OUTCOMES OF SWITCHING FROM PROACTIVE TO REACTIVE TREATMENT AFTER DEVELOPING ADVANCED CENTRAL NEOVASCULAR AGE-RELATED MACULAR DEGENERATION.

PURPOSE: We assessed outcomes of eyes with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) that switched from proactive (treat-and-extend) to reactive (pro re nata) treatment regimen after developing macular atrophy (MA) or submacular fibrosis (SMFi). METHODS: Data were collected from a retrospective analysis of a prospectively designed, multinational registry of "real-world" nAMD treatment outcomes. Eyes without MA or SMFi when starting treatment with a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor regimen that subsequently developed MA or SMFi were included. RESULTS: Macular atrophy developed in 821 eyes and SMFi in 1,166 eyes. Seven percent of eyes that developed MA and 9% of those that developed SMFi were switched to reactive treatment. Vision was stable at 12 months for all eyes with MA and inactive SMFi. Active SMFi eyes that switched to reactive treatment had significant vision loss. No eyes that continued proactive treatment developed ≥15 letter loss, but 8% of all eyes that switched to a reactive regimen and 15% of active SMFi eyes did. CONCLUSION: Eyes that switch from proactive to reactive treatment after developing MA and inactive SMFi can have stable visual outcomes. Physicians should be aware of the risk of a significant loss of vision in eyes with active SMFi that switch to reactive treatment.

Longer treatment intervals are associated with reduced treatment persistence in neovascular age related macular degeneration.

AIMS: To test the hypothesis that patients treated for neovascular age related macular degeneration (nAMD) with longer treatment intervals are more likely to persist with treatment. METHODS: Data were obtained from the prospectively-defined Fight Retinal Blindness! registry. Treatment interval at 2 years was stratified based on the mean treatment interval over the three visits prior to and including the 2-year visit. Rates of non-persistence to follow-up were assessed from 2 to 5 years. RESULTS: Data from 1538 eyes were included. The overall rate of non-persistence was 51% at 5 years. Patients on longer treatment intervals (12-weeks) at 2 years were found to be less persistent to long-term follow-up. These eyes were found to have fewer active disease visits in the first 2 years (40%) than eyes treated at 4-weekly intervals (66%, p < 0.001). In the multivariable analysis, better vision at 2 years was associated with a lower risk of non-persistence (hazards ratio [HR] [95% CI]: 0.95 [0.93, 0.97], P < 0.001), while longer treatment intervals (HR [95% CI]: 1.31 [0.95, 1.8] and 1.54 [1.15, 2.06] for 12-week and > 12-week intervals vs. 4-week intervals, respectively, P = 0.002) and older patients (HR [95% CI]: 1.03 [1.02, 1.04], p < 0.001) were at higher risk of non-persistence. CONCLUSIONS: We found that patients on longer treatment intervals at 2 years were more likely to be non-persistent with treatment in later years. Reinforcing the need for ongoing treatment is important for patients on longer intervals who may feel complacent or that treatment is no longer effective, particularly if newer, longer lasting agents become widely available.