To the Editor:
We thank the authors for their interest in our paper [1]. We agree that the retention rate would drop to 24.3% from 37.9% if the deceased cohort was included, however their data cannot be included in complete case analysis. Last observation carried forward is not suitable for imputation of missing data in studies of long follow-up [2]. In addition, we confirm that there were no differences in final mean visual acuity of deceased patients versus those lost to follow-up per year.
It would be useful to report the number of patients in whom treatment was rendered futile due to permanent structural damage to the macula. However, decision to stop treatment is based on the discretion of treating clinician and is not systematically recorded in electronic medical records for retrospective analysis.
References
Chandra S, Arpa C, Menon D, Khalid H, Hamilton R, Nicholson L, et al. Ten-year outcomes of antivascular endothelial growth factor therapy in neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Eye. 2020;34:1888–96.
Papp KA, Fonjallaz P, Casset-Semanaz F, Krueger JG, Wittkowski KM. Analytical approaches to reporting long-term clinical trial data. Curr Med Res Opin. 2008;24:2001–8.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chandra, S. Response to: Comment on: Ten-year outcomes of antivascular endothelial growth factor therapy in neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Eye 36, 474 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-020-01386-w
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-020-01386-w
