| Title |
Worsening anatomic outcomes following aflibercept for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in eyes previously well controlled with ranibizumab
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s109894 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eric Nudleman, Jeremy D Wolfe, Maria A Woodward, Yoshihiro Yonekawa, George A Williams, Tarek S Hassan |
| Abstract |
Antivascular endothelial growth factor injection is the mainstay of treating neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Previous studies have shown that switching treatment from ranibizumab to aflibercept led to an improvement in eyes with recalcitrant activity. Herein, we identify a unique subset of patients whose eyes with neovascular AMD were previously well controlled with ranibizumab injections were then worsened after being switched to aflibercept. This is a retrospective interventional case series. Eyes with neovascular AMD, previously well controlled with monthly injections of ranibizumab, which then developed worsening of subretinal fluid after being switched to aflibercept were included. A total of 17 eyes were included. All eyes developed increased subretinal fluid when switched from ranibizumab to aflibercept. Fourteen patients were switched back to ranibizumab after a single injection of aflibercept and had subsequent rapid resolution of subretinal fluid. Three patients continued with monthly aflibercept injections for two subsequent months and demonstrated the persistence of the increased subretinal fluid until they were switched back to treatment with ranibizumab at which time the fluid resolved. No eye had persistent decline in visual acuity. Switching from intravitreal ranibizumab to aflibercept in eyes with well-controlled neovascular AMD may result in worsening in a subset of patients and resolves when therapy is switched back to ranibizumab. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Australia | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 14% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 38% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 10% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 7 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 June 2016.
All research outputs
#14,914,476
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,101
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,978
of 353,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#34
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,712 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 353,662 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.