Retrospective study evaluates visual and anatomical outcomes after switching to aflibercept in eyes with neovascular age-related macular degeneration, suggesting its role in treatment escalation.
PURPOSE: To evaluate visual and anatomical outcomes after switching to aflibercept 8 mg in eyes with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), and to assess outcomes according to the clinical indication for switching. METHODS: Multicentre retrospective observational study including 300 eyes with nAMD previously treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy and switched to aflibercept 8 mg for non-response (n:74, 24.7%), suboptimal response (n:159, 53.0%), or durability-driven reasons (n:67, 22.3%). Longitudinal data from the 6 months preceding the switch and post-switch visits at 3 and 6 months were analyzed. The primary outcome was change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA, ETDRS letters) from the switch visit to the 3-month post-switch visit. Secondary outcomes included changes in central subfield thickness (CST) and retinal fluid status. RESULTS: During the pre-switch period, mean BCVA declined by - 1.9 ± 8.2 letters and CST increased. At 3 months after switching, BCVA improved by + 2.0 ± 9.2 letters (95% CI, + 0.8 to + 3.2; p < 0.01), with greater gains in eyes switched for non-response (+ 2.8 ± 12.6 letters). Mean CST decreased by - 45.3 ± 79.8 µm (95% CI, - 55.4 to - 35.2; p < 0.001), with corresponding reductions in retinal fluid. Anatomical improvements were more pronounced in eyes switched for non-response, whereas more modest but consistent changes were observed in suboptimal and durability-driven groups. Visual and anatomical outcomes were maintained at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: In previously treated nAMD eyes, switching to aflibercept 8 mg was associated with reversal of pre-switch anatomical worsening, reduction in retinal fluid, and modest visual gains. Greater responses were observed in eyes with inadequate pre-switch disease control, supporting its role as a treatment escalation strategy in clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Veritti et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: