Evaluating photodynamic therapy versus brolucizumab as a second-line treatment for polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy

Abstract

Abstract Background To compare the one-year outcomes between intravitreal brolucizumab (IVBr) monotherapy and photodynamic therapy (PDT) as a second-line treatment in patients with polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV) who did not respond to first-line therapy. Methods This case–control study included eyes with PCV that do not respond to aflibercept or ranibizumab. The patients were retrospectively registered. We compared outcomes, including best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), anatomical results, and the need for additional treatments, between IVBr and a combination therapy using PDT as second-line treatments for refractory PCV, after adjusting for potential confounders. We analyzed E-values to evaluate the robustness of the results against unmeasured confounders. Results Twenty-two eyes received IVBr, and twenty-four underwent PDT. No apparent differences were observed in BCVA and central macular thickness (CMT) changes from baseline between the groups (IVBr vs. PDT: BCVA, 0.01 ± 0.47 logMAR vs. 0.04 ± 0.18 logMAR, P-value = 0.756; CMT: − 36.3 ± 99.4 μm vs. − 114.7 ± 181.4 μm, P-value = 0.146). Only in the PDT group, five eyes (20.8%) did not require additional treatment after the second-line treatment, the adjusted odds ratio indicating no further treatment needed was 11.98 (95% confidence interval: 1.42–2070.07, P-value = 0.019). The E-value for the adjusted odds ratio was 23.44. Conclusions Both second-line treatments for PCV exhibited similar visual and anatomical outcomes. Only in the PDT-treated eyes were there some patients who did not require further treatment after second-line therapy.

Keywords

• Polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy
• Photodynamic therapy
• Brolucizumab
• Neovascular age-related macular degeneration