Skip to main content
Download PDF

Optimal approaches and criteria to treat-and-extend regimen implementation for Neovascular age-related macular degeneration: experts consensus in Taiwan

BMC Ophthalmology volume 22, Article number: 25 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

The management of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) has taken a major stride forward with the advent of anti-VEGF agents. The treat-and-extend (T&E) approach is a refined management strategy, tailoring to the individual patient’s disease course and treatment outcome. To provide guidance to implementing anti-VEGF T&E regimens for nAMD in resource-limited health care systems, an advisory board was held to discuss and generate expert consensus, based on local and international guidelines, current evidence, as well as local experience and reimbursement policies. In the experts’ opinion, treatment of nAMD should aim to maximize and maintain visual acuity benefits while minimizing treatment burden. Based on current evidence, treatment could be initiated with 3 consecutive monthly injections. After the initial period, treatment interval may be extended by 2 or 4 weeks each time for the qualified patients (i.e. no BCVA loss ≥5 ETDRS letters and dry retina), and a maximum interval of 16 weeks is permitted. For patients meeting the shortening criteria (i.e. any increased fluid with BCVA loss ≥5 ETDRS letters, or presence of new macular hemorrhage or new neovascularization), the treatment interval should be reduced by 2 or 4 weeks each time, with a minimal interval of 4 weeks. Discontinuation of anti-VEGF may be considered for those who have received 2–3 consecutive injections spaced 16 weeks apart and present with stable disease. For these individuals, regular monitoring (e.g. 3–4 months) is recommended and monthly injections should be reinstated upon signs of disease recurrence.

Peer Review reports

Background

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a complex and progressive ocular disease with poorly known underlying etiology, which could lead to irreversible central visual impairment or blindness. Albeit less common, neovascular AMD (nAMD) is an important subtype that accounts for over 90% of the severe vision loss in AMD patients [1]. Despite sharing similar clinical manifestations with nAMD, polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV) has a relatively more stable disease course and preferable long-term outcome [2]. PCV is typically featured by aberrant branching vascular network and aneurysmal dilation on indocyanine green angiography (ICGA) [3].

The prevalence of AMD was reported at 8.7% globally and 7.4% in Asians aging 45–85 years [4]. It has been projected that 288 million people worldwide would be affected by AMD in 2040, placing a palpable strain on both the health care system and the affected individuals [4]. Despite the fact that accurate estimation of PCV prevalence has largely been uneasy, the condition has been known to be substantially more common among Asians with presumed nAMD (22.3–54.7%), as compared with Caucasians (6–10%) [5,6,7]. In Taiwan, the prevalence of early and late AMD among adults aged 65 and above is estimated to be 15.0 and 7.3%, respectively, according to one cross-sectional study [8]. Since the prevalence of late AMD has been known to increase significantly with age, a rapidly aging society like Taiwan may expect to be confronted with severe disease burden and socioeconomic impacts [8].

With the advent of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents, the treatment goal of nAMD has shifted from salvaging vision to maintaining or improving visual outcomes while minimizing treatment burden [1, 9]. The anti-VEGF agents that have been used for ophthalmologic conditions include aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab, and could be administered either by a reactive or proactive regimen [10]. However, as the need and response to anti-VEGF injections vary highly among nAMD patients, optimal, individualized regimens remain to be explored [11].

When a reactive, or pro re nata (PRN) approach is employed, injections are only given at the onset of symptomatic disease or signs of neovascular activity [11, 12]. While this individualized approach may reduce the number of injections when compared with monthly injections, regular monitoring is still warranted [13]. As shown in both trials and real world, PRN regimens generally lead to suboptimal visual outcomes in the absence of frequent monitoring and stringent retreatment criteria [9, 12]. Other notable drawbacks associated with the employment of PRN regimens in the clinical setting include delayed or under-treatment and logistical difficulties arising from the unpredictable dosing frequency [14].

Proactive approach, on the other hand, aims to minimize the risk of disease recurrence by giving regular injections at each scheduled visit, regardless of disease activity [10]. While fixed anti-VEGF dosing regimens have accumulated best trial evidence support, the implementation of this treatment approach in practice has been deemed impractical and could cause great burden to both the patient and health provider [12]. Treat-and-extend (T&E) regimen is a more flexible alternative to fixed dosing regimens, which involve a gradual lengthening of injection intervals upon the achievement of stable disease [15]. T&E regimen consists of initiation and extended maintenance phases [12]. During maintenance, regular injections are given at the scheduled visits and future treatment intervals are adjusted based on the patient’s functional and anatomic outcomes [10, 15]. Compared with fixed and PRN regimens, T&E regimens may have a number of important merits, including reducing the number of hospital visits, minimizing the risk of delayed, over- or under-treatment, and easing the logistical burden on the hospital and psychological stress on the patient [10].

In Taiwan, rigid National Health Insurance (NHI) policy and requirements have been imposed onto the prescription of anti-VEGF agents for ophthalmologic conditions. To be eligible for reimbursed anti-VEGF treatments for nAMD, patients have to be 50 years and above, and should have the diagnosis confirmed by fundus photography, fluorescence angiography (FA), and optical coherence tomography (OCT), and have a best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between 0.5 and 0.05. For the qualified patients, 8 intravitreal anti-VEGF injections would be granted with the first application, which are valid for 5 years. Patients with documented improvements may receive 3 doses with each subsequent application. Patients are entitled for a lifetime of 14 doses per eye and switching between two anti-VEGF agents is prohibited.

While the T&E approach appears to be an unequivocally appealing strategy for managing nAMD with intravitreal anti-VEGF, its implementation in a resource-limited health care system like Taiwan still warrants rigorous assessments and measured guidelines. Therefore, a panel of ophthalmology specialists were formed and met in Taipei on June 6th, 2020. The objective of this publication is to share the evidence-based recommendations gleaned from this meeting, which centered on the implementation of anti-VEGF T&E regimens in a resource-limited health care system. The facets of care addressed in this article pertain to the treatment goals of nAMD, initiation doses of an anti-VEGF therapy, the length of treatment interval extending/shortening, and the criteria for treatment adjustment and exit.

Main text

Methods

An expert panel consisting of fifteen local retina specialists was formed. In a face-to-face meeting, the group reviewed the literature on anti-VEGF T&E regimens in nAMD and worked toward developing consensus recommendations for the delivery of optimal nAMD care in Taiwan. The body of literature includes data from both prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (Table 1) [13, 16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23] and real-world studies [24,25,26,27,28,29], as well as recommendations from the available guidelines [10, 14, 30]. Retrospective data on exit strategies following T&E regimens were also reviewed [31, 32]. A set of provisional statements and a management algorithm were formulated prior to the meeting, in accordance with current guideline recommendations, and reflecting the health care reimbursement policies and treatment pattern in Taiwan. The statements were examined and openly discussed, followed by anonymous voting. A consensus was considered to be reached when ≥70% experts voted in agreement. In the absence of consensus, further rounds of discussion, statement modification, and voting were involved until the acquisition of consensus.

Table 1 List of prospective RCTs that evaluated the employment of anti-VEGF T&E regimens in nAMD patients
Full size table

Expert recommendations

The consensus recommendations and proposed management algorithm for the treatment of nAMD patients with anti-VEGF T&E regimens are exhibited in Table 2 and Fig. 1, respectively. The figure illustrates the general scheme of T&E regimens that may be adopted in the clinical setting. Following three consecutive injections at a 4-weekly interval (i.e. the initiation phase), treatment interval may be determined and adjusted based on the extension/shortening criteria at each visit.

Table 2 Recommendations of anti-VEGF T&E regimens for the management of nAMD
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Management algorithm for nAMD patients undergoing anti-VEGF T&E regimens. 1Stable vision is defined as BCVA gain or BCVA loss < 5 ETDRS letters (or 1 line of Snellen chart). 2VA and OCT assessment should be conducted at visit of the third injection. 3Absence of macular hemorrhage and neovascularization is required. 4Non-increased fluid after 3 more consecutive monthly injections following initial treatment could be considered as persistent fluid, and the injection interval could be extended if VA is stable. 5Active disease is defined as any increased fluid with BCVA loss ≥5 ETDRS letters (or 1 line of Snellen chart), new macular hemorrhage, or new neovascularization. 6For patients with either increased fluid or BCVA loss ≥5 ETDRS letters alone, the treatment interval could be maintained or shortened. 7Patients who have met the exit criteria with serous PED should be monitored frequently (e.g. monthly or bi-monthly). BCVA, best-corrected visual acuity; ETDRS, Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study; nAMD, neovascular age-related macular degeneration; OCT, optical coherence tomography; PED, pigment epithelial detachment; T&E, treat-and-extend; VA: visual acuity; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor

Full size image

Treatment goal

• The treatment goal of nAMD is to maximize and maintain VA benefits for patients while minimizing treatment burden.

In a published consensus document for the management of macular diseases, ophthalmic experts from the Vision Academy suggested that the treatment goal with anti-VEGF agents should aim to achieve and maintain BCVA, and treatment intervals should be adjusted to accommodate the patient’s needs [10]. In one consensus article published by a group of Taiwanese experts in 2020, the primary treatment goal for PCV was also the achievement of BCVA while minimizing patients’ treatment burdens [33]. In addition, one study from Japan reported that patients’ top expectations for intravitreal anti-VEGF regimens were reduced number of injections and maintenance of long-term VA [34]. Therefore, the experts uniformly agreed that nAMD treatments should aim to maximize BCVA while minimizing patients’ treatment burden.

Initiation of an anti-VEGF therapy

• Treatment could start with 3 consecutive monthly (or 4-weekly) injections.

Three consecutive monthly injections have been the frequently chosen dosing in most T&E RCTs as a means of anti-VEGF initiation, save for the TREND and LUCAS studies [13, 16,17,18, 20,21,22,23]. Take the ALTAIR study as an example, following the initiation phase that consisted of three monthly injections, trial participants were randomized to undergo T&E regimens with either a 2-week or 4-week adjustment. Maintenance of treatment interval was also permitted when the adjustment criteria were not met [22]. The BCVA improvement peaked after the three initial doses and maintained thereafter. At week 52, the mean change in BCVA from baseline was 9.0 and 8.4 letters in the 2-week group and 4-week group, respectively. At week 96, about 60% of patients in both treatment arms maintained at least a 12-week injection interval [22]. Therefore, three monthly injections may indeed be a good choice for anti-VEGF therapy initiation.

For the treatment of nAMD with aflibercept, both Asia-pacific and UK experts recommended giving three monthly injections as the initial dose [14, 30]. The three monthly injections have also been a commonly recommended initial dose for PCV. For example, in one consensus report on PCV management, Taiwanese experts also recommended initiating anti-VEGF treatments with three monthly injections [33]. As a result, the experts agreed that three consecutive monthly injections could be an appropriate initial dosing option for anti-VEGF T&E regimens. However, a few studies have suggested that comparable outcomes could be achieved with just one injection [35, 36]. Hence, certain flexibility could be reserved for the dosing of anti-VEGF in the initiation phase, to accommodate for the multitude of factors in the real-world clinical practice.

For those who show no signs of improvement after numerous monthly injections, the possibility of other ophthalmic conditions should be reconsidered and relevant examinations such as OCT, color fundus examination, FA, and ICGA may be re-evaluated [33]. If other diagnoses are suspected, guidelines should be consulted for further diagnostic and management details.

Length of treatment interval extension/shortening

• After the initial period of an anti-VEGF therapy, patients meeting the extension criteria can have their treatment interval extended by 2 or 4 weeks at a time, with a maximum interval of 16 weeks.

• For patients meeting the shortening criteria, the treatment interval should be reduced by 2 or 4 weeks at a time, with a minimal interval of 4 weeks.

In the published T&E trials, the frequently used minimal and maximum treatment intervals have been 4 or 8 weeks and 12 or 16 weeks, respectively [13, 16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23]. While the treatment intervals of these trials have mainly been extended or shortened by a 2-week increment, a 4-week increment was allowed in the ALTAIR study. Having considered both the literature evidence and practicality, the experts decided that the treatment interval should be adjusted by 2 or 4 weeks at a time, with a minimal interval of 4 weeks and a maximal interval of 16 weeks.

Treatment adjustment criteria

• Extension: No BCVA loss ≥5 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters (or 1 line of Snellen chart) AND dry retina§,†

• Maintenance: No BCVA loss ≥5 ETDRS letters (or 1 line of Snellen chart) AND non-increased fluid§

• Shortening: Any increased fluid with BCVA loss ≥5 ETDRS letters (or 1 line of Snellen chart)‡ OR new macular hemorrhage OR new neovascularization

§Absence of macular hemorrhage and neovascularization is required.

†Non-increased fluid after 3 more consecutive monthly injections following initial treatment could be considered as persistent fluid, and the injection interval could be extended if VA is stable.

‡For patients with either increased fluid or BCVA loss ≥5 ETDRS letters alone, the treatment interval could be maintained or shortened.

While adjustment has been the core of the T&E regimens, the experts pointed out that the option of maintenance is also of importance and should be reserved in the clinical setting for practicality reasons (e.g. avoiding frequent adjustments, especially for patients presented with stable vision and without increased fluid). The experts formulated a set of sufficient conditions for treatment interval adjustment based on the T&E design of the relevant trials [13, 17,18,19, 22, 23]. Stable vision and the absence of macular hemorrhage and neovascularization are the necessary conditions for treatment interval extension or maintenance. Based on clinical observation, full resolution of retinal fluid may never occur in some patients despite continued treatment. Therefore, residual fluid after the three initial monthly injections may be considered as persistent fluid. For patients with stabilized VA and persistent fluid, treatment extension may be considered.

Correlations between the volume of specific fluid compartments and BCVA outcomes have been described in previous studies [37, 38]. By utilizing AI technology to analyze the optical coherence tomography (OCT) data and quantify the volumes of intraretinal fluid (IRF), subretinal fluid (SRF), and pigment epithelial detachment (PED), Schmidt-Erfurth et al. also demonstrated an association between increased IRF and BCVA regression, whereas increased SRF appears to be a weak positive prognostic factor for BCVA [39]. While doing AI-analysis of another study with smaller number of enrollment, the same research team recently identified a spatial relationship between SRF and vision outcomes, i.e. SRF in the juxtafoveal area may slightly impact vision in a volume-dependent manner, but SRF in the central fovea had neutral effect on VA. On the other hand, IRF in the central fovea was associated with worse VA, whereas IRF in the juxtafovea area has no significant correlation to VA outcome [40]. The slight discrepancy between these two studies could be due to the better baseline vision acuity and smaller total fluid volume to be analyzed in the more recent study [40]. Based on these findings, AI technology may potentially be employed in the future to predict treatment outcomes through the precise determination of the fluid type, volume, and location. However, given that consensus on the management approach for each of the fluids was not reached among the experts, the treatment recommendation herein is not specified by fluid type.

For patients presenting with either retinal fluid increase or VA regression alone, the decision to maintain or shorten the treatment interval may be left at the physician’s discretion, as a number of factors may need to be considered. For example, in cases with increased fluid alone, choroidal neovascularization (CNV) may recur prior to the onset of VA decrease. Therefore, the component of the fluid is of relevance. If IRF was the predominant fluid type, the injection interval should be shortened. If SRF was the main source of the increased fluid, the treatment decision would then be determined by the level of the increase. However, the criterion of SRF thickness for treatment adjustment has varied across trials. For example, treatment intervals were shortened at the presence of SRF of ≥50 um in ARIES, ≥100 um central retina thickness (CRT) in ALTAIR, and ≥ 200 um in FLUID. For patients with only BCVA loss greater than 5 ETDRS, supplementary FA or fundus autofluorescence (FAF) may be performed to exclude fovea atrophy or other vitreomacular interface problems.

Treatment exit criteria

• Patients who have received 2–3 consecutive injections of 16 weeks apart with stable disease could consider exiting anti-VEGF treatment.

• Patients exited from the anti-VEGF treatment should be followed every 3–4 months.¶ Treatment regimen should be re-started from monthly dosing if disease recurs.

¶Patients who have met the exit criteria with serous PED should be monitored frequently (e.g. monthly or bi-monthly).

The exit criteria for anti-VEGF treatment in nAMD patients vary across published studies. In 2017, Adrean et al. reported that nAMD patients may successfully stop anti-VEGF treatment while maintaining improved vision after the completion of a Treat-Extend-Stop protocol, where treatment may be stopped for those maintaining stable disease after two consecutive 12-weekly injections [31]. In a study that involved patients managed with a T&E protocol, Arendt et al. defined the exit criteria as three consecutive injections at a 16-week interval with stable disease [32]. In a consensus that addressed various aspects of nAMD treatment with aflibercept, a group of Asia-Pacific experts suggested that treatment cessation may be considered for stabilized patients who have received injections at 12-week intervals for 1 year [30]. British experts also recommended that patients with stable disease after three consecutive injections 16 weeks apart may be considered for treatment cessation [14]. Based on these evidences, the experts decided that flexibility should be reserved for treatment cessation decisions, and two to three consecutive injections 16 weeks apart with stable disease may be a practical exit criterion.

After exiting from treatment, patients should be regularly followed every 3–4 months to monitor for disease recurrence. Of note, a more frequent monitoring is warranted for patients exiting treatment with serous PED, as the risk of recurrence has been reported to be higher among these patient [32]. To facilitate the delivery of timely intervention during the follow-up period, patients should also receive adequate education on the means of self-monitoring and the early signs of disease recurrence. Monthly injections should be resumed upon recurrence and treatment intervals may be gradually extended thereafter.

Conclusion

Efficacious treatments that offer improvements in and maintenance of VA gains are of paramount importance to patients with nAMD [10]. The T&E strategy has been forged with the intention to improve disease control and the patient’s quality of life and to reduce treatment burden. Based on the relevant trial data and currently available guideline recommendations, this paper examined the practical aspects pertinent to implementing a suitable T&E strategy for nAMD patients receiving anti-VEGF injections. The recommendations were formed to provide guidance to ophthalmologists practicing in a resource limited health care system. Amid the raging pandemic of COVID-19, while the fixed dose strategy has been recommended for managing retinal diseases to minimize exposure of patients and healthcare personnel to COVID-19 [41], Taiwanese experts felt that whenever the situation permits, treatment intervals should be tailored to conform to patients’ will, hospital capacity, and the local public health policies.

Availability of data and materials

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Abbreviations

BCVA:

Best-corrected visual acuity

CNV:

Choroidal neovascularization

CRT:

Central retina thickness

ETDRS:

Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study

FA:

Fluorescence angiography

FAF:

Fundus autofluorescence

ICGA:

Indocyanine green angiography

IRF:

Intraretinal fluid

nAMD :

Neovascular age-related macular degeneration

NHI:

National Health Insurance

OCT:

Optical coherence tomography

PCV:

Polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy

PED:

Pigment epithelial detachment

PRN:

Pro re nata

RCT:

Randomized controlled trial

SRF:

Subretinal fluid

T&E:

Treat-and-extend

VA:

Visual acuity

VEGF:

Vascular endothelial growth factors

References

  1. Agarwal A, Rhoades WR, Hanout M, et al. Management of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: current state-of-the-art care for optimizing visual outcomes and therapies in development. Clin Ophthalmol. 2015;9:1001–15.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Sho K, Takahashi K, Yamada H, et al. Polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy: incidence, demographic features, and clinical characteristics. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121(10):1392–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Baek J, Cheung CMG, Jeon S, et al. Polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy: outer retinal and choroidal changes and neovascularization development in the fellow eye. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2019;60(2):590–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wong WL, Su X, Li X, et al. Global prevalence of age-related macular degeneration and disease burden projection for 2020 and 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2014;2(2):e106–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Palkar AH, Khetan V. Polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy: an update on current management and review of literature. Taiwan J Ophthalmol. 2019;9(2):72–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Riaz M, Baird PN. Paradigm of susceptibility genes in AMD and PCV. In: Prakash G, Iwata T, editors. Advances in vision research, volume I: genetic eye research in Asia and the Pacific. Tokyo: Springer Japan; 2017. p. 169–92.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhou H, Zhao X, Yuan M, et al. Comparison of cytokine levels in the aqueous humor of polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy and neovascular age-related macular degeneration patients. BMC Ophthalmol. 2020;20(1):15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Huang EJ, Wu SH, Lai CH, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for age-related macular degeneration in the elderly Chinese population in South-Western Taiwan: the Puzih eye study. Eye. 2014;28(6):705–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Patel PJ, Devonport H, Sivaprasad S, et al. Aflibercept treatment for neovascular AMD beyond the first year: consensus recommendations by a UK expert roundtable panel, 2017 update. Clin Ophthalmol. 2017;11:1957–66.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Lanzetta P, Loewenstein A, Vision Academy Steering C. Fundamental principles of an anti-VEGF treatment regimen: optimal application of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy of macular diseases. Graefe's Arch Clin Exper Ophthalmol = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie. 2017;255(7):1259–73.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Mantel I. Optimizing the anti-VEGF treatment strategy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: from clinical trials to real-life requirements. Transl Vision Sci Technol. 2015;4(3):6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Garcia-Layana A, Figueroa MS, Araiz J, et al. Treatment of exudative age-related macular degeneration: focus on aflibercept. Drugs Aging. 2015;32(10):797–807.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Silva R, Berta A, Larsen M, et al. Treat-and-extend versus monthly regimen in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: results with ranibizumab from the TREND study. Ophthalmology. 2018;125(1):57–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ross AH, Downey L, Devonport H, et al. Recommendations by a UK expert panel on an aflibercept treat-and-extend pathway for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Eye. 2020;34(10):1825–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Engelbert M, Zweifel SA, Freund KB. "Treat and extend" dosing of intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor therapy for type 3 neovascularization/retinal angiomatous proliferation. Retina. 2009;29(10):1424–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wykoff CC, Ou WC, Brown DM, et al. Randomized trial of treat-and-extend versus monthly dosing for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: 2-year results of the TREX-AMD study. Ophthalmol Retina. 2017;1(4):314–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kertes PJ, Galic IJ, Greve M, et al. Efficacy of a treat-and-extend regimen with ranibizumab in patients with neovascular age-related macular disease: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2020;138(3):244–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Berg K, Hadzalic E, Gjertsen I, et al. Ranibizumab or bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration according to the Lucentis compared to Avastin study treat-and-extend protocol: two-year results. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(1):51–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Berg K, Pedersen TR, Sandvik L, et al. Comparison of ranibizumab and bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration according to LUCAS treat-and-extend protocol. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(1):146–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Guymer RH, Markey CM, McAllister IL, et al. Tolerating subretinal fluid in neovascular age-related macular degeneration treated with ranibizumab using a treat-and-extend regimen: FLUID study 24-month results. Ophthalmology. 2019;126(5):723–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gillies M et al. Presented at the 17th congress of the European retina, macula and vitreous society (EURETINA), Barcelona, Spain, September 7–10 2017.

  22. Ohji M, Takahashi K, Okada AA, et al. Efficacy and safety of intravitreal aflibercept treat-and-extend regimens in exudative age-related macular degeneration: 52- and 96-week findings from ALTAIR : a randomized controlled trial. Adv Ther. 2020;37(3):1173–87.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Mitchell P, et al. Presentation at the 18th European Society of Retina Specialists (EURETINA) Congress; Vienna, Austria, September 20–23, 2018.

  24. Hosokawa M et al. Abstract at the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) 2018 Annual Meeting; Honolulu, HI, USA, April 29 – May 3, 2018.

  25. Barthelmes D, Nguyen V, Daien V, et al. Two year outcomes of "treat and extend" intravitreal therapy using aflibercept preferentially for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Retina. 2018;38(1):20–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Eleftheriadou M, Gemenetzi M, Lukic M, et al. Three-year outcomes of aflibercept treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: evidence from a clinical setting. Ophthalmol Therapy. 2018;7(2):361–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lo KJ, Chang JY, Chang HY, et al. Three-year outcomes of patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration treated with aflibercept under the national health insurance program in Taiwan. J Ophthalmol. 2020;2020:4538135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Traine PG, Pfister IB, Zandi S, et al. Long-term outcome of intravitreal aflibercept treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration using a "treat-and-extend" regimen. Ophthalmol Retina. 2019;3(5):393–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Yang BC, Chou TY, Chen SN. Real-world outcomes of intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factors for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in Taiwan: a 4-year longitudinal study. Taiwan J Ophthalmol. 2019;9(4):249–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Koh A, Lanzetta P, Lee WK, et al. Recommended guidelines for use of intravitreal aflibercept with a treat-and-extend regimen for the management of neovascular age-related macular degeneration in the Asia-Pacific region: report from a consensus panel. Asia-Pacific J Ophthalmol. 2017;6(3):296–302.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Adrean SD, Chaili S, Grant S, et al. Recurrence rate of choroidal neovascularization in neovascular age-related macular degeneration managed with a treat-extend-stop protocol. Ophthalmol Retina. 2018;2(3):225–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Arendt P, Yu S, Munk MR, et al. Exit strategy in a treat-and-extend regimen for exudative age-related macular degeneration. Retina. 2019;39(1):27–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Chen LJ, Cheng CK, Yeung L, et al. Management of polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy: experts consensus in Taiwan. J Formosan Med Assoc= Taiwan yi zhi. 2020;119(2):569–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Joko T, Nagai Y, Mori R, et al. Patient preferences for anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment for wet age-related macular degeneration in Japan: a discrete choice experiment. Patient Prefer Adher. 2020;14:553–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Takayama K, Kaneko H, Sugita T, et al. One-year outcomes of 1 + pro re nata versus 3 + pro re nata intravitreal aflibercept injection for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmologica J Int d'ophtalmologie Int J Ophthalmol Zeitschrift fur Augenheilkunde. 2017;237(2):105–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Wang F, Yuan Y, Wang L, et al. One-year outcomes of 1 dose versus 3 loading doses followed by pro re nata regimen using ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: the ARTIS trial. J Ophthalmol. 2019;2019:7530458.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Eichenbaum D et al. Poster at the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) 2019 Annual Meeting; Vancouver, Canada, April 28 – May 2, 2019.

  38. Sharma S, Toth CA, Daniel E, et al. Macular morphology and visual acuity in the second year of the comparison of age-related macular degeneration treatments trials. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(4):865–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Schmidt-Erfurth U, Vogl WD, Jampol LM, et al. Application of automated quantification of fluid volumes to anti-VEGF therapy of neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2020;127(9):1211–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Reiter GS, Grechenig C, Vogl WD, et al. Analysis of fluid volume and its impact on visual acuity in the fluid study as quantified with deep learning. Retina. 2021;41(6):1318–28.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Korobelnik JF, Loewenstein A, Eldem B, et al. Guidance for anti-VEGF intravitreal injections during the COVID-19 pandemic. Graefe's Arch Clin Exper Ophthalmol = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie. 2020;258(6):1149–56.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Editorial assistance in preparation of this article was provided by Health Care Medical Publishing, Ltd.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Cheng-Kuo Cheng and Shih-Jen Chen contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Shin-Kong Wu Ho-Su Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan

    Cheng-Kuo Cheng

  2. Department of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan

    Cheng-Kuo Cheng

  3. Department of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, Fu-Jen Catholic University, New Taipei, Taiwan

    Cheng-Kuo Cheng

  4. Department of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan

    Shih-Jen Chen

  5. Department of Ophthalmology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan

    Shih-Jen Chen

  6. Department of Ophthalmology, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan

    Jiann-Torng Chen

  7. Department of Ophthalmology, Mackay Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan

    Lee-Jen Chen

  8. Department of Ophthalmology, Changhua Christian Hospital, Changhua, Taiwan

    San-Ni Chen

  9. Department of Ophthalmology, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan

    San-Ni Chen & Wen-Lu Chen

  10. Department of Ophthalmology, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan

    Sheng-Min Hsu

  11. Department of Ophthalmology, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan

    Sheng-Min Hsu

  12. College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan

    Chien-Hsiung Lai & Ling Yeung

  13. Department of Ophthalmology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chiayi, Taiwan

    Chien-Hsiung Lai

  14. Department of Nursing, Chang Gung University of Science and Technology, Chiayi, Taiwan

    Chien-Hsiung Lai

  15. Department of Ophthalmology, Kaohsiung Medical University Chung-Ho Memorial Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

    Shwu-Jiuan Sheu & Wen-Chuan Wu

  16. Department of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

    Shwu-Jiuan Sheu & Wen-Chuan Wu

  17. Department of Ophthalmology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital- Kaohsiung Medical Center, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

    Pei-Chang Wu

  18. Department of Ophthalmology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital-Linkou Medical Center, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan

    Wei-Chi Wu

  19. Department of Ophthalmology, National Taiwan University Hospital, No.8, Chung Shan S. Rd. (Zhongshan S. Rd.), Zhongzheng Dist., Taipei, 100226, Taiwan

    Chung-May Yang, Ta-Ching Chen & Chang-Hao Yang

  20. Department of Ophthalmology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Keelung, Taiwan

    Ling Yeung

Authors
  1. Cheng-Kuo Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shih-Jen Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jiann-Torng Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lee-Jen Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. San-Ni Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Wen-Lu Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sheng-Min Hsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Chien-Hsiung Lai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Shwu-Jiuan Sheu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Pei-Chang Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Wei-Chi Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Wen-Chuan Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Chung-May Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Ling Yeung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Ta-Ching Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Chang-Hao Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Both CKC and SJC consolidated the recommendations from the expert panel and contributed equally to this manuscript. CKC, SJC, and CHY conceived and planned the consensus meeting. CKC, SJC, JTC, LJC, SNC, WLC, SMH, CHL, SJS, PCW, WCW, WCW, CMY, LY, TCC and CHY made substantial recommendations to the development of this consensus. TCC and CHY drafted and edited the manuscript. All authors read, revised and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chang-Hao Yang.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable. This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any new studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

CKC has received consultant fee from Bayer and honorarium from Allergan, Bayer, and Novartis; SJC has received consultant fee from Bayer and Novartis and honorarium from Allergan, Bayer, and Novartis; JTC has received consultant fee from Bayer; LJC has received consultant fee and honorarium from Bayer and Novartis; SNC has received consultant fee from Bayer; WLC has received consultant fee from Bayer and honorarium from Bayer and Novartis; SMH has received consultant fee from Bayer and honorarium from Allergan, Bayer, and Novartis; CHL has received consultant fee from Bayer and Novartis; SJS has received consultant fee from Bayer and honorarium from Allergan, Bayer, and Novartis; PCW has received consultant fee from Bayer and Novartis; WCW has received consultant fee from Bayer and Novartis; WCW has received consultant fee from Bayer and honorarium from Allergan, Bayer, and Novartis; CMY has received consultant fee from Bayer and Novartis and honorarium from Bayer and Novartis; LY has received consultant fee from Bayer and Novartis and honorarium from Allergan; TCC has received consultant fee from Bayer, Novartis; CHY has received consultant fee from Bayer and honorarium from Allergan, Bayer, and Novartis.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cheng, CK., Chen, SJ., Chen, JT. et al. Optimal approaches and criteria to treat-and-extend regimen implementation for Neovascular age-related macular degeneration: experts consensus in Taiwan. BMC Ophthalmol 22, 25 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-021-02231-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-021-02231-8

Keywords

BMC Ophthalmology

ISSN: 1471-2415

Contact us