RESUMO
In 2022, the Taiwan, China fundus disease expert group issued the Consensus on the Optimal Treat-and-Extend Regimens for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration. The following explanations are given to help Chinese ophthalmologists better to refer to and use the Consensus. The main contents are as follows: The treat-and-extend(T& E)regimen of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor(VEGF)treatment in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration(nARMD)should aim at maintaining long-term vision and reducing the number of injections. We can start the treatment by injecting once a month for consecutive 3mo. After the initial treatment, the treatment interval of patients with stable conditions can be gradually extended(2 or 4wk each time)until 16wk. If the disease is still steady after injecting 2 or 3 times at the most prolonged interval, we can suspend the treatment, and then the patient needs to be rechecked every 3-4mo; If the disease is active again, the treatment interval needs to be shortened and can be extended again after controlling the disease. We can adopt a relatively conservative approach for patients with apparent negative recovery factors. Complications such as subconjunctival hemorrhage, macular fibrosis and macular atrophy deserve our attention during treatment. In the future, we can explore the best injection scheme for nARMD patients with different subtypes and baseline conditions to realize personalized therapy.
RESUMO
INTRODUCCIÓN: La degeneración macular asociada a la edad es la principal causa de ceguera en personas mayores en el mundo. El tratamiento más eficaz consiste en inyecciones intravítreas de fármacos anti factor del crecimiento vascular endotelial (anti-VEGF). Sin embargo, no existe consenso sobre su frecuencia de administración, siendo pro re nata y treat and extend los protocolos más utilizados, pero existe controversia sobre su efectividad. MÉTODOS: Realizamos una búsqueda en Epistemonikos, la mayor base de datos de revisiones sistemáticas en salud, la cual es mantenida mediante el cribado de múltiples fuentes de información, incluyendo MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, entre otras. Extrajimos los datos desde las revisiones identificadas, analizamos los datos de los estudios primarios, realizamos un meta análisis y preparamos una tabla de resumen de los resultados utilizando el método GRADE. RESULTADOS Y CONCLUSIONES: Identificamos dos revisiones sistemáticas que en conjunto incluyeron dos estudios primarios, ambos observacionales. Concluimos que no es posible establecer con claridad si el protocolo treat and extend en comparación a pro re nata es superior en términos de ganancia visual, disminución del grosor de la retina, número de inyecciones ni en el desarrollo de efectos adversos serios a los 12 meses, debido a que la certeza de la evidencia existente es muy baja.
INTRODUCTION: Age-related macular degeneration is the leading cause of blindness in older people in the world. One of the most effective treat-ments consists of injection intravitreal of anti-endothelial vascular growth factor (anti-VEGF) drugs. However, there is no con-sensus on their frequency of administration, being the treat and extend and the pro re nata the most commonly used regimens, but there is still controversy regarding their effectiveness. METHODS: We searched in Epistemonikos, the largest database of systematic reviews in health, which is maintained by screening multiple information sources, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, among others. We extracted data from the systematic reviews, reanalyzed data of primary studies, conducted a meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: We identified two systematic reviews that together included two primary studies, both observational studies. We concluded that we are uncertain whether the treat and extend regimen is superior in terms of visual gain, decrease in retinal thickness, number of injections and serious adverse effects at 12 months in comparison with the pro re nata regimen, because the certainty of the existing evidence has been assessed as very low.