Observational analysis revealed treatment regimens with ranibizumab improve visual acuity in nAMD patients, suggesting tailored strategies are essential.
Intravitreal anti-VEGF is the gold standard for treating neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). The treatment success depends not only on drug efficacy but also on regimen feasibility for physicians and patients. The implementation of different regimen might lead to varying outcomes. "Treat-and-extend" aims to minimize undertreatment with injections at each visit and tailored intervals. This study investigates the utilization and effectiveness of ranibizumab in nAMD, focusing on different treatment regimens in real-world settings. The PACIFIC study, a non-interventional, prospective, multicenter study, included nAMD patients treated with ranibizumab at 185 sites across Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland. Over 24 months, functional and morphological outcomes were documented for 3051 patients over 24 months, highlighting the practiced treatment regimens. A pattern of an observational approach with nevertheless increasing interval extension prevailed (70.4%, 1028 pre-treated; 68.6%, 1090 treatment-naïve patients), emerging as the preferred strategy within the first 3 months. Across all regimens, the average number of injections was comparable (mean ± SD: 7.34 ± 5.30 in pre-treated; 7.26 ± 4.70 in treatment-naïve patients). The treat and extend regimen, however, demonstrated superior effectiveness in improving visual acuity, particularly among treatment-naïve patients (number of injections: 7.89 ± 5.54 pre-treated; 9.54 ± 5.42 treatment-naïve patients). Over 2-year observational period, the treat and extend regimen emerged as a highly effective approach, particularly for those newly diagnosed, with a low risk of undertreatment. Despite its benefits, an unconscious shift to a observe-and-extend or "monitor-and-extend" approach occurred early in treatment, highlighting the need for tailored approaches to optimize patient outcomes in clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lorenz et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: