This article is more than 5 years old. Information may no longer be current.

Experts explore protocols for switching anti-VEGFs

Add topic to email alerts

Receive an email when new articles are posted on

Please provide your email address to receive an email when new articles are posted on .

Subscribe

Added to email alerts

You've successfully added to your alerts. You will receive an email when new content is published.

Click Here to Manage Email Alerts

You've successfully added to your alerts. You will receive an email when new content is published.

Click Here to Manage Email Alerts

Back to Healio

We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com.

Back to Healio

WAILEA, Hawaii – There is little evidence published to help guide clinicians in making the decision to switch from one anti-VEGF therapy to another. Panelists at a round table that focused on the treatment of wet age-related macular degeneration addressed that topic at Retina 2015.

Pravin U.
Dugel

“I look at the glide path to dryness,” Philip J. Rosenfeld, MD, PhD,said. “I anticipate it’s going to look better with each sequential monthly injection. You can make the argument that there are those ‘late gainers’ [of improvement], but most patients improve with those first few monthly doses. When I don’t see that glide path improving, I switch.”

Looking at a case scenario in which a non-responder had undergone 13 injections of the same anti-VEGF, Neil M. Bressler, MD, said that he would switch treatment for anyone with worsening.

“A person should continue to improve until they have no activity. If they stop improving, I’ll do one more [injection] and say, ‘Well, maybe I’m just not analyzing it’ or ‘There’s some biological variability,’ but after two injections of not improving, then you want to consider that you have the ability to switch,” Bressler said.

Evidence to support a protocol of when to switch is sparse, Bressler said. Additionally, time is a confounder.

“People switch, but they also have additional treatments, and had they continued with the same treatment over time, they might have seen the same benefit. And, again, they show benefits anatomically and not in visual acuity. So, I do think it’s worthwhile if they’re worsening. If someone’s no longer improving, why not try another agent that’s been shown to work?”

Bressler said, in a case of long-term anti-VEGF treatment – 24 treatments – a dramatic change 1 month after a switch in therapy is unlikely to be due to the additional time of therapy.

“First thing I would do is make sure that it’s a VEGF-driven disease,” Pravin U. Dugel, MD, said. This is where you want to get a fluorescein angiogram, possibly an ICG, but the other thing I would do here is go ahead and give an anti-VEGF, then see the patient in a week or two to see if it’s actually a VEGF-driven disease. Once you’ve established that, then I think it’s reasonable to consider switching.” – by Patricia Nale

Disclosures: Bressler reports that his institution does contracted research for Bayer, Genentech, Lumenis, Novartis and Regeneron. Dugel reports receiving consultant fees from Alcon, Allergan, Genentech and Thrombogenics. Rosenfeld reports doing contracted research for Acucela, Advanced Cell Technology, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Genentech and GlaxoSmithKline; receiving consultant fees from Acucela, Alcon, Alexion, Allergan, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chengdu Kanghong Biotech, Genentech, Healios KK, Oraya, F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Vision Medicine; and having ownership interest in Digisight.