Reply to “RE: CHARACTERISTICS OF AGE-RELATED MACULAR DEGENERATION SHOWING A POOR RESPONSE TO THREE LOADING DOSES OF ANTI–VASCULAR ENDOTHELIAL GROWTH FACTOR”

Abstract

The inner boundary of CT measurement should be Bruch membrane rather than the retinal pigment epithelium, 5 because using the retinal pigment epithelium as a landmark may erroneously include the thickness of a foveal drusen or pigment epithelial detachment, the latter measurement was analyzed as a separate variable in the studied eyes. CT can also exhibit regional variation in eyes with neovascular age-related macular degeneration, which may not be reflected by the single subfoveal measurement; choroidal vascularity index may be more informative of total choroidal vessel area in eyes with neovascular age-related macular degeneration. 6 The authors only reported the average CT after three injections in both groups, but did not report baseline measurements or change in CT, which was also the case for other studied variables (i.e., hyperreflective foci, neovascular membrane size, and optical coherence tomography angiography qualitative features). Finally, although CT was a statistically significant predictor of having residual fluid on multivariate analysis (Table 4), it is important to note that the odds ratio was very close to 1 (1.012), which translates into a negligible association.