| Title |
Efficacy of treat-and-extend regimen with aflibercept for pachychoroid neovasculopathy and Type 1 neovascular age-related macular degeneration
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10384-018-0562-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hidetaka Matsumoto, Takashi Hiroe, Masahiro Morimoto, Kensuke Mimura, Arisa Ito, Hideo Akiyama |
| Abstract |
To evaluate the efficacy of intravitreal aflibercept therapy using a treat-and-extend regimen on treatment-naïve pachychoroid neovasculopathy (PNV) and Type 1 neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD). We retrospectively studied 42 eyes with PNV and 60 eyes with Type 1 neovascular AMD. We assessed best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), central choroidal thickness (CCT), and total number of injections over 2 years. The BCVA and CMT improvements during the 2-year treatment period did not differ significantly between PNV and AMD; however, CCT decreased significantly in PNV than in AMD (P<0.05). Management of PNV required significantly fewer injections than AMD during the 2-year period (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in BCVA, CMT and CCT changes between PNV with and without polypoidal lesions (28 vs. 14 eyes) during the 2 year period. Significantly fewer injections were needed for PNV with polypoidal lesions than for PNV without (P<0.01). There were no significant differences in BCVA, CMT and CCT changes, or in the number of injections during the 2-year treatment period, between AMD with and without polypoidal lesions (30 vs. 30 eyes). Treat-and-extend regimen of intravitreal aflibercept injection may be equally effective in terms of improvement of BCVA and exudative changes both in eyes with PNV and those with Type 1 neovascular AMD requiring fewer injections for the former. Among eyes with PNV, those with polypoidal lesions needed fewer injections than those without polypoidal lesions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 13% |
| Researcher | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 16% |
| Unknown | 11 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 42% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 17 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 February 2018.
All research outputs
#18,587,406
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology
#310
of 494 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#327,805
of 437,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 494 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 437,326 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.