Experience
Tarih
2010Yazar
Sivaprasad, S.
Hykin, P.
Saeed, A.
Beatty, S.
Grisanti, S.
Staurenghi, G.
Olea, J. L.
Campos, A.
Barbosa, A.
Rito, L.
Silva, R.
Faria, R.
Eldem, B.
Kadayifcilar, S.
Kolar, P.
Feucht, N.
Maestroni, L.
Üst veri
Tüm öğe kaydını gösterÖzet
Purpose To evaluate visual outcomes in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (NV-AMD) who were treated with pegaptanib sodium in European clinical ophthalmology practices. Methods Thirteen centres in eight European countries participated in this retrospective study. Medical records for patients with any angiographic subtype of subfoveal choroidal neovascularisation secondary to NV-AMD with visual acuities (study eye) of 20/40-20/320 treated with 0.3mg pegaptanib as first-line treatment and with at least 24 weeks of follow-up were identified. Anonymised data reflecting at least 24 and up to 54 weeks of follow-up were recorded. Primary end points were visual acuity outcomes at weeks 24 and 54 compared with those reported at week 54 in the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) Inhibition Study in Ocular Neovascularisation (VISION) trial. Results In all, 253 patients were followed for at least 24 weeks; 62 patients completed 54 weeks of follow-up. A mean of 4.4 (SD, 1.8) pegaptanib injections were administered through 24 weeks. Compared with the VISION trial, the European experience showed that >90% of patients in the current cohort lost <15 letters from baseline at both time points compared with 70% in the VISION trial at 54 weeks. Pegaptanib was well tolerated with no reported cases of endophthalmitis, traumatic cataract, or iatrogenic retinal detachment. Conclusions Pegaptanib was found to stabilise vision in a greater percentage of patients and produced greater overall visual improvement in this group of treatment-naive patients with NV-AMD compared with outcomes reported in the VISION trial; however, interpretation of these results should be tempered given the differences in design between this retrospective study and the prospective controlled trial. Eye (2010) 24, 793-798; doi:10.1038/eye.2009.232; published online 25 September 2009