Canadian Treat-and-Extend Analysis Trial with Ranibizumab in Patients with Neovascular Age-Related Macular Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of ranibizumab using a treat-and-extend (T&E) regimen with monthly dosing in treatment-naive patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter, noninferiority, postauthorization study. PARTICIPANTS: Treatment-naive patients with choroidal neovascularization secondary to AMD. METHODS: Patients with nAMD were randomized 1:1 to receive intravitreal ranibizumab at a dose of 0.5 mg in either a T&E or monthly dosing regimen. The noninferiority of T&E compared with the monthly dosing regimen was to be shown using a margin of 5 letters in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improvement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean change in BCVA in Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters from baseline to month 12. RESULTS: Baseline and 12-month visual acuity data are available for 526 patients (T&E, n = 268; monthly, n = 258). At baseline, mean age was 78.8 years (standard deviation [SD], 7.8 years), 60.3% were women, and 94.3% were white. No significant between-group baseline differences were observed. The primary outcome of noninferiority regarding visual acuity was met with mean BCVA improvement of 8.4 letters (SD, 11.9 letters) and 6.0 letters (SD, 11.9 letters; P = 0.017) in the T&E and monthly regimens, respectively, with a between-group mean difference of 2.38 letters (95% confidence interval, 0.32-4.45 letters). Per protocol, a secondary analysis was performed to test for superiority of number of injections received up to month 12. This analysis demonstrated significantly fewer injections with T&E versus monthly dosing (9.4 and 11.8 injections, respectively), with a mean difference of -2.46 injections (95% confidence interval, -2.68 to -2.23 injections). CONCLUSIONS: The 12-month results of this 2-year study demonstrated that regarding visual outcomes, the T&E regimen was noninferior to a monthly dosing regimen. Similar visual outcomes in the T&E group as in the monthly dosing group were achieved with significantly fewer injections.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".