Objective To evaluate the association of subretinal hyper-reflective material (SHRM) with visual acuity (VA), geographic atrophy (GA) and scar in the Comparison of Age related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials (CATT) Design Prospective cohort study within a randomized clinical trial. Participants The 1185 participants in CATT. Methods Participants were randomly assigned to ranibizumab or bevacizumab treatment monthly or as-needed. Masked readers graded scar and GA on fundus photography and fluorescein angiography images, SHRM on time domain (TD) and spectral domain (SD) optical coherence tomography (OCT) throughout 104 weeks. Measurements of SHRM height and width in the fovea, within the center 1mm2, or outside the center 1mm2 were obtained on SD-OCT images at 56 (n=76) and 104 (n=66) weeks. VA was measured by certified examiners. Main Outcome Measures SHRM presence, location and size, and associations with VA, scar, and GA. Results Among all CATT participants, the percentage with SHRM at enrollment was 77%, decreasing to 68% at 4 weeks after treatment and 54% at 104 weeks. At 104 weeks, scar was present more often in eyes with persistent SHRM than eyes with SHRM that resolved (64% vs. 31%; p<0.0001). Among eyes with detailed evaluation of SHRM at weeks 56 (n=76) and 104 (n=66), mean [SE] VA letter score was 73.5 [2.8], 73.1 [3.4], 65.3 [3.5], and 63.9 [3.7] when SHRM was absent, present outside the central 1mm2, present within the central 1mm2 but not the foveal center, or present at the foveal center (p=0.02). SHRM was present at the foveal center in 43 (30%), within the central 1mm2 in 21 (15%) and outside the central 1mm2 in 19 (13%). When SHRM was present, the median maximum height in microns under the fovea, within the central 1 mm2 including the fovea and anywhere within the scan was 86; 120; and 122, respectively. VA was decreased with greater SHRM height and width (p<0.05). Conclusions SHRM is common in eyes with NVAMD and often persists after anti-VEGF treatment. At 2 years, eyes with scar were more likely to have SHRM than other eyes. Greater SHRM height and width were associated with worse VA. SHRM is an important morphological biomarker in eyes with NVAMD.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

ImportanceRetinal vein occlusion is the second most common retinal vascular disease. Bevacizumab was demonstrated in the Study of Comparative Treatments for Retinal Vein Occlusion 2 (SCORE2) to be noninferior to aflibercept with respect to visual acuity in study participants with macular edema due to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) or hemiretinal vein occlusion (HRVO) following 6 months of therapy. In this study, the cost-utility of bevacizumab vs aflibercept for treatment of CRVO is evaluated.ObjectiveTo investigate the relative cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab vs aflibercept for treatment of macular edema associated with CRVO or HRVO.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis economic evaluation study used a microsimulation cohort of patients with clinical and demographic characteristics similar to those of SCORE2 participants and a Markov process. Parameters were estimated and validated using a split-sample approach of the SCORE2 population. The simulated cohort included 5000 patients who were evaluated 100 times, each with a different set of characteristics randomly selected based on the SCORE2 trial. SCORE2 data were collected from September 2014 October 2019, and data were analyzed from October 2019 to July 2021.InterventionsBevacizumab (followed by aflibercept among patients with a protocol-defined poor or marginal response to bevacizumab at month 6) vs aflibercept (followed by a dexamethasone implant among patients with a protocol-defined poor or marginal response to aflibercept at month 6).Main Outcomes and MeasuresIncremental cost-utility ratio.ResultsThe simulation demonstrated that patients treated with aflibercept will have an expected cost $18 127 greater than those treated with bevacizumab in the year following initiation. When coupled with the lack of clinical superiority over bevacizumab (ie, patients treated with bevacizumab had a gain over aflibercept in visual acuity letter score of 4 in the treated eye and 2 in the fellow eye), these results demonstrate that first-line treatment with bevacizumab dominated aflibercept in the simulated cohort of SCORE2 participants. At current price levels, aflibercept would be considered the preferred cost-effective option only if treatment restored the patient to nearly perfect health.Conclusions and RelevanceWhile there will be some patients with CRVO-associated or HRVO-associated macular edema who will benefit from first-line treatment with aflibercept rather than bevacizumab, given the minimal differences in visual acuity outcomes and large cost differences for bevacizumab vs aflibercept, first-line treatment with bevacizumab is cost-effective for this condition.