Retrospective analysis evaluates visual acuity outcomes after intravitreal therapy switching in retinal diseases, suggesting significant improvements for some conditions.
Purpose To evaluate the frequency and patterns of intravitreal therapy (IVT) switching in retinal diseases and describe associated visual acuity outcomes in real-world clinical practice. Materials and Methods This retrospective, monocentric study evaluated consecutive IVT-treated cases at a tertiary retina unit. Demographic data, diagnoses, initial agent, injection number, and treatment switches were recorded. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA, LogMAR) was assessed at baseline and final follow-up. Switching was defined as a change to another anti-VEGF agent or intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant for inadequate functional and/or anatomical response. BCVA changes were compared using appropriate tests, stratified by indication (diabetic macular edema [DME], neovascular age-related macular degeneration [nAMD], retinal vein occlusion [RVO]). Results A total of 3,038 IVT-treated cases (11,345 injections) were analyzed. The main indications were DME (55.5%), nAMD (36.4%), and RVO (6.0%). Overall, 22.9% of treated cases underwent treatment switching, most frequently in DME (24.8%) and nAMD (20.8%). Within-group analyses showed significant BCVA improvement after switching in DME (p = 0.001), RVO (p = 0.032), and nAMD (p = 0.009), while non-switched groups showed no significant change. Aflibercept was the most commonly selected second-line agent (81.7%), and the aflibercept subgroup showed significant within-group BCVA improvement ( p < 0.001). Because treatment choice was not randomized, this finding should not be interpreted as evidence of superiority over other second-line agents. Conclusions In this retrospective real-world cohort, treatment switching was common in routine retinal practice, and switched cases showed within-group BCVA improvement in some diagnostic subgroups. These findings should be interpreted as descriptive associations rather than evidence of a causal treatment effect.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ceran et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: