Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy Regimens for Polypoidal Choroidal Vasculopathy: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There are no guidelines on the optimal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) monotherapy regimen for patients with polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV). In this study, we aimed to assess the comparative safety and efficacy of different treatment regimens of anti-VEGF monotherapy for PCV. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library from January 2000 to May 2023 for comparative articles reporting on different treatment regimens of anti-VEGF agents in PCV. Our primary outcomes were the final best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and the change in BCVA from baseline. Secondary outcomes were the final retinal thickness (RT), the change in RT from baseline, the rate of polyp closure, and the incidence of adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 10,440 studies were screened, and seven studies reporting on 636 eyes with PCV at baseline were included in this systematic review. One RCT of 53 eyes found a similar final BCVA, change in BCVA from baseline, final RT, and complete polyp closure rate between a treat-and-extend (T&E) regimen and a bimonthly fixed-dosing regimen of aflibercept. This trial also found superiority of T&E for change in RT from baseline. One observational study of 33 eyes found a similar BCVA at last study observation between a pro re nata (PRN) regimen and bimonthly fixed-dosing regimen of aflibercept. One observational study of 42 eyes found a similar change in BCVA from baseline and complete polyp closure rate between a PRN regimen and bimonthly fixed-dosing regimen of aflibercept. One RCT of 249 eyes found a similar change in BCVA and RT from baseline, as well as polyp closure, between a T&E regimen and fixed 12-week dosing regimen of conbercept. One observational study of 30 eyes found a superiority of T&E aflibercept for change in BCVA and risk of polyp recurrence, compared to a PRN regimen. CONCLUSION: Overall, there is a paucity of evidence comparing various treatment regimens of anti-VEGF therapy in patients with PCV. This limited evidence suggests that current treatment regimens are similarly efficacious, though T&E aflibercept achieved superior outcomes when compared to bimonthly dosing or PRN in some individual studies. Further trials are needed to confirm or refute these findings.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".