<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# Treatment regimens for optimising outcomes in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration

Kelvin Yi Chong Teo, Bora Eldem, Antonia Joussen, Adrian Koh, Jean-Francois Korobelnik, Xiaoxin Li, Anat Loewenstein, Monica Lovestam-Adrian, Rafael Navarro, Annabelle A Okada, et al.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

## ► To cite this version:

Kelvin Yi Chong Teo, Bora Eldem, Antonia Joussen, Adrian Koh, Jean-Francois Korobelnik, et al. Treatment regimens for optimising outcomes in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Eye, 2025, 39 (5), pp.860-869. 10.1038/s41433-024-03370-0. hal-04828859

HAL Id: hal-04828859

https://hal.science/hal-04828859v1

Submitted on 10 Dec 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
REVIEW ARTICLE OPEN

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Check for updates

# Treatment regimens for optimising outcomes in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration

Kelvin Yi Chong Teo<sup>1,*</sup>, Bora Eldem<sup>2</sup>, Antonia Joussen<sup>3</sup>, Adrian Koh<sup>4</sup>, Jean-François Korobelnik<sup>5,6</sup>, Xiaoxin Li<sup>7</sup>, Anat Loewenstein<sup>8</sup>, Monica Lövestam-Adrian<sup>9</sup>, Rafael Navarro<sup>10</sup>, Annabelle A. Okada<sup>11</sup>, Ian Pearce<sup>12</sup>, Francisco Rodríguez<sup>13</sup>, David Wong<sup>14</sup>, Lihteh Wu<sup>15</sup>, Dinah Zur<sup>18</sup>, Javier Zarranz-Ventura<sup>16</sup>, Paul Mitchell<sup>17</sup>, Varun Chaudhary<sup>18,19</sup> and Paolo Lanzetta<sup>20</sup>

© The Author(s) 2024

Practice patterns for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) have evolved from the landmark registration trials of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors. Non-monthly regimens like treat-and-extend (T&E) have become popular due to their effectiveness in clinical practice. T&E regimens attempt to limit the burden of visits and treatments by allowing progressively longer treatment intervals, but in so doing, are potentially associated with the expense of treating quiescent disease. This is acceptable to many patients and their ophthalmologists but can still be problematic in the real-world. Recent studies have further refined the T&E approach by allowing for quicker and longer extension of treatment intervals when less severe disease is detected. With newer drugs offering increased durability, a shift to longer regular intervals may emerge as a new practice pattern for VEGF inhibitor therapy. This review aims to consolidate the current literature on the most effective treatment patterns and update treatment guidelines based on options that are now available. It also summarises new aspects of nAMD management that may help to further refine current practice.

Eye; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-024-03370-0

## INTRODUCTION

Treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) has evolved rapidly over the past decade, during which pivotal trials have established the efficacy of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor therapy in this indication [1–3]. However, outcomes in clinical settings are inferior to those reported in clinical trials [4, 5], likely as a result of undertreatment, poor adherence and inappropriate treatment decisions [6–8].

Guidance on treatment has previously been proposed but, with ongoing changes in the treatment landscape, it is timely to consider a set of current, pragmatic, clinically applicable guidelines that can close the gap between clinical trials and real-world outcomes. This review aims to summarise the key evidence from both clinical trials and real-world studies to update previous recommendations and provide a treatment framework that is useable in current clinical practice.

## METHODS

This article is based on a review of the literature and a consensus among retinal experts from the Vision Academy. The Vision Academy

is a group of over 100 international experts who, through their collective expertise, provide consensus guidance for managing clinically challenging situations, especially in areas of controversy or with insufficient conclusive evidence (www.visionacademy.org). The Vision Academy is sponsored by Bayer.

The current article provides an update to the ‘Fundamental principles of an anti-VEGF treatment regimen’ paper published in 2017 [9]. Having identified the need for updated recommendations on the use of VEGF inhibitor therapy for nAMD, the online PubMed database was searched for relevant articles published in the English language between 2017 and 2021. Relevant articles and data published during manuscript development were also incorporated. The recommendations presented in this paper, which take into account the latest evidence relating to pharmaceutical products and treatment regimens, were developed by the authors and subsequently reviewed, commented on, and endorsed by a majority of the Vision Academy. For each proposed recommendation, respondents were asked to rate their agreement using a 5-point categorical scale: ‘strongly agree’, ‘agree’, ‘neither agree nor disagree’, ‘disagree’ and ‘strongly disagree’. Responses from more than 50% of the Academy were

<footnote n="1">¹Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore, Singapore. ²Department of Ophthalmology, Hacettepe University, School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey. ³Charité – University Medicine Berlin, Berlin, Germany. ⁴Camden Medical Centre, Singapore, Singapore. ⁵Service d'ophtalmologie, CHU Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France. ⁶University of Bordeaux, INSERM, BPH, UMR1219, F-33000, Bordeaux, France. ⁷Xiamen Eye Center, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China. ⁸Division of Ophthalmology, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. ⁹Department of Ophthalmology, Lund University Hospital, Lund, Sweden. ¹⁰Retina and Vitreous Department, Institute of Ocular Microsurgery, Barcelona, Spain. ¹¹Department of Ophthalmology, Kyorin University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. ¹²Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK. ¹³Fundación Oftalmológica Nacional, Escuela de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, Colombia. ¹⁴Unity Health Toronto – St. Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. ¹⁵Macula, Vitreous and Retina Associates of Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica. ¹⁶Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. ¹⁷Department of Ophthalmology, Centre for Vision Research, Westmead Institute for Medical Research, the University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. ¹⁸Hamilton Regional Eye Institute, St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, Canada. ¹⁹Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. ²⁰Department of Medicine – Ophthalmology, University of Udine, Udine, Italy. ²⁸email: gmstyck@nus.edu.sg</footnote>
required for the survey to be valid. To assess any influence of the healthcare system on the survey responses, respondents were additionally asked for the reimbursement status of treatment in their country of practice (reimbursed, 'out-of-pocket' or a combination of the two). Biases were assessed using $\chi^2$. Endorsement was established if 50% or more of respondents indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed with a recommendation; consensus was considered "strong" if greater than 75% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed. The list of Vision Academy members and mentees who contributed to the recommendations is provided at the end of this article.

## EVIDENCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE TREATMENT OF NAMD WITH VEGF INHIBITORS

Recommendations for the treatment of nAMD, with supporting evidence, are detailed below. The recommendations are divided according to the phase of treatment, allowing the physician to follow the recommendations and the supporting evidence chronologically over the course of a patient's treatment journey. The recommendations were formulated by the authors of the manuscript and submitted to the entire Vision Academy membership for endorsement; 55 responses (including from the authors) were received. Overall, the recommendations were endorsed by 95.5% of the respondents (a response of 'agree' or 'strongly agree'), with the level of endorsement for each individual recommendation ranging from 89.1% to 98.2%. The mean (range) rate of non-endorsement was 3.2% (1.8–5.5%) for a response of either 'disagree' or 'strongly disagree', and 1.4% (0–5.5%) for a response of 'neither agree nor disagree'. (It should be noted that these recommendations represent the ideal scenario, and full implementation may not be possible in all clinics).

### Early treatment phase

*Early intervention.* On establishing the diagnosis of nAMD, early commencement of VEGF inhibitor therapy has been found to maximise visual outcomes. A prolonged delay between the first reported symptoms and the first administration of VEGF inhibitor therapy has been found to be a significant predictor of poor visual outcomes, with a 2.6-fold increase in the risk of poor vision with a delay of >21 weeks compared to >7 weeks [10]. Studies of nAMD in fellow eyes show considerably better outcomes when treatment is commenced early because the fellow eyes benefit from opportunistic monitoring during visits intended for the affected eye [11–13]. Early, favourable response is also associated with improved visual outcomes for up to 3 years [14]. Early intervention is, however, contingent on patients presenting with early disease, which may go unnoticed if their vision remains good [15]. Strategies to mitigate the risk of early disease being missed include the monitoring of high-risk eyes or the use of novel models of care, such as self-monitoring [16–20]. Innovative deep-learning techniques applied to retinal multimodal imaging may also help to predict the time to first onset of treatable disease [21–25].

*Early intensive treatment.* Early intensive treatment has also been associated with favourable outcomes [26]. A retrospective analysis from the UK found greater visual improvements in patients who underwent a loading phase at the start of treatment (the first three doses received within 90 days) versus those who did not [27]. Eyes with treatment intervals of more than 5 weeks initially required a much longer time to achieve disease quiescence compared with those that received 4-weekly treatment, and required twice as many injections over time [28].

**Recommendation 1:** Early intensive treatment to maximise visual outcomes: Treatment should commence as soon as disease

activity is detected; however, this can be challenging as patients may not be aware that their symptoms herald a more serious condition. Early intensive treatment should be considered to achieve disease quiescence rapidly and maximise visual outcomes in the long term.

### Treatment regimen after the loading phase

The high treatment burden of monthly treatments as per landmark trials is untenable in real-world practice. Subsequent trials were designed specifically to overcome this clinical challenge by evaluating the efficacy of non-monthly or variable treatment regimens.

*Quarterly dosing.* In the PIER (Phase 3b, multicentre, randomised, double-masked, sham injection-controlled study of the efficacy and safety of ranibizumab in subjects with subfoveal CNV with or without classic CNV secondary to AMD) study where treatment was administered quarterly, vision in the ranibizumab 0.3 mg and 0.5 mg groups decreased by 1.6 and 0.2 ETDRS letters, respectively, from baseline to 12 months [29]. The EXCITE (Efficacy and Safety of Ranibizumab in subjects with Subfoveal and CNV secondary to AMD) study, which compared quarterly versus monthly dosing, reported vision gains of 4.0 versus 8.0 ETDRS letters [30].

Non-fixed-dose regimens, which are designed to personalise nAMD treatment, include two treatment strategies in use today: the as-needed, or *pro re nata* (PRN), and the treat-and-extend (T&E) regimens [31–35]. A key component of non-monthly regimens is the assessment of disease activity. Most studies use a combination of visual acuity and anatomical features to assess the status of disease; these can vary from study to study, but generally follow similar principles. Signs of disease activity include vision loss related to the disease, the presence of intraretinal fluid and/or subretinal fluid (SRF) detected on optical coherence tomography (OCT), and increased or new haemorrhage [2, 33, 36–39].

*As-needed (pro re nata) regimens.* The PRN treatment strategy is a reactive approach to therapy and dictates that treatment be administered when the disease is active and withheld when it is quiescent. Assessment must be performed monthly, which contributes to the overall burden of clinical care and may be untenable in practice [40]. While outcomes were equivalent with PRN and fixed dosing in the CATT study [41], a meta-analysis showed that outcomes with the PRN approach were consistently inferior to those with either fixed or T&E regimens in both clinical trials and real-world settings [5].

*Treat-and-extend regimens.* The T&E strategy is a proactive approach that requires treatment to be administered at every visit even if the disease is quiescent, with the subsequent treatment interval being determined by the disease activity status. T&E allows for longer treatment intervals during periods of disease quiescence but requires the patient to receive treatment despite quiescent disease. The T&E regimen investigated in early trials used a 2-week treatment interval extension up to a maximum of 12 weeks if the disease was continuously quiescent. The treatment interval was reduced by 2 weeks from the previous interval if disease activity was detected [36–38].

The three landmark trials that established the T&E regimen as a viable treatment strategy were the TREX [42], TREND [37] and CANTREAT [36] studies. These studies compared T&E versus monthly regimens and found no significant difference in visual outcomes. The TREX, TREND and CANTREAT studies reported non-significant differences of 1.8 [42], -1.9 [37] and 0.9 [36] letters respectively between groups, and a subsequent meta-analysis including TREX and TREND reported similar findings [43]. The number of treatments was significantly reduced in the T&E versus
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Summary of key trials that compared vision outcomes with three different regimens: monthly, PRNª, and T&Eᵇ.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>HARBOR [85]</th><th>CATT [86]</th><th>IVAN [39]</th><th>TREND [37]</th><th>TREX [42]</th><th>ALTAIR [52]</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Duration, years</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Mean VA change, ETDRS letters, monthly regimen<sup>c</sup></td><td>10.1</td><td>8.8 ± 15.9</td><td>6.1 ± 14.0</td><td>8.1 ± 10.6</td><td>10.5 ± 14.1</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Mean VA change, ETDRS letters, PRN regimen<sup>c</sup></td><td>8.6</td><td>6.7 ± 4.6</td><td>5.0 ± 11.1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Mean VA change, ETDRS letters, T&E regimen (2-weekly extensions)<sup>c</sup></td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>6.2 ± 4.5</td><td>8.7 ± 7.3</td><td>7.6 (5, 10.3)<sup>d,e</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Mean VA change, ETDRS letters, T&E regimen (4-weekly extensions)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>6.1 (3.1, 9.0)<sup>d,e</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Number of treatments in the T&E/PRN arm, mean (SD)</td><td>6.9 (2.4)<br>PRN</td><td>12.6 (6.6)<br>rahibizumab 0.5 mg</td><td>10 (6, 12)<sup>f</sup><br>PRN</td><td>8.1 (2.7)<br>rahibizumab 0.5 mg T&E</td><td>10.1 (7-13)<sup>g</sup><br>rahibizumab 0.5 mg T&E</td><td>10.4 (2.6) with 2-week extension, aflibercept 2 mg<br>10.4 (2.4) with 4-week extension, aflibercept 2 mg</td></tr></tbody></table><p><sup>a</sup>Monthly visits to monitor lesion activity, and treatment administered only when lesion is active.</p><p><sup>b</sup>Treatment is administered at every visit but the interval between visits varies depending on lesion activity.</p><p><sup>c</sup>Expressed as mean letter score ± SD. In the HARBOR study only, expressed as mean letter score.</p><p><sup>d</sup>Expressed as mean letter score (95% CI).</p><p><sup>e</sup>Retreatment regimen in the ALTAIR study also allowed for maintenance of the treatment interval if the residual fluid had decreased from the previous visit, even with persistent fluid.</p><p><sup>f</sup>Expressed as median (1st, 3rd quartile).</p><p><sup>g</sup>Expressed as mean (range).</p><p><sup>h</sup>ETDRS Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study, PRN pro re nata (as-needed), T&E treat-and-extend, VA visual acuity.</p>

the monthly arms in all studies (Tables 1 and 2) [36–38].

In terms of real-world data, an observational study conducted in Switzerland showed 8- and 5-letter gains at Year 1 and 2 respectively, with a mean of 8.3 aflibercept injections administered during Year 1 and 5.4 aflibercept injections administered during Year 2 [44]. The Fight Retinal Blindness! registry reported a gain of 8 letters over 24 months with a mean of 14 injections in patients on a T&E regimen [26], with most eyes maintaining vision gains for up to 3 years [45]. Longer-term results demonstrated an improvement of almost 2 lines at 6 years where patients were able to persist with T&E [46]. An observational study using the Fight Retinal Blindness! platform compared T&E versus fixed bimonthly regimens in patients with nAMD, and found similar clinical outcomes and median number of injections with the two approaches at 12 months; however, T&E resulted in a wider distribution of injection frequencies [47].

**T&E versus PRN.** A systematic review of 62 PRN and 8 T&E studies found better outcomes with T&E (10-letter gain with 8.1 injections) versus PRN regimens (5.4-letter gain with 5.6 injections) [48]. A recent meta-analysis also demonstrated better outcomes with T&E versus the PRN approach in clinical trials and real-world settings, as well as across different agent types [5].

**Tailored T&E regimens.** Several clinical trials aimed to modify the “traditional” T&E regimen (2-week steps, with a 12-week maximum interval) by allowing for intervals to be extended or maintained at their current length, depending on disease severity. This “tailored” T&E regimen is included in our algorithm recommended for the treatment of nAMD (Fig. 1). A notable difference in these “tailored” versus “traditional” T&E regimens was the differentiation of SRF as a marker of reduced disease severity (Table 3). While any fluid (subretinal or intraretinal) was previously considered a sign of disease activity that required treatment intervals to be shortened, recent evidence has shown that stable SRF may be tolerated [49]. This was demonstrated in the FLUID study, which allowed intervals to be extended in the presence of SRF only [50], and the ARIES trial, which demonstrated good outcomes by allowing for interval extension if SRF did not exceed a thickness of 50 µm [51]. Another notable difference between “tailored” and “traditional” T&E regimens is the increased length of treatment intervals and the longest permissible interval. The ALTAIR trial studied a 4-week step allowing for intervals of up to 16 weeks [51, 52]. The study design also allowed for intervals to be (1) extended if no fluid was detected, (2) maintained if fluid was present but decreasing, and (3) shortened if there was persistent or unchanged fluid (Fig. 2). These varying treatment intervals and stratification of disease severity meant that patients could be treated with a much more personalised regimen than could have been achieved with the traditional T&E strategy.

Novel automated algorithms have been developed to evaluate retinal fluid volumes to the level of nanolitres, which can be used as a new marker of disease severity [53–57] (in addition to SRF) to guide the ongoing treatment of nAMD [58].

The value of longer treatment intervals was particularly apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to severe restrictions on healthcare provision, with impacts on treatment for nAMD [59–61]. As a result, strategies have evolved to centre on control of the disease, including the introduction of “treatment only” visits and the extension of treatment intervals in cases of stable disease [62–64]. Table 2 summarises the current evidence from various meta-analyses on the use of the T&E regimen.

**Observe and plan.** The “observe and plan” strategy aims to reduce the number of monitoring visits by attempting to predict the regularity of treatment needs. This approach is intended to address the frequent monitoring visits borne by patients on PRN
<table><caption>**Table 2.** Summary of recent meta-analyses comparing T&E and alternative regimens.</caption><thead><tr><th>Study</th><th>Comparisons</th><th>Duration, months</th><th>Design of included studies</th><th>Vision outcomes</th><th>Treatment load</th><th>Remarks</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Okada, 2018 [43]</td><td>T&E vs PRN (2 studies)</td><td>12</td><td>RCT</td><td>Favours T&E +6.18 letters (95% CI: 3.28, 9.08)</td><td>T&E: more injections (1.44 more injections in T&E vs PRN)</td><td>T&E was found to be comparable to monthly (with fewer injections) and superior to PRN dosing for both vision gains and safety outcomes when using ranibizumab</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>T&E vs monthly (2 studies)</td><td>24</td><td></td><td>Similar -1.79 letters (95% CI: 3.7, 0.13)</td><td>T&E: fewer injections (-1.6 [12 months]) and -6.9 [24 months])</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Fallico, 2021 [87]</td><td>T&E vs monthly (4 studies)</td><td>12</td><td>RCT</td><td>Similar SMD = -0.08 (95% CI: -0.20, 0.35)</td><td>T&E: fewer injections SMD = -1.11 (95% CI: -1.67, -0.56)</td><td>T&E was comparable to a fixed monthly regimen throughout a 24-month follow-up and with a lower number of injections</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>T&E vs monthly (2 studies)</td><td>24</td><td></td><td>Similar SMD = -0.04 (95% CI: -0.13, 0.21)</td><td>T&E: fewer injections SMD = -1.34 (95% CI: -1.54, -1.15)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Li, 2020 [48]</td><td>T&E vs monthly (3 studies)</td><td>12</td><td>RCT</td><td>Similar +0.5 letters (95% CI: -3.1, 4.2)</td><td>T&E: fewer injections -2.4 injections (95% CI -2.7, -2.1)</td><td>The T&E group was sub-analysed as part of a larger PRN group. The authors concluded that while monthly regimens were more effective than PRN (whole group), the difference was small and clinically insignificant</td></tr><tr><td>Kim, 2016 [88]</td><td>T&E vs PRN (42 studies)</td><td>12</td><td>RWE</td><td>Favours T&E (+8.8 letters vs +3.5 letters with PRN)</td><td>T&E: more injections (6.9 injections vs 4.7 with PRN)</td><td>Although more injections were administered in the T&E group, fewer visits were needed. The authors concluded that over the long term, visual outcomes are dependent on the frequency of injections</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>24</td><td></td><td>Favours T&E (+6.7 letters vs +1.3 letters with PRN)</td><td>-</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>36</td><td></td><td>Favours T&E (+5.4 letters vs -1.9 letters with PRN)</td><td>-</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

PRN pro re nata (as-needed), RCT randomised controlled trial, RWE real-world evidence, SMD standardised mean difference, T&E treat-and-extend.
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** Algorithm for the treatment of nAMD. nAMD neovascular age-related macular degeneration, T&E treat-and-extend.</figcaption></figure>

regimens, as well as the potential overtreatment of patients on T&E regimens. Briefly, the stable treatment intervals are determined by monthly evaluations, and treatment is administered at that interval without intervening monitoring visits for 2–3 cycles. A reassessment is performed following these cycles to enable interval adjustment for ongoing treatment [65].

**VEGF inhibitor agents and regular extended intervals.** The choice of agent is often dependent on physician preference, which, in turn, can depend on disease subtype and/or the financial status of the patient and prevailing healthcare reimbursement rules. For example, some physicians may choose to commence treatment with aflibercept in patients with polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy, especially if photodynamic therapy with verteporfin is not available. Objectively, this could be due to the existing evidence suggesting that aflibercept may be equally effective as monotherapy as when coupled with photodynamic rescue therapy [66].

An agent's durability of action can be another consideration in treatment selection. This durability is a product of both the drug's half-life and drug clearance by the individual patient. If the half-life can be accurately determined, physicians may be able to administer agents suited to extended treatment intervals specific to individual patients. A recent mathematical modelling study found that an unbound VEGF level below 0.001% is required to prevent clinical manifestations of disease and vision loss and that this level can be maintained with fixed 12-weekly dosing of aflibercept, compared with 8-weekly dosing of either ranibizumab or bevacizumab or 10-weekly dosing of brolucizumab [67].

In clinical trials, brolucizumab and farcimab have demonstrated the potential to support extended regular treatment intervals of 12 weeks and 16 weeks, respectively [3, 68]. At these intervals, the treatment burden is considerably reduced compared with monthly or bimonthly injections. The TENAYA and LUCERNE trials established non-inferiority between farcimab 6 mg administered at intervals of up to 16 weeks and aflibercept 2 mg administered every 8 weeks. Nearly 80% of patients in these two Phase 3 trials were able to complete treatment on intervals of at least 12 weeks, with around 45% completing on 16-week intervals [68]. It should be noted, however, that extended intervals of these lengths are not suitable for all patients, and that they require disease activity monitoring visits, which may not be easy to implement in

clinical practice [3, 68]. Nonetheless, the above studies demonstrated the feasibility of longer regular intervals for the majority of patients [3, 68].

New formulations of established drugs, such as aflibercept 8 mg, may also provide greater efficacy and/or durability than currently available options. In the Phase 2 CANDELA trial, a greater proportion of eyes treated with aflibercept 8 mg versus 2 mg achieved a fluid-free centre subfield at Week 16 (51% versus 34%) [69]. In the follow-up Phase 3 PULSAR trial, mean increases of 5.6 and 5.5 letters were observed at Week 96 in patients treated with aflibercept 8 mg at 12- and 16-week intervals, respectively, with 88% of patients reaching a last assigned dosing interval of ≥12 weeks, 71% of patients reaching an interval of ≥16 weeks and 47% of patients reaching an interval of ≥20 weeks at the end of the 2-year study. The vision gains achieved with these extended intervals were similar to the 6.6-letter gain in patients treated with aflibercept 2 mg at 8-week intervals [70].

While new agents and formulations show potential for increased efficacy and durability and could change the landscape of treatment for nAMD, caution should be exercised in their use, and close monitoring for adverse events is necessary.

**Recommendation 2:** A treat-and-extend regimen should be commenced after lesion quiescence is achieved: Current evidence suggests that T&E is the most balanced treatment strategy in terms of good visual outcomes versus treatment burden [5, 71, 72]. T&E regimens allow for forward planning of visits but at the expense of potential overtreatment. Globally, many ophthalmologists have pivoted to T&E regimens to mitigate a high treatment burden [73].

In some cases, nAMD lesions can be aggressive and disease quiescence cannot be achieved despite regular and frequent treatments over an extended period [74–76]. These eyes fall broadly into the category of refractory/treatment-resistant nAMD.

Strategies that have been shown to be effective in these eyes include switching anti-VEGF agents or increasing VEGF dose [77], while evidence for other strategies, such as increasing dosing frequency, is limited [78].

**Recommendation 3:** Tailored treatment interval extensions: When commencing a T&E regimen after initial disease quiescence, treatment intervals can be tailored according to disease severity rather than the presence of disease activity.
<table><caption>**Table 3.** Definitions of disease activity in different trials.</caption><thead><tr><td>Study</td><td>Treatment protocol</td><td>Criteria for lesion activity</td><td>Follow-up investigations</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>CATT [86]</td><td>PRN</td><td><ul><li>Fluid on OCT</li><li>New or persistent haemorrhage</li><li>Decreased VA compared with the previous examination</li><li>Dye leakage or increased lesion size on FA</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Monthly TD-OCT</li><li>FA at the discretion of the ophthalmologist</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>IVAN [39]</td><td>PRN</td><td><ul><li>Any SRF or increasing IRF on OCT</li><li>Fresh blood</li><li>VA loss of 10 letters</li><li>Fluorescein leakage 25% of the lesion circumference or expansion of CNV</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Monthly OCT</li><li>Monthly fundus photo</li><li>FA at the discretion of the ophthalmologist</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>GEFAL [2]</td><td>PRN</td><td><ul><li>Loss of 5 letters with no obvious atrophy or subretinal fibrosis and with fluid on OCT</li><li>Active exudation on OCT (SRF unless stable since the last 3 monthly injections, macular oedema with IRF, or increase in central subfield macular thickness of at least 50 µm compared with the previous examination)</li><li>Increased CNV area or persistence of leakage on FA</li><li>New or persistent subretinal or intraretinal macular haemorrhage</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Monthly TD/SD-OCT</li><li>Monthly fundus photo</li><li>FA and/or ICGA at the investigator's discretion (mandatory only at baseline and 12 months)</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>HARBOR [85]</td><td>PRN</td><td><ul><li>Five-letter decrease in VA from the previous visit</li><li>Any evidence of disease activity on SD-OCT</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Monthly SD-OCT</li><li>FA and fundus photography at baseline and at Months 3, 6 and 12</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>ALTAIR [52]</td><td>T&E</td><td><ul><li>New or persistent fluid or increased fluid volume from visit as indicated by OCT</li><li>Loss of ≥5 letters from the previous visit with recurrent fluid on OCT</li><li>An increase in CRT of ≥100 µm at the central 1 mm compared with the lowest previous value on OCT</li><li>New-onset neovascularisation as determined at the investigator's discretion</li><li>New macular haemorrhage</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>SD-OCT</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>TREND [37]</td><td>T&E</td><td><ul><li>SD-OCT according to the investigator's assessment (presence of IRF or SRF)</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>SD-OCT</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>TREX [72]</td><td>T&E</td><td><ul><li>IRF and SRF on SD-OCT</li><li>Subretinal and intraretinal haemorrhage</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>SD-OCT</li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table>

CNV choroidal neovascularisation, CRT central retinal thickness, FA fluorescein angiography, ICGA indocyanine green angiography, IRF intraretinal fluid, OCT optical coherence tomography, PRN pro re nata (as-needed), SD-OCT spectral-domain optical coherence tomography, SRF subretinal fluid, T&E treat-and-extend, TD-OCT time-domain optical coherence tomography, VA visual acuity.

Disease severity can be contingent on fluid type and the nature of the disease, and its assessment may incorporate newer computational imaging techniques in the future. Despite good outcomes in patients treated with extended longer intervals and tolerance of some disease activity, more intensive treatment may be considered for patients treated for nAMD in their only seeing eye.

## Long-term treatment and treatment cessation

Real-world evidence is key to making informed decisions about long-term treatment and cessation, as it is impractical and costly to continue randomised controlled trials over several years. Long-term results from real-world studies have shown that most eyes are able to maintain vision gains on a T&E regimen after 2 years [45]. A recent report of 10-year real-world outcomes from two regions applying different treatment regimens found that patients in Australia and New Zealand, where a T&E strategy was followed, maintained their vision at baseline levels; by contrast, patients receiving PRN treatment in Switzerland lost approximately 15 letters [79]. This difference could have been due to eyes on the T&E regimen receiving more injections than those following the PRN strategy, resulting in better control of disease activity.

## Recommendation 4: Long-term treatment and suspension

Treatment should be continued for as long as it remains tolerable to the patient. Long intervals between treatments can be

considered in quiescent disease states, to allow background control of the disease. When vision is good, treatment suspension may be attempted in consultation with the patient, but close follow-up with OCT monitoring should be performed to ensure timely treatment if disease reactivation occurs. Treatment suspension should be strongly considered in patients where further treatment is futile, and where no further gains in vision are possible [80]. The status of the fellow eye is also important when considering treatment suspension. Caution should be exercised when considering suspension in cases where the better-seeing eye is undergoing treatment and end-stage AMD has developed in the other eye.

## Practical and novel aspects of initiating T&E in a clinical setting

T&E regimens consist of two main components: the assessment of disease severity, which results in a decision regarding treatment interval length, and administration of the treatment. These two components can be performed in the same visit (one-stop) or separate visits (two-stop). One-stop delivery is preferred; however, this can result in long visit times and constraints in terms of clinic resources. A two-stop model results in a shorter visit time but patients are required to attend more visits. Another consideration is bilateral treatment on the same day if both eyes are affected, which can significantly reduce the treatment burden [81]. There
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** T&E interval criteria: ALTAIR versus traditional. <sup>a</sup>As assessed by OCT. <sup>b</sup>Loss of ≥5 ETDRS letters from the last treatment visit in conjunction with recurrent fluid on OCT. <sup>c</sup>Increase in CRT of ≥100 µm compared with the lowest previous value on OCT. CRT central retinal thickness, ETDRS Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study, IRF intraretinal fluid, nAMD neovascular age-related macular degeneration, OCT optical coherence tomography, SRF subretinal fluid, T&E treat-and-extend.</figcaption></figure>

is, however, a risk that treatment intervals for the second eye are extended more quickly than would otherwise be the case, to match the intervals for the first affected eye, which are often longer than those for the second eye. This has been shown to be detrimental to long-term vision outcomes in the second affected eye and should therefore be avoided [82]. Eyes should be considered and treated individually, defaulting to the eye with the shorter interval in the case where patients are keen to reduce visits.

The use of virtual clinics for healthcare has become increasingly acceptable following the COVID-19 pandemic [83]. This model of care is also applicable to the management of nAMD, especially in cases where only monitoring is necessary [84]. In cases where treatments are required at every visit in a T&E regimen, the virtual clinic model of care can be considered where assessments and treatment can be performed on the same day, and the decision for the next interval can be provided asynchronously by the physician at a later time.

## DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

In this article, we provide evidence and practical recommendations for the management of nAMD in today's paradigm of VEGF inhibitor therapy. Some of the recommendations serve to affirm

current practices, whilst others offer new insights that may change practice patterns. The departure from considering disease activity as binary, and accepting the concept of disease severity, can result in greater personalisation of treatment intervals. Disease severity can be measured as various aspects, including the quantification of fluid, fluid in different retina compartments, and even the location of fluid. This has become apparent with trials like PULSAR, which tolerated non-foveal fluid as part of the retreatment criteria. With greater understanding of the disease, we can determine aspects that may or may not affect functional outcomes. With new treatments on the horizon, the treatment landscape for nAMD will continue to evolve. The continued use of both clinical trials and real-world evidence will become even more important to ensure that the most effective treatments are chosen for clinical practice.

## REFERENCES

1. Rosenfeld PJ, Brown DM, Heier JS, Boyer DS, Kaiser PK, Chung CY, et al. Ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:1419-31.

2. Kodjikian L, Souied EH, Mimoun G, Mauget-Faïsse M, Behar-Cohen F, Decullier E, et al. Ranibizumab versus bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: results from the GEFAL noninferiority randomized trial. Ophthalmology. 2013;120:2300-9.

3. Dugel PU, Koh A, Ogura Y, Jaffe GJ, Schmidt-Erfurth U, Brown DM, et al. HAWK and HARRIER: phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-masked trials of brolizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2020;127:72-84.

4. Kang HM, Koh HJ. Long-term visual outcome and prognostic factors after intravitreal ranibizumab injections for polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;156:652-60.e1.

5. Veritti D, Sarao V, Soppelsa V, Danese C, Chhablani J, Lanzetta P. Managing neovascular age-related macular degeneration in clinical practice: systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression. J Clin Med. 2022;11:325.

6. Hykin P, Prevost AT, Vasconcelos JC, Murphy C, Kelly J, Ramu J, et al. Clinical effectiveness of intravitreal therapy with ranibizumab vs aflibercept vs bevacizumab for macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2019;137:1256-64.

7. Holz FG, Bandello F, Gillies M, Mitchell P, Osborne A, Sheidow T, et al. Safety of ranibizumab in routine clinical practice: 1-year retrospective pooled analysis of four European neovascular AMD registries within the LUMINOUS programme. Br J Ophthalmol. 2013;97:1161-7.

8. Rao P, Lum F, Wood K, Salman C, Burugapalli B, Hall R, et al. Real-world vision in age-related macular degeneration patients treated with single anti-VEGF drug type for 1 year in the IRIS registry. Ophthalmology. 2018;125:522-8.

9. Lanzetta P, Loewenstein A, The Vision Academy Steering Committee. Fundamental principles of an anti-VEGF treatment regimen: optimal application of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy of macular diseases. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2017;255:1259-73.

10. Lim JH, Wickremasinghe SS, Xie J, Chauhan DS, Baird PN, Robman LD, et al. Delay to treatment and visual outcomes in patients treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for age-related macular degeneration. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153:678-86.e2.

11. Zarranz-Ventura J, Liew G, Johnston RL, Xing W, Akerere T, McKibbin M, et al. The neovascular age-related macular degeneration database: Report 2: incidence, management, and visual outcomes of second treated eyes. Ophthalmology. 2014;121:1966-75.

12. Bek T, Klug SE. Incidence and risk factors for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in the fellow eye. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2018;256:2061-8.

13. Lövestam Adrian M, Schroeder M, Westborg I. What about the fellow eye in treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration? Analysis of data from the Swedish macula register. Acta Ophthalmol. 2022;100:769-74.

14. Nguyen V, Daien V, Guymer R, Young S, Hunyor A, Fraser-Bell S, et al. Projection of long-term visual acuity outcomes based on initial treatment response in neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2019;126:64-74.

15. Nguyen V, Daien V, Guymer RH, McAllister IL, Morlet N, Barthelmes D, et al. Clinical and social characteristics associated with reduced visual acuity at presentation in Australian patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a prospective study from a long-term observational data set. The Fight Retinal Blindness! Project. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2018;46:266-74.
16. Chew EY, Clemons TE, Bressler SB, Elman MJ, Danis RP, Domalpally A, et al. Randomized trial of the ForeseeHome monitoring device for early detection of neovascular age-related macular degeneration. The HHome Monitoring of the Eye (HOME) study design – HOME Study report number 1. Contemp Clin Trials. 2014;37:294–300.

17. Razavi H, Baglin E, Sharangan P, Caruso E, Tindill N, Griffin S, et al. Gaming to improve vision: 21st century self-monitoring for patients with age-related macular degeneration. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2018;46:480–4.

18. Schmid MK, Thiel MA, Lienhard K, Schlingemann RO, Faes L, Bachmann LM. Reliability and diagnostic performance of a novel mobile app for hyperacuity self-monitoring in patients with age-related macular degeneration. Eye. 2019;33:1584–9.

19. Teo KYC, Bachmann LM, Sim D, Lee SY, Tan A, Wong TY, et al. Patterns and characteristics of a clinical implementation of a self-monitoring program for retina diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ophthalmol Retina. 2021;5:1245–53.

20. Ward E, Wickens RA, O'Connell A, Culliford LA, Rogers CA, Gidman EA, et al. Monitoring for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) reactivation at home: the MONARCH study. Eye. 2021;35:592–600.

21. Grassmann F, Mengelkamp J, Brandl C, Harsch S, Zimmermann ME, Linkohr B, et al. A deep learning algorithm for prediction of age-related eye disease study severity scale for age-related macular degeneration from color fundus photography. Ophthalmology. 2018;125:1410–20.

22. Peng Y, Keenan TD, Chen Q, Agrón E, Allot A, Wong WT, et al. Predicting risk of late age-related macular degeneration using deep learning. NPJ Digit Med. 2020;3:111.

23. Russakoff DB, Lamin A, Oakley JD, Dubis AM, Sivaprasad S. Deep learning for prediction of AMD progression: a pilot study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2019;60:712–22.

24. Yan Q, Weeks DE, Xin H, Swaroop A, Chew EY, Huang H, et al. Deep-learning-based prediction of late age-related macular degeneration progression. Nat Mach Intell. 2020;2:141–50.

25. Yim J, Chopra R, Spitz T, Winkens J, Obika A, Kelly C, et al. Predicting conversion to wet age-related macular degeneration using deep learning. Nat Med. 2020;26:892–9.

26. Arnold JJ, Campain A, Barthelmes D, Simpson JM, Guymer RH, Hunyor AP, et al. Two-year outcomes of "treat and extend" intravitreal therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2015;122:1212–9.

27. Hykin P, Chakravarthy U, Lotery A, McKibbin M, Napier J, Sivaprasad S, on behalf of the AURA Study Group. A retrospective study of the real-life utilization and effectiveness of ranibizumab therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in the UK. Clin Ophthalmol. 2016;10:87–96.

28. Gillies MC, Campain A, Walton R, Simpson JM, Arnold JJ, Guymer RH, et al. Time to initial clinician-reported inactivation of neovascular age-related macular degeneration treated primarily with ranibizumab. Ophthalmology. 2015;122:589–94.e1.

29. Regillo CD, Brown DM, Abraham P, Yue H, Ianchulev T, Schneider S, et al. Randomized, double-masked, sham-controlled trial of ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: PIER Study year 1. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;145:239–48.e5.

30. Schmidt-Erfurth U, Eldem B, Guymer R, Korobelnik JF, Schlingemann RO, Aersiegel R, et al. Efficacy and safety of monthly versus quarterly ranibizumab treatment in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: the EXCITE study. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:831–9.

31. Garweg JG, Gerhardt C. Disease stability and extended dosing under anti-VEGF treatment of exudative age-related macular degeneration (AMD) – a meta-analysis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2021;259:2181–92.

32. Gemenetzi M, Patel PJ. A systematic review of the treat and extend regimen with anti-VEGF agents for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmol Ther. 2017;6:79–92.

33. Gillies MC, Hunyor AP, Arnold JJ, Guymer RH, Wolf S, Ng P, et al. Effect of ranibizumab and aflibercept on best-corrected visual acuity in treat-and-extend for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2019;137:372–9.

34. Jaki Mekjavić P, Gregorčić B, Oberč C, Podgoršek S. Treat-and-extend therapy using intravitreal aflibercept for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: 2-year real-world practice data from Slovenia. BMC Ophthalmol. 2018;18:333.

35. Nikkhah H, Karimi S, Ahmadieh H, Azarmina M, Abrishami M, Ahoor H, et al. Intravitreal injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents for ocular vascular diseases: clinical practice guideline. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2018;13:158–69.

36. Kertes PJ, Galic IJ, Greve M, Williams G, Baker J, Lahaie 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;138:244–50.

37. Silva R, Berta A, Larsen M, Macfadden W, Feller C, Monés J, on behalf of the TREND Study Group. Treat-and-extend versus monthly regimen in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: results with ranibizumab from the TREND study. Ophthalmology. 2018;125:57–65.

38. Wykoff CC, Ou WC, Brown DM, Croft DE, Wang R, Payne JF, 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;1:314–21.

39. Chakravarthy U, Harding SP, Rogers CA, Downes SM, Lotery AJ, Wordsworth S, et al. Ranibizumab versus bevacizumab to treat neovascular age-related macular degeneration: one-year findings from the IVAN randomized trial. Ophthalmology. 2012;119:1399–411.

40. García-Layana A, Figueroa MS, Araiz J, Ruiz-Moreno JM, Gómez-Ulla F, Arias-Barquet L, et al. Treatment of exudative age-related macular degeneration: focus on aflibercept. Drugs Aging. 2015;32:797–807.

41. Martin DF, Maguire MG, Ying G-S, Grunwald JE, Fine SL, Jaffe GJ. Ranibizumab and bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1897–908.

42. Wykoff CC, Croft DE, Brown DM, Wang R, Payne JF, Clark L, et al. Prospective trial of treat-and-extend versus monthly dosing for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: TREX-AMD 1-year results. Ophthalmology. 2015;122:2514–22.

43. Okada M, Kandasamy R, Chong EW, McGuiness M, Guymer RH. The treat-and-extend injection regimen versus alternate dosing strategies in age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2018;192:184–97.

44. Ebneter A, Michels S, Puente C, Imesch P, Eilenberger F, Oesch S, et al. Two-year outcomes of intravitreal aflibercept in a Swiss routine treat and extend regimen for patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Sci Rep. 2020;10:20256.

45. Rayess N, Houston SK III, Gupta OP, Ho AC, Regillo CD. Treatment outcomes after 3 years in neovascular age-related macular degeneration using a treat-and-extend regimen. Am J Ophthalmol. 2015;159:3–8.e1.

46. Adrean SD, Chaili S, Ramkumar H, Pirouz A, Grant S. Consistent long-term therapy of neovascular age-related macular degeneration managed by 50 or more anti-VEGF injections using a treat-extend-stop protocol. Ophthalmology. 2018;125:1047–53.

47. Figueras-Roca M, Parrado-Carrillo A, Nguyen V, Casaroli-Marano RP, Moll-Udina A, Gillies MC, et al. Treat-and-extend versus fixed bimonthly treatment regimens for treatment-naïve neovascular age-related macular degeneration: real world data from the Fight Retinal Blindness registry. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2021;259:1463–70.

48. Li E, Donati S, Lindsley KB, Krzystolik MG, Virgili G. Treatment regimens for administration of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;5:CD012208.

49. Chaudhary V, Matonti F, Zarranz-Ventura J, Stewart MW. Impact of fluid compartments on functional outcomes for patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a systematic literature review. Retina. 2022;42:589–606.

50. Arnold JJ, Markey CM, Kurstjens NP, Guymer RH. The role of sub-retinal fluid in determining treatment outcomes in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration - a phase IV randomised clinical trial with ranibizumab: the FLUID study. BMC Ophthalmol. 2016;16:31.

51. Mitchell P, Holz FG, Hykin P, Midena E, Souied E, Allmeier H, et al. Efficacy and safety of intravitreal aflibercept using a treat-and-extend regimen for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: The ARIES study: a randomized clinical trial. Retina. 2021;41:1911–20.

52. Ohji M, Takahashi K, Okada AA, Kobayashi M, Matsuda Y, Terano Y. 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;37:1173–87.

53. Chakravarthy U, Goldenberg D, Young G, Havilio M, Rafaeli O, Benyamini G, et al. Automated identification of lesion activity in neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2016;123:1731–6.

54. Pawloff M, Bogunovic H, Gruber A, Michl M, Riedl S, Schmidt-Erfurth U. Systematic correlation of central subfield thickness with retinal fluid volumes quantified by deep learning in the major exudative macular diseases. Retina. 2022;42:831–41.

55. Waldstein SM, Philip A-M, Leitner R, Simader C, Langs G, Gerendas BS, et al. Correlation of 3-dimensionally quantified intraretinal and subretinal fluid with visual acuity in neovascular age-related macular degeneration. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016;134:182–90.

56. Schlegl T, Waldstein SM, Bogunovic H, Endstraßer F, Sadeghipour A, Philip AM, et al. Fully automated detection and quantification of macular fluid in OCT using deep learning. Ophthalmology. 2018;125:549–58.
57. Martin-Pinardel R, Izquierdo-Serra J, De Zanet S, Parrado-Carrillo A, Garay-Aramburu G, Puzo M, et al. Artificial intelligence-based fluid quantification and associated visual outcomes in a real-world, multicentre neovascular age-related macular degeneration national database. Br J Ophthalmol. 2024;108:253-62.

58. Keenan TDL, Chakravarthy U, Loewenstein A, Chew EY, Schmidt-Erfurth U. Automated quantitative assessment of retinal fluid volumes as important biomarkers in neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Am J Ophthalmol. 2021;224:267-81.

59. Stattin M, Ahmed D, Graf A, Haas A-M, Kickinger J, Jacob M, et al. The effect of treatment discontinuation during the COVID-19 pandemic on visual acuity in exudative neovascular age-related macular degeneration: 1-year results. Ophthalmol Ther. 2021;10:935-45.

60. Arruabarrena C, Toro MD, Onen M, Malyugin BE, Rejdak R, Tognetto D, et al. Impact on visual acuity in neovascular age related macular degeneration (nAMD) in Europe due to COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. J Clin Med. 2021;10:3281.

61. Zarranz-Ventura J, Nguyen V, Creuzot-Garcher C, Verbraak F, O'Toole L, Invernizzi A, et al. International impact of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown on intravitreal therapy outcomes: Fight Retinal Blindness Registry. Retina. 2022;42:616-27.

62. Montesel A, Gigon A, Giacuzzo C, Mantel I, Eandi CM. Treatment deferral during COVID-19 lockdown: functional and anatomical impact on patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Retina. 2022;42:634-42.

63. Teo KYC, Nguyen V, Barthelmes D, Arnold JJ, Gillies MC, Cheung CGM. Extended intervals for wet AMD patients with high retreatment needs: informing the risk during COVID-19, data from real-world evidence. Eye. 2021;35:2793-801.

64. Teo KYC, Chan RVP, Cheung CGM. Keeping our eyecare providers and patients safe during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eye. 2020;34:1161-2.

65. Parvin P, Zola M, Dirani A, Ambresin A, Mantel I. Two-year outcome of an observe-and-plan regimen for neovascular age-related macular degeneration treated with aflibercept. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2017;255: 2127-34.

66. Lee WK, Iida T, Ogura Y, Chen SJ, Wong TY, Mitchell P, et al. Efficacy and safety of intravitreal aflibercept for polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy in the PLANET study: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2018;136:786-93.

67. Veritti D, Sarao V, Gorni G, Lanzetta P. Anti-VEGF drugs dynamics: relevance for clinical practice. Pharmaceutics. 2022;14:265.

68. Heier JS, Khanani AM, Quezada Ruiz C, Basu K, Ferrone PJ, Brittain C, et al. Efficacy, durability, and safety of intravitreal faricimab up to every 16 weeks for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (TENAYA AND LUCERNE): two randomised, double-masked, phase 3, non-inferiority trials. Lancet. 2022;399:729-40.

69. Wykoff CC, Brown DM, Reed K, Berliner AJ, Gerstenblith AT, Breazna A, et al. Effect of high-dose intravitreal aflibercept, 8 mg, in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration: the phase 2 CANDELA randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2023;141:834-42.

70. Lanzetta P, Schulze A, Schmidt-Ott U, Zhang X, Berliner A, Chu K, et al. Intravitreal aflibercept 8 mg injection in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration: 60-week and 96-week results from the Phase 3 PULSAR trial. Presented at the European Society of Retina Specialists (EURETINA) Congress, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 5-8 October 2023.

71. Abdin AD, Suffo S, Asi F, Langenbucher A, Seitz B. Intravitreal ranibizumab versus aflibercept following treat and extend protocol for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2019;257:1671-7.

72. Wykoff CC, Ou WC, Croft DE, Payne JF, Brown DM, Clark WL, et al. Neovascular age-related macular degeneration management in the third year: final results from the TREX-AMD randomised trial. Br J Ophthalmol. 2018;102:460-4.

73. Singh RP, Stone TW, Hahn P, eds. 2019 Global Trends in Retina Survey. Chicago, IL: American Society of Retina Specialists; 2019.

74. Kumar N, Marsiglia M, Mrejen S, Fung AT, Slakter J, Sorenson J, et al. Visual and anatomical outcomes of intravitreal aflibercept in eyes with persistent subfoveal fluid despite previous treatments with ranibizumab in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Retina. 2013;33:1605-12.

75. Schachat AP. Switching anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;156:1-2.E1.

76. Chang AA, Li H, Broadhead GK, Hong T, Schlub TE, Wijeyakumar W, et al. Intravitreal aflibercept for treatment-resistant neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2014;121:188-92.

77. Brown DM, Chen E, Mariani A, Major JC Jr., Save Study Group. Super-dose Anti-VEGF (SAVE) trial: 2.0 mg intravitreal ranibizumab for recalcitrant neovascular macular degeneration—primary end point. Ophthalmology. 2013;120:349-54.

78. Mimouni M, Meshi A, Vainer I, Gershoni A, Koren T, Geffen N, et al. Bevacizumab dosing every 2 weeks for neovascular age-related macular degeneration refractory to monthly dosing. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2018;62:652-8.

79. Gillies M, Arnold J, Bhandari S, Essex RW, Young S, Squirrel D, et al. Ten-year treatment outcomes of neovascular age-related macular degeneration from two regions. Am J Ophthalmol. 2020;210:116-24.

80. Wong DT, Lambrou GN, Loewenstein A, Pearce I, Okada AA, on behalf of the Vision Academy Steering Committee. Suspending treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration in cases of futility. Retina. 2020;40:1010-20.

81. Juncal VR, Francisconi CLM, Altomare F, Chow DR, Giavedoni LR, Muni RH, et al. Same-day bilateral intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections: experience of a large Canadian retina center. Ophthalmologica. 2019;242:1-7.

82. Cornish EE, Teo KY, Nguyen V, Squirrel D, Young S, Gillies MC, et al. Five-year incidence and visual acuity outcomes for intravitreal therapy in bilateral neovascular age-related macular degeneration: Fight Retinal Blindness! project. Retina. 2021;41:118-24.

83. Gilbert AW, Billany JCT, Adam R, Martin L, Tobin R, Bagdai S, et al. Rapid implementation of virtual clinics due to COVID-19: report and early evaluation of a quality improvement initiative. BMJ Open Qual. 2020;9:e000985.

84. Lee JX, Manjunath V, Talks SJ. Expanding the role of medical retina virtual clinics using multimodal ultra-widefield and optical coherence tomography imaging. Clin Ophthalmol. 2018;12:2337-45.

85. Busbee BG, Ho AC, Brown DM, Heier JS, Suñer IJ, Li Z, et al. Twelve-month efficacy and safety of 0.5 mg or 2.0 mg ranibizumab in patients with subfoveal neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2013;120:1046-56.

86. Martin DF, Maguire MG, Fine SL, Ying G-S, Jaffe GJ, Grunwald JE, et al. Ranibizumab and bevacizumab for treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: two-year results. Ophthalmology. 2012;119:1388-98.

87. Fallico M, Lotery AJ, Longo A, Avitabile T, Bonfiglio V, Russo A, et al. Treat and extend versus fixed regimen in neovascular age related macular degeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2021;31:2496-504.

88. Kim LN, Mehta H, Barthelmes D, Nguyen V, Gillies MC. Metaanalysis of real-world outcomes of intravitreal ranibizumab for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Retina. 2016;36:1418-31.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Editorial assistance was provided by Elle Lindsay, PhD, and Rebecca Fletcher, BA (Hons), of Complete HealthVizion, Ltd, IPG Health Medical Communications, funded by Bayer Consumer Care AG, Pharmaceuticals Division, Basel, Switzerland.

## AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

KYCT was responsible for the initial preparation of the manuscript. All authors were involved in the initial discussions on the most effective treatment patterns for VEGF inhibitor therapy in nAMD, which contributed to the concept and design of the manuscript, developed the recommendations included in the "Evidence and recommendations for the treatment of nAMD with VEGF inhibitors" section, and provided critical revision of, and feedback on, the manuscript.

Additional contributors. The authors would like to thank the members of the Vision Academy who aided the development of the Vision Academy recommendations. The following Vision Academy members and mentees reviewed and commented on the original recommendations drafted by the authors, thereby significantly contributing to the development and finalisation of the recommendations presented in this manuscript: Aude Ambresin, Winfried Amoaku, Jennifer Arnold, Tariq Aslam, Stéphanie Baillif, Vilma Jürate Balčiūnienė, Daniel Barthelmes, Ángela Carneiro, Woohyok Chang, Martin Charles, Lee Jen Chen, Shih-Jen Chen, Chiu Ming Gemmy Cheung, Alan Cruess, Carla Danese, Corinne Dot, Nicole Eter, Michael Fielden, Robert Finger, Kenneth Fong, Luisa Frizziero, Richard Gale, Sarra Gattoussi, Nicola Ghazi, Robyn Guymer, David Keegan, Andrii Korol, Anthony Kwan, Timothy Lai, Wai-Ching Lam, Thibaud Mathis, Polona Jaki Mekjavić, Toshinori Murata, Sawsan Nowilaty, Mali Okada, Hernan A. Rios, Taiji Sakamoto, Günhal Şatrtav, Sobha Sivaprasad, Eric Souied, Ahmed Souka, James Talks, Wee-Min Teh, Hiroko Terasaki, Akitaka Tsujikawa, Aisté Varoniukaite, Raül Vélez-Montoya, Francesco Viola, Sebastian Waldstein, Tien Yin Wong, Yasuo Yanagi, Young Hee Yoon and Martin Zinkernagel.

## COMPETING INTERESTS

KYCT: Consultancy fees, honorarium, travel support and speaker fees from Bayer, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Topcon and Carl Zeiss AG, outside the submitted work. Member of the Eye editorial board. PL: Consultant for Aerie, AbbVie, Apellis, Bausch & Lomb, Bayer, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, Novartis, Ocular Therapeutix, Outlook Therapeutics and Roche. BE: Consultant for Allergan, Bayer, Novartis and Roche. AJ: Personal fees from Novartis, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Allergan and Boehringer Ingelheim, as well as grants from Novartis and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals. AK: AbbVie, Alcon, Apellis, Bayer, Boehringer Mannheim, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Heidelberg, Janssen, Nikon-Optos, Novartis, Roche and Topcon. J-FK: Consultant for Allergan/AbbVie, Apellis, Bayer, Carl Zeiss Meditec,
Janssen, Nano Retina, Roche and Théa, and is a member of the Data and Safety Monitoring Boards for Alexion and Novo Nordisk. XL: No financial interests to report. AL: Consultant for Allergan, Annexon, Bayer Healthcare, Beyeonics, Biogen, ForSight Labs, IQVIA, Iveric Bio, Johnson & Johnson, MJH Events, Nano Retina, Notal Vision, Novartis, Ocuphire Pharma, OcuTerra, OphtiMedRx, Roche, Ripple Therapeutics, Syneos, WebMD and Xbrane. ML-A: Consultant for Allergan/AbbVie, Apellis, Bayer, Novartis, Roche and Santen. RN: Honoraria for consultancy and lecture fees from Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals and Allergan. AAO: Personal fees from AbbVie Japan, Inc., grants and personal fees from Alcon Pharma KK (Japan), personal fees from Astellas Japan, personal fees from Bayer AG, grants and personal fees from Bayer Yakuhin Ltd. (Japan), personal fees from Daiichi-Sankyo, grants and personal fees from Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, personal fees from Senju Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and grants and personal fees from Santen Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (Japan). IP: Consultancy, travel and speaker fees from Allergan, Bayer, Novartis and Roche. FR: Consultant for Bayer, Iveric Bio, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis and Roche. DW: Consultant for AbbVie, Alcon, Apellis, Bayer, Bausch Health, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Ripple Therapeutics, Roche, Topcon and Zeiss, has received financial support (to institution) from Bayer, Novartis and Roche, and is an equity owner at ArcticDx. LW: Consultant for Bayer, Lumibird Medical, Novartis and Roche. DZ: Received grants from Roche, has served on scientific advisory boards for AbbVie, Allergan, Bayer, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis and Roche, and has been a speaker for AbbVie, Allergan, Bayer, Novartis and Roche. JZ-V: Received grants from AbbVie, Allergan, Bayer, Novartis and Roche, has served on scientific advisory boards for AbbVie, Allergan, Bayer, Novartis and Roche, and has been a speaker for AbbVie, Alcon, Alimera Sciences, Allergan, Bausch & Lomb, Bayer, Brill Pharma, DORC, Esteve, Novartis, Roche, Topcon Healthcare and Zeiss. Member of the Eye editorial board. PM: Received consulting fees from Allergan, Apellis, Bayer, Novartis, and Roche, lecture honoraria from Bayer, support for attending meetings and/or travel from Bayer and Roche, and he is a member of data safety monitoring boards or advisory boards for Apellis and Bayer. VC: Advisory board member for Alcon, Roche, Bayer, Novartis, Apellis and Boehringer Ingelheim, and received grants from Bayer, Novartis and Roche. Member of the Eye editorial board.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

**Correspondence** and requests for materials should be addressed to
Kelvin Yi Chong Teo.

**Reprints and permission information** is available at http://www.nature.com/
reprints

**Publisher's note** Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

**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 Author(s) 2024