Efficacy and Safety of Intravitreal Aflibercept Treat-and-Extend for Macular Edema in Central Retinal Vein Occlusion: the CENTERA Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravitreal aflibercept (IVT-AFL) treat-and-extend dosing in patients with macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO). DESIGN: CENTERA (Evaluation of a Treat and Extend Regimen of Intravitreal Aflibercept for Macular Edema Secondary to CRVO; NCT02800642) was an open-label, Phase 4 clinical study. METHODS: Patients received 2 mg of IVT-AFL at baseline and every 4 weeks thereafter, until disease stability criteria were met (or until week 20), at which point treatment intervals were adjusted in 2-week increments based on functional and anatomic outcomes. RESULTS: From baseline to week 76, 105 patients (65.6%) (P <.0001 [test against threshold of 40%]) gained ≥15 letters; and, during the treat-and-extend phase, 72 patients (45.0%) (P = 0.8822 [test against threshold of 50%]) achieved a mean treatment interval of ≥8 weeks. A last and next planned treatment interval of ≥8 weeks was achieved by 101 patients (63.1%) and by 108 patients (67.5%), respectively. Mean ± SD best-corrected visual acuity increased from 51.9 ± 16.8 letters at baseline to 72.3 ± 18.5 letters at week 76 (mean change: +20.3 ± 19.5 letters), and central retinal thickness decreased from 759.9 ± 246.0 µm at baseline to 265.4 ± 57.9 µm at week 76 (mean change: -496.1 ± 252.4 µm). The safety profile of IVT-AFL was consistent with that of previous studies. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically meaningful improvements in functional and anatomic outcomes were achieved with IVT-AFL treat-and-extend dosing. Most patients achieved a last actual and last intended treatment interval of ≥8 weeks; therefore, treatment intervals may have been extended even further with a longer study duration.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".