Aflibercept Treatment for Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration and Polypoidal Choroidal Vasculopathy Refractory to Anti-vascular Endothelial Growth Factor

PURPOSE: To report the results of switching treatment to vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) Trap-Eye (aflibercept) in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV) refractory to anti-VEGF (ranibizumab and bevacizumab). METHODS: This is a retrospective study involving 32 eyes from 29 patients; 18 were cases of neovascular AMD and 14 were cases of PCV. The best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) of spectral-domain optical coherence tomography were evaluated. RESULTS: BCVA and CMT improved from 0.58 to 0.55 (p = 0.005) and from 404 to 321 microm (p < 0.001), respectively, after switching to aflibercept. The 14 eyes that received 6 or more aflibercept injections remained stable at 0.81 to 0.81 and 321 to 327 microm (p = 1.0, 0.29), respectively, after 3 aflibercept injections. The 10 eyes that received 3 or more bevacizumab injections after 3 or more aflibercept injections worsened, from 0.44 to 0.47 and from 332 to 346 microm (p = 0.06, 0.05), respectively. The results showed similar improvement of BCVA and CMT in neovascular AMD and PCV. CONCLUSIONS: Aflibercept seems to be effective for improvement and maintenance of BCVA and CMT for neovascular AMD and PCV refractory to anti-VEGF. Switching from aflibercept back to bevacizumab treatment may not be a proper strategy.

Clinical Usefulness of Binocular Multifocal Electroretinography in Patients with Monocular Macular Disease

PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical usefulness of binocular multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) by comparing results with conventional monocular mfERG in patients with monocular macular disease. METHODS: mfERG testing was conducted on 32 patients with monocular macular disease and 30 normal subjects. An initial mfERG was simultaneously recorded from both eyes with two recording electrodes under binocular stimulation. A second mfERG was subsequently recorded with conventional monocular stimulation. Amplitudes and implicit times of each ring response of the binocular and monocular recordings were compared. Ring ratios of the binocular and monocular recording were also compared. RESULTS: In the macular disease group, there were no statistical differences in amplitude or implicit time for each of the five concentric rings between the monocular and binocular recordings. However, with binocular simulation, the ring ratios (ring 1 / ring 4, ring 1 / ring 5) were significantly reduced in the affected eye. In the normal control group, there were no statistical differences in any parameters between the monocular and binocular recordings. CONCLUSIONS: Binocular mfERG could be a good alternative to the conventional monocular test. In addition, given that the test needs stable fixation of the affected eye during the binocular test, the reliability of the test results could be improved, especially for patients with monocular macular disease.