Comparison of 24-month treatment outcomes between as-needed treatment and switching to treat-and-extend in type 3 macular neovascularization

Abstract

AbstractThis study aimed to compare 24-month treatment outcomes between patients with type 3 macular neovascularization (MNV) treated using an as-needed regimen and those who switched to treat-and-extend (TAE). This retrospective study included 32 patients who were initially treated with an as-needed regimen but switched to TAE (TAE group) and 74 patients who were treated with an as-needed regimen throughout the follow-up period (as-needed group). The number of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections and degree of change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) over 24 months were compared between the two groups. The incidence of fibrotic scarring, tears of the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE), and subretinal hemorrhage was also evaluated. The number of anti-VEGF injections was higher in the TAE group (mean: 11.7) than in the as-needed group (mean: 6.9; P < 0.001). The BCVA outcome (measured using the mean logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution [logMAR]) was significantly better in the TAE group (mean improvement of logMAR 0.15) than in the as-needed group (mean deterioration of logMAR 0.15). The incidence of fibrotic scarring (6.3% vs. 18.9%), RPE tears (3.1% vs. 6.8%), and subretinal hemorrhage (0% vs. 9.5%) was relatively lower in the TAE group. Treatment outcomes of the TAE group were better than those of the as-needed group, suggesting that switching to the TAE regimen would be a useful approach for patients with type 3 MNV requiring efficient treatment.