Key takeaways

This article explains what happens when anti-VEGF treatment stops. It is not guidance on whether or when to stop, which is a decision only the treating retina specialist can make.
Anti-VEGF injections suppress a disease process while the drug is active; they rarely remove the condition that keeps producing VEGF in the first place.
If treatment stops before an eye is genuinely quiet, leakage, macular fluid, bleeding or abnormal vessel growth can return, often visible on OCT before the patient notices anything.
Recurrence rates differ by diagnosis: about a third of wet AMD eyes within a year of a planned stop, and the majority of central retinal vein occlusion eyes still needing injections four years on.
Proliferative diabetic retinopathy carries the highest stakes. Eyes lost to follow-up after anti-VEGF alone did worse than eyes that had received panretinal photocoagulation.
Good vision and a dry OCT are treatment successes, not proof of cure.
Some eyes do reach durable inactivity and can be observed, but a physician-guided stop still needs a written surveillance plan and a fast route back into clinic.
Netra Restoration Therapy is adjunctive to injections, not an alternative to them. Its role is to help a patient stay on treatment and stay generally well — appointment adherence, injection anxiety, ocular-surface comfort, systemic risk factors. It cannot suppress VEGF, dry the macula, close a neovascular lesion or set an injection interval.
Anyone who has already missed an injection should contact the retina clinic promptly, before vision changes.

Quick answer

If you stop eye injections for macular degeneration or another retinal condition while the disease is still active, leakage, fluid, bleeding or abnormal vessel growth can return. In one cohort that stopped under a planned protocol, 33 per cent of eyes recurred within a year. Recurrence usually appears on OCT before vision changes. Some eyes can stop safely, but only a retina specialist can decide that.

What this article is, and is not

This is an explanation of consequences. It sets out what is known to happen when anti-VEGF treatment stops while retinal disease is still active, so that patients and families understand why the appointment schedule matters.

It is not advice on whether your eye is ready to stop, and it should not be used to reach that conclusion. That judgement requires OCT scans, a dilated examination, your lesion type, your treatment history and your response so far — and it belongs to the retina specialist who has all of them. If you are wondering whether you can stop, the answer here is to ask the person treating your eye, and to keep the next appointment while you wait for that conversation.

Most of the evidence below comes from wet age-related macular degeneration, which is the commonest reason for these injections. The same principle — that the drug controls the disease while it is present, and the disease can return when it clears — applies across diabetic macular edema, proliferative diabetic retinopathy, retinal vein occlusion and myopic neovascularisation, and each is covered separately further down.

The National Eye Institute puts the same point more plainly: “Some people can eventually stop getting the injections, but others need to keep getting injections to protect their vision.” [1] That sentence contains the nuance most patients miss. Stopping forever is not the only alternative to monthly treatment. Modern retina care uses treat-and-extend, as-needed dosing, fixed extended intervals and supervised exit protocols. Some eyes reach a durable inactive state. Others reactivate after months of apparent stability. A few need treatment for years. [50-58]

What anti-VEGF injections actually do

Vascular endothelial growth factor is produced when retinal or choroidal tissue is short of oxygen, inflamed or otherwise stressed. In excess, it makes blood vessels leak and drives abnormal new vessel growth. Anti-VEGF drugs neutralise VEGF or block its receptor. Faricimab additionally inhibits angiopoietin-2, a second pathway involved in vascular stability. This is pathway-directed treatment supported by a large body of randomised evidence, not cosmetic drying of a symptom. [3-43]

The swelling visible on OCT is macular edema or exudation. It is a consequence, not the initiating cause. Reducing it matters because prolonged fluid disrupts photoreceptors and retinal architecture. Suppressing neovascularisation matters because abnormal vessels bleed, scar, detach the retina and cause neovascular glaucoma. Anti-VEGF therefore acts on a genuine causal effector, and it prevents damage for as long as it is controlling disease activity.

Why the drug effect fades

Intravitreal drug exposure is temporary. Human aqueous humour studies show that intraocular VEGF suppression declines over a measurable window that varies by molecule and by patient. Under ranibizumab, complete suppression lasted a mean of 36 days across 83 eyes, with an individual range of 26 to 69 days. Under aflibercept it ran considerably longer. [44-47] Systemic pharmacokinetic studies describe a separate question, how much drug reaches the bloodstream, and should not be read as evidence about the eye. [48,49]

What persists after the drug effect wanes is the biological substrate. That is why a treatment interval is set individually, using OCT, examination, visual acuity, lesion type, prior recurrence pattern and the specific agent, rather than by a universal calendar.

A more accurate way to talk about root cause

Anti-VEGF directly controls a major pathogenic pathway. It usually does not reverse the upstream drivers: ageing and complement biology, chronic diabetes, capillary non-perfusion, an occluded retinal vein, pathological axial elongation, or an inflammatory or infectious cause of choroidal neovascularisation.

Repeated injections therefore reflect persistent disease biology. They are not evidence of addiction, dependence, a weakened eye, or damage caused by the medicine.

Which conditions are treated this way

The commonest indications in adult retina practice are neovascular (wet) age-related macular degeneration, diabetic macular edema and diabetic retinopathy, and macular edema from retinal vein occlusion. Myopic choroidal neovascularisation is well established as an indication, though it usually needs fewer injections. Polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy is managed within the wet AMD spectrum, sometimes with photodynamic therapy. Choroidal neovascularisation from inflammation, infection or angioid streaks is treated on the same VEGF-mediated pathway while the underlying cause is addressed separately. [3-43]

Anti-VEGF is also used in selected infants with retinopathy of prematurity. That is a neonatal specialty question outside the scope of this article and outside any integrative-care indication.

What stopping means, condition by condition

Wet AMD is chronic in many eyes. MARINA, ANCHOR, CATT, VIEW and the faricimab trials established that VEGF-pathway inhibition preserves or improves vision, while long-term follow-up shows a continuing treatment burden that varies widely between patients. [3-11,55-57] The lesion may become quiet without being eradicated. When treatment stops, the first sign is usually OCT fluid or a small haemorrhage rather than any change the patient can feel.

A Japanese multicentre cohort followed 49 eyes after a physician-guided stop from a treat-and-extend regimen. The estimated recurrence rate was 33 per cent (95 per cent CI 21 to 48) at one year and 48 per cent (CI 36 to 65) at two years. Over the whole follow-up, which extended to 36 months, 25 of the 49 eyes (51 per cent) recurred, at a median of 10.5 months. Most were controlled once treatment resumed; two eyes lost two lines of acuity. [50]

Other exit studies report different figures because they use different inactivity thresholds, extension intervals and populations. One series found half of eyes recurring within 24 months at a median of 10 months, with acuity maintained. [51] Another found that continuing treatment did not reliably prevent recurrence either, at 43 per cent in continued eyes against 61 per cent in stopped eyes. [53] The practical lesson is not that every patient needs lifelong injections. It is that an inactive eye can reactivate silently and has to stay under surveillance.

Polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy

Polypoidal lesions deserve separate attention because persistent polyps can contribute to recurrent bleeding. Anti-VEGF is effective, and two major trials examined the role of photodynamic therapy alongside it, reaching different conclusions. EVEREST II found upfront ranibizumab plus verteporfin photodynamic therapy superior to ranibizumab alone, with a mean gain of 8.3 letters against 5.1 and complete polyp regression in 69 per cent against 35 per cent. [40,41] PLANET found aflibercept monotherapy non-inferior to aflibercept with rescue photodynamic therapy, with only 12 per cent of eyes ever needing rescue, so the added benefit could not be established. [42,43] The role of photodynamic therapy therefore remains dependent on the agent and the protocol, and is a decision for the treating retina specialist working from indocyanine-green angiography.

NRT cannot close a polyp, sterilise an aneurysmal lesion, or replace angiography, OCT-guided anti-VEGF or photodynamic therapy.

Diabetic macular edema

Diabetic retinopathy is driven by systemic metabolic disease plus local neurovascular and inflammatory injury. Anti-VEGF is highly effective for centre-involved diabetic macular edema and can improve retinopathy severity, but it does not cure diabetes or rebuild damaged capillaries. [12-23,72,73] Some eyes need fewer injections over time, particularly when edema stabilises and systemic health improves. Others remain treatment-dependent.

Five-year follow-up after Protocol T shows the pattern. Sixty-eight per cent of study eyes, 217 of 317, received at least one anti-VEGF injection between years two and five. Mean acuity remained 7.4 letters better than baseline but had fallen by 4.7 letters from the year-two peak. [21] Two caveats matter when reading those numbers: the 317 eyes are a minority of the 660 originally randomised, so the means describe a selected group who stayed in follow-up; and the decline cannot be attributed to reduced injections alone. What the data do show is why durable follow-up, systemic control and individualised retinal treatment all remain necessary. Our post on why central vision blurs in diabetic macular edema covers the treatment options in more detail.

Proliferative diabetic retinopathy: the highest stakes

In proliferative disease, VEGF suppression can regress retinal or iris neovascularisation, but that regression is reversible. Protocol S and CLARITY show anti-VEGF can be an effective strategy when follow-up is reliable. [24-26] The qualifier is doing real work in that sentence. Proliferative disease is the last of the four stages of diabetic retinopathy.

Loss to follow-up is particularly dangerous here. Vitreous haemorrhage, fibrovascular contraction, tractional retinal detachment and neovascular glaucoma can all threaten sight. In a retrospective cohort of 76 eyes, those treated with anti-VEGF alone showed “worse anatomic and functional outcomes after being LTFU” than eyes that had received panretinal photocoagulation, with more tractional detachments and more iris neovascularisation at the final visit. [61] That study was small, single-centre and not randomised, and treatment assignment was not controlled, so it informs shared decision-making rather than dictating treatment choice. Separately, a series of 13 eyes whose anti-VEGF was interrupted for an average of 12 months found 77 per cent losing three or more lines of acuity. [60] Interruption is the risk, and the risk is concentrated in this diagnosis. Treating diabetic retinopathy sets out how injections, laser and surgery fit together.

Macular edema from retinal vein occlusion

An injection does not reopen an occluded vein. It suppresses the leakage and angiogenic response produced downstream of venous congestion and ischemia. BRAVO, CRUISE, COPERNICUS, GALILEO, VIBRANT, SCORE2 and the faricimab studies all demonstrate substantial visual and anatomic benefit. [27-36] The occlusion, the capillary damage and the ischemic burden remain.

In a 40-patient recurrence study, macular edema returned in 77.5 per cent of patients overall, but the split is the interesting part: 13 of 22 branch occlusions (59 per cent) against 18 of 18 central occlusions (100 per cent). Recurrences in central occlusion came sooner, were more prominent and lasted longer. [59] The RETAIN study found that at four years, half of branch occlusion patients and 56 per cent of central occlusion patients still required injections, with unresolved central cases averaging nearly six injections in year four alone. [58] An ischemic central occlusion also demands monitoring for iris or angle neovascularisation even when the macular edema looks controlled.

Myopic choroidal neovascularisation

RADIANCE and MYRROR established anti-VEGF as effective treatment here. [37,38] Compared with chronic wet AMD, many myopic eyes become inactive after a small number of injections; in RADIANCE, the disease-activity-guided arm needed a median of two injections over twelve months, though the acuity-guided arm needed four. Recurrence is still possible, and the underlying axial elongation and structural breaks in Bruch's membrane do not change.

NRT cannot shorten the eye, repair lacquer cracks, or substitute for OCT and prompt retreatment of recurrent neovascularisation.

Choroidal neovascularisation from other causes

When neovascularisation is secondary to inflammation, infection, angioid streaks or another systemic disorder, anti-VEGF treats the shared pathway while cause-specific therapy remains essential. Active ocular inflammation may need corticosteroid or immunomodulatory treatment. Infection needs targeted antimicrobial management. NRT must never delay that diagnostic work-up.

Why recurrence happens

A three-layer model is useful. The first layer is the disease substrate: diabetes, ageing and genetic susceptibility, venous occlusion, pathological myopia, inflammation. The second is the retinal response: hypoxia, oxidative stress, inflammatory signalling, endothelial dysfunction, neurovascular-unit injury. The third is the effector layer: VEGF and angiopoietin-2 mediated permeability and neovascularisation.

Anti-VEGF is strongest at the third layer. It may indirectly interrupt feed-forward injury, but it does not reliably remove the first two.

The eye can look dry while the disease is still active

A dry OCT is an important treatment success. It is not automatically a cure. It may mean the drug is effectively suppressing leakage right now. Some lesions eventually enter a durable inactive phase; others stay quiet only while drug levels are sufficient.

The reverse also holds. Not every cyst on OCT represents VEGF-driven exudation. Degenerative cystic spaces, atrophy and traction can all mimic active fluid. This is why the decision belongs to a retina specialist reading OCT in the context of examination and longitudinal imaging, and why a home vision chart cannot substitute for it. How AMD is diagnosed explains what these scans and examinations actually show.

What can be modified outside the injection

The upstream layer is where general medical care does its work, and the strength of evidence varies by diagnosis.

Diabetic eye disease. Glucose, blood pressure and lipid management, kidney care, smoking cessation, physical activity and nutrition. This is where the trial evidence for systemic risk reduction is strongest. [68-71] See preventing diabetic vision loss and why the annual dilated exam matters.
Wet AMD. Smoking cessation, cardiovascular health and dietary quality. AREDS2 supplementation where clinically indicated, an area covered in diet and nutrition in macular degeneration. These measures do not treat active neovascular disease. [74-77]
Retinal vein occlusion. Blood pressure, diabetes, lipids, glaucoma assessment, and sleep-apnea evaluation where indicated; obstructive sleep apnea is associated with retinal vein occlusion in pooled analysis. [78-84]
Myopic neovascularisation. No therapy reverses axial length. Protect the fellow eye, monitor, and manage general health.
Inflammatory neovascularisation. Diagnosis-specific anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory or antimicrobial treatment with the relevant specialist.

None of this is a proven method to stop injections. It is adjunctive risk management around a retinal disease that is being treated separately.

Where Netra Restoration Therapy fits alongside injections

Netra Restoration Therapy is a structured, individualised, multimodal programme that may include acupuncture or electroacupuncture, East Asian medicine and Ayurvedic principles, herbal and nutritional strategies, lifestyle and metabolic guidance, ocular-surface support, stress and autonomic regulation, and condition-specific functional assessment.

In retinal disease its role is adjunctive, and that word carries a specific meaning here. NRT runs alongside intravitreal treatment, on the same patient, at the same time, without altering the injection schedule. It is not a step-down pathway, not an exit strategy, and not something to try in place of an appointment. The retina specialist continues to own the diagnosis, the drug, the interval, and the decision to treat or observe. Nothing in an NRT plan changes any of those.

What adjunctive means in practice

An anti-VEGF injection does one thing extremely well: it suppresses VEGF-driven leakage and abnormal vessel growth inside the eye for a period of weeks. It does not manage blood glucose, blood pressure or lipids. It does not treat an ocular surface left dry and gritty by repeated povidone-iodine preparation. It does nothing for the fatigue, anxiety and logistical strain of a treatment course that may run for years. And it cannot help a patient who has quietly stopped attending because of needle fear, transport, work or cost.

Those are the gaps adjunctive care works in. None of them is the retina. All of them affect whether retinal treatment succeeds.

Supporting the treatment that is working

The strongest honest case for adjunctive support in this setting is not biochemical. It is that the evidence set out earlier in this article shows exactly what happens when patients stop attending: eyes lost to follow-up after anti-VEGF alone came back with more tractional detachments and more iris neovascularisation [61], and in one small series of interrupted treatment, 77 per cent of eyes lost three or more lines of acuity. [60] Continuity of treatment is one of the few variables in this disease with unambiguous evidence attached to it.

Anything that helps a patient stay in treatment is therefore working on an outcome that matters. Practical adjunctive support around an injection course can include:

Appointment adherence. Planning around transport, work, caregiving and cost, and contacting the clinic before a gap rather than after one. Missed visits usually have practical causes, not careless ones.
Injection anxiety and needle fear. A common and under-discussed reason for missed appointments, addressed through explanation, positioning, breathing and coping strategies. Patients should not be shamed for distress about a needle entering the eye.
Ocular-surface comfort. Dryness, grittiness and irritation after repeated antisepsis and topical anaesthetic are real, treatable, and distinct from a post-injection complication. Knowing the difference also helps a patient recognise the symptoms that genuinely warrant an urgent call.
Systemic risk factors. Glucose, blood pressure, lipids, weight, sleep and physical activity, coordinated with primary care and endocrinology. This is where the trial evidence for reducing retinal risk is strongest. [68-71]
Sleep and autonomic regulation, including sleep-apnea evaluation where indicated. [83,84]
Nutrition review and AREDS2 eligibility, with the eligibility decision confirmed by the ophthalmologist. [74,75]
Whole-person burden. The fatigue and low mood that accompany years of treatment, and low-vision strategies where sight has already been affected.

None of that changes what is happening inside the eye. All of it changes the conditions under which the treatment that does change what is happening inside the eye can keep working.

Put plainly: NRT's contribution alongside anti-VEGF is to help a patient stay on treatment and stay generally well while the retina specialist does the treating. It has not been shown to do more than that in these diseases, and this article does not claim that it does.

The biological targets, and what the evidence actually shows

The domains NRT addresses are perfusion and microvascular health, inflammatory and immune balance, oxidative stress, mitochondrial and cellular resilience, neurotrophic support, metabolic and systemic regulation, and autonomic and stress regulation. These are biologically plausible targets in retinal disease. Plausible is not the same as demonstrated.

The literature cited for NRT-related mechanisms is indirect. It consists of cell culture, rodent models, small human blood-flow physiology studies, and research in other retinal diseases. [85-102] Astragaloside IV, formononetin, tanshinone IIA and Lycium barbarum polysaccharides have shown antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, neuroprotective, anti-angiogenic or ferroptosis-related effects in experimental systems. [85-97] Acupuncture studies report physiological changes in ocular circulation, and one small randomised pilot in retinitis pigmentosa tested electro-stimulation. [98-102] Not one of those studies examined wet AMD, diabetic macular edema, proliferative diabetic retinopathy, vein occlusion or myopic neovascularisation — the diseases this article is about.

So the mechanisms are a research hypothesis, not a treatment claim. The adherence and whole-person support described above is the part of the adjunctive role that stands on its own today.

The boundaries

Stated explicitly, because ambiguity here is dangerous:

NRT does not neutralise intraocular VEGF, close choroidal neovascularisation or polyps, or replace anti-VEGF, photodynamic therapy or OCT.
NRT does not reverse capillary non-perfusion, and does not replace anti-VEGF, panretinal photocoagulation or vitrectomy.
NRT cannot reopen an occluded vein or prevent ocular neovascularisation without retina-directed care.
NRT cannot reverse axial elongation, repair lacquer cracks, or substitute for prompt retreatment.
NRT cannot substitute for immunosuppression or antimicrobial therapy in inflammatory or infectious disease.
NRT has no established role in neonatal or paediatric retinal vascular disease, including retinopathy of prematurity.
NRT is not a reason to lengthen an injection interval, and starting it is not evidence that an eye can tolerate one.
Treatment intervals, drug choice, photodynamic therapy, laser and surgery remain the responsibility of the treating retina specialist.

Safety with herbs, supplements and procedures

Medication reconciliation is mandatory. Herbal products can alter bleeding risk, blood pressure, glucose, liver enzymes or drug metabolism, and composition varies between products.
Patients taking anticoagulants, antiplatelet drugs, insulin, oral diabetes agents, antihypertensives, immunosuppressants or multiple supplements need coordinated review.
Acupuncture must use sterile single-use needles. It should not be performed near a recently injected eye, or in any way that delays treatment of post-injection pain, redness or visual decline.
AREDS2 supplements are for defined AMD categories and are not a treatment for active wet AMD. A patient with advanced AMD in one eye may still be an AREDS2 candidate to reduce risk in the fellow eye, which is a decision for the ophthalmologist. Current and former smokers should avoid beta-carotene formulations.
No supplement or NRT session should be used to test whether an eye can go longer between injections. Only OCT-guided retina care sets the interval.

What would have to be proven

A credible claim that NRT reduces injection burden would require prospective, diagnosis-specific clinical trials in which standard retina therapy continues throughout. Participants would be randomised to standard care alone or standard care plus a reproducible NRT protocol, with masked OCT grading and predefined rescue criteria. Outcomes would have to include best-corrected visual acuity, central subfield thickness, intraretinal and subretinal fluid, haemorrhage, injection number, time to recurrence, treatment interval, adverse events and patient-reported function.

Until that evidence exists, a reduction in injections in any individual patient could reflect natural disease fluctuation, the anti-VEGF agent itself, treat-and-extend decisions, improved systemic health, regression to the mean, or NRT. Causation cannot be assigned. Clearer vision after NRT, new glasses or better glucose control cannot establish that macular fluid has resolved. Comparable OCT remains the anatomical standard.

If an appointment has already been missed

Contact the retina clinic promptly. State the diagnosis, which eye is treated, the drug if known, the date of the last injection and any new symptoms.
Do not wait for central vision to blur. Recurrence is often visible on OCT before it shows on an Amsler grid or a vision chart.
Do not compensate by changing drops, starting supplements, using leftover medication, or booking an NRT session in place of retinal assessment.
Ask whether the visit needs OCT, dilation, fluorescein or indocyanine-green angiography, and whether the fellow eye also needs review.

Missed appointments usually have practical causes. Transport, work, caregiving, cost and fear of needles are clinical variables, not moral failings, and they can be planned around once the clinic knows about them.

When to seek urgent eye care

New central distortion, a dark or missing area, sudden loss of reading vision, or a sudden increase in blur.
New flashes, a shower of floaters, or a curtain or shadow across the field.
New eye pain, marked redness, light sensitivity, discharge, or substantial visual decline after an injection.
Sudden painless severe visual loss, which may indicate haemorrhage, vascular occlusion or retinal detachment.

Symptoms do not reliably grade urgency. A quiet-looking eye can have recurrent fluid on OCT, and a patient with one functioning eye has very little reserve. When in doubt, contact the treating retina service the same day.

What monitoring looks like if a specialist does stop treatment

If a retina specialist does conclude that an eye can be observed, that is a clinical decision with a structure behind it, and it is worth knowing what that structure looks like. There is no universal exit schedule. A responsible plan records the last known OCT status, the maximum interval the eye tolerated, the timing of the first observation visit, OCT at surveillance visits, home symptom monitoring, and a rapid-access route back into clinic if something changes.

Risk is generally highest in the first year after stopping, but late recurrence happens. In the cohort described above, recurrences continued out to 36 months. Surveillance should not simply end at twelve months. [50-54]

Questions to ask your retina specialist

Is my eye currently active, or quiet on treatment? What does the OCT show today compared with three months ago?
What is the longest interval my eye has tolerated without recurrence?
If we extend or stop, what is the monitoring plan, and how quickly can I be seen if something changes?
What specifically should I watch for at home, and what should make me call the same day?
Does my fellow eye need monitoring too?
Are there systemic issues, such as glucose control, blood pressure, lipids or sleep apnea, that I should be working on with another clinician?
Is there anything in my supplement or medication list that affects bleeding risk or interacts with treatment?

Frequently asked questions

Will stopping injections make the disease rebound worse than before?

Recurrence is common in several conditions, but rebound implies a pharmacological overshoot that is not established for every drug or diagnosis. The safer statement is that untreated disease activity can return as the drug effect declines, and the damage can be worse if that return is not detected promptly.

Are anti-VEGF injections addictive?

No. The eye does not become addicted. Repeated treatment reflects persistent or recurrent disease biology. An eye that stays dry only while VEGF is suppressed is treatment-dependent, not drug-dependent in the addiction sense.

My vision is good. Does that mean the disease is inactive?

Not necessarily. Good vision often means the treatment is working, which is a different thing. OCT and examination determine activity; acuity alone does not. Protocol V did show that some eyes with centre-involved diabetic macular edema and acuity of 20/25 or better could initially be observed, but that trial mandated prompt treatment the moment vision declined and kept patients on a strict follow-up schedule. It describes a closely monitored clinical pathway, not a reason to skip a visit. [23]

My OCT is dry. What does that tell me?

That the macula has no detectable fluid on the day of the scan. It does not distinguish between an eye that has become durably inactive and an eye that is dry because the drug is still working. Those two situations look identical on a single scan and behave completely differently afterwards. Which one applies is read from recurrence history, lesion type and the pattern across successive scans, which is why the interpretation belongs to the retina specialist rather than to the image alone.

Do all diseases recur at the same rate?

No. Chronic wet AMD often needs prolonged treatment. Diabetic macular edema and vein occlusion are heterogeneous. Many myopic neovascularisation eyes need relatively few injections. Proliferative diabetic retinopathy carries particularly high stakes if follow-up becomes unreliable.

Can NRT replace injections if it targets inflammation and oxidative stress?

No. Those mechanisms are upstream or parallel hypotheses, and the available NRT-related evidence is indirect. NRT has not been shown to neutralise intraocular VEGF at a therapeutic level or to prevent neovascular recurrence.

Could NRT still be useful during a course of injections?

Yes, in a defined role. Alongside continuing anti-VEGF treatment it can support appointment adherence, injection anxiety, ocular-surface comfort, systemic risk factors and the general burden of long-term treatment. Those are real contributions to how well a treatment course goes. They are not the same as treating the retina, and the benefit should be measured rather than assumed.

Are fewer injections always better?

Lower treatment burden is valuable only if disease control and vision are maintained. An artificially lengthened interval that permits recurrent fluid or bleeding is not a success.

How strong is the evidence behind this article

Three tiers are worth distinguishing, because they are not interchangeable.

Strong. That anti-VEGF improves retinal outcomes in active VEGF-driven disease rests on multiple randomised controlled trials across every major indication. [3-43] That systemic disease modification reduces retinal risk is well established in diabetes. [68-71]

Moderate. What happens after cessation or missed follow-up comes mostly from observational cohorts with varying protocols and populations. Recurrence is clearly common and sometimes visually consequential, but the precise rates should be read as estimates from particular groups rather than universal figures. [50-67]

Insufficient. Whether NRT changes the course of these retinal diseases, reduces injections or prevents recurrence has not been tested. The supporting mechanism literature is preclinical, physiological or drawn from other diseases, and supports biological plausibility only. [85-102] The adjunctive role described above rests on a different and firmer footing: continuity of treatment demonstrably affects outcomes [60-67], and supportive care that helps a patient keep attending is working on that, not on the retina.

Testimonials about painless one-time cures are especially attractive during chronic treatment. They should not displace randomised evidence or urgent care.

The bottom line

Stopping anti-VEGF injections is not a harmless test of whether an eye has healed. In wet AMD, diabetic macular edema, proliferative diabetic retinopathy, vein occlusion and other VEGF-driven disease, the medicine may be holding leakage or abnormal vessel growth in check. When its effect declines, the same biology can become active again. Some eyes can eventually be observed without injections, but only after a retina specialist documents stability and puts continued OCT surveillance in place.

The most accurate framing is that anti-VEGF treats an important causal pathway while often leaving the initiating disease substrate intact. Netra Restoration Therapy works alongside that treatment, not in place of it — supporting adherence, comfort, systemic health and the burden of a long treatment course, so that the injections have the best chance of doing their job. It cannot replace anti-VEGF, close neovascular lesions, or determine injection intervals.

And to repeat the point this article opened with: nothing here is a basis for deciding that your own eye can stop treatment. It is a description of what is at stake in that decision, so the conversation with your retina specialist is a better-informed one.

References

Every reference below was resolved through its PubMed ID, PubMed Central ID or DOI and verified against the source record. Identifiers are included so any claim in this article can be checked directly. Accessed 23 August 2026.

National Eye Institute. Injections to Treat Eye Conditions. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health. Link
US Food and Drug Administration. LUCENTIS (ranibizumab injection) prescribing information. BLA 125156/S-111. Link
Rosenfeld PJ, Brown DM, Heier JS, et al. Ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (MARINA). N Engl J Med. 2006;355(14):1419-1431. PMID: 17021318. Link
Brown DM, Kaiser PK, Michels M, et al. Ranibizumab versus verteporfin for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (ANCHOR). N Engl J Med. 2006;355(14):1432-1444. PMID: 17021319. Link
Martin DF, Maguire MG, Ying GS, et al; CATT Research Group. Ranibizumab and bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(20):1897-1908. PMID: 21526923. Link
Martin DF, Maguire MG, Fine SL, et al; CATT Research Group. Ranibizumab and bevacizumab for treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: two-year results. Ophthalmology. 2012;119(7):1388-1398. PMID: 22555112. Link
Brown DM, Michels M, Kaiser PK, et al. Ranibizumab versus verteporfin for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: two-year results of the ANCHOR study. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(1):57-65.e5. PMID: 19118696. Link
Heier JS, Brown DM, Chong V, et al. Intravitreal aflibercept (VEGF Trap-Eye) in wet age-related macular degeneration (VIEW 1 and VIEW 2). Ophthalmology. 2012;119(12):2537-2548. PMID: 23084240. Link
Schmidt-Erfurth U, Kaiser PK, Korobelnik JF, et al. Intravitreal aflibercept injection for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: ninety-six-week results of the VIEW studies. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(1):193-201. PMID: 24084500. Link
Heier JS, Khanani AM, Quezada Ruiz C, et al. Efficacy, durability, and safety of intravitreal faricimab up to every 16 weeks for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (TENAYA and LUCERNE). Lancet. 2022;399(10326):729-740. PMID: 35085502. Link
Khanani AM, Kotecha A, Chang A, et al. TENAYA and LUCERNE: two-year results from the phase 3 neovascular age-related macular degeneration trials of faricimab. Ophthalmology. 2024;131(8):914-926. PMID: 38382813. Link
Nguyen QD, Brown DM, Marcus DM, et al. Ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema: results from 2 phase III randomized trials (RISE and RIDE). Ophthalmology. 2012;119(4):789-801. PMID: 22330964. Link
Brown DM, Nguyen QD, Marcus DM, et al. Long-term outcomes of ranibizumab therapy for diabetic macular edema: the 36-month results from two phase III trials. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(10):2013-2022. PMID: 23706949. Link
Elman MJ, Aiello LP, Beck RW, et al; DRCR.net. Randomized trial evaluating ranibizumab plus prompt or deferred laser for diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology. 2010;117(6):1064-1077.e35. PMID: 20427088. Link
Elman MJ, Ayala A, Bressler NM, et al; DRCR.net. Intravitreal ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema with prompt versus deferred laser treatment: 5-year randomized trial results. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(2):375-381. PMID: 25439614. Link
Mitchell P, Bandello F, Schmidt-Erfurth U, et al. The RESTORE study: ranibizumab monotherapy or combined with laser versus laser monotherapy for diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(4):615-625. PMID: 21459215. Link
Korobelnik JF, Do DV, Schmidt-Erfurth U, et al. Intravitreal aflibercept for diabetic macular edema (VIVID and VISTA). Ophthalmology. 2014;121(11):2247-2254. PMID: 25012934. Link
Brown DM, Schmidt-Erfurth U, Do DV, et al. Intravitreal aflibercept for diabetic macular edema: 100-week results from the VISTA and VIVID studies. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(10):2044-2052. PMID: 26198808. Link
Wells JA, Glassman AR, Ayala AR, et al; DRCR.net. Aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema (Protocol T). N Engl J Med. 2015;372(13):1193-1203. PMID: 25692915. Link
Wells JA, Glassman AR, Ayala AR, et al; DRCR.net. Aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema: two-year results from a comparative effectiveness randomized clinical trial. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(6):1351-1359. PMID: 26935357. Link
Glassman AR, Wells JA, Josic K, et al; DRCR Retina Network. Five-year outcomes after initial aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab treatment for diabetic macular edema (Protocol T extension study). Ophthalmology. 2020;127(9):1201-1210. PMID: 32402554. Link
Wykoff CC, Abreu F, Adamis AP, et al. Efficacy, durability, and safety of intravitreal faricimab with extended dosing up to every 16 weeks in patients with diabetic macular oedema (YOSEMITE and RHINE). Lancet. 2022;399(10326):741-755. PMID: 35085503. Link
Baker CW, Glassman AR, Beaulieu WT, et al; DRCR Retina Network. Effect of initial management with aflibercept vs laser photocoagulation vs observation on vision loss among patients with diabetic macular edema involving the center of the macula and good visual acuity (Protocol V). JAMA. 2019;321(19):1880-1894. PMID: 31037289. Link
Gross JG, Glassman AR, Jampol LM, et al; DRCR.net. Panretinal photocoagulation vs intravitreous ranibizumab for proliferative diabetic retinopathy (Protocol S). JAMA. 2015;314(20):2137-2146. PMID: 26565927. Link
Gross JG, Glassman AR, Liu D, et al; DRCR Retina Network. Five-year outcomes of panretinal photocoagulation vs intravitreous ranibizumab for proliferative diabetic retinopathy. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2018;136(10):1138-1148. PMID: 30043039. Link
Sivaprasad S, Prevost AT, Vasconcelos JC, et al. Clinical efficacy of intravitreal aflibercept versus panretinal photocoagulation for best corrected visual acuity in patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy at 52 weeks (CLARITY). Lancet. 2017;389(10085):2193-2203. PMID: 28494920. Link
Campochiaro PA, Heier JS, Feiner L, et al. Ranibizumab for macular edema following branch retinal vein occlusion (BRAVO). Ophthalmology. 2010;117(6):1102-1112.e1. PMID: 20398941. Link
Brown DM, Campochiaro PA, Singh RP, et al. Ranibizumab for macular edema following central retinal vein occlusion (CRUISE). Ophthalmology. 2010;117(6):1124-1133.e1. PMID: 20381871. Link
Heier JS, Campochiaro PA, Yau L, et al. Ranibizumab for macular edema due to retinal vein occlusions: long-term follow-up in the HORIZON trial. Ophthalmology. 2012;119(4):802-809. PMID: 22301066. Link
Campochiaro PA, Wykoff CC, Singer M, et al. Monthly versus as-needed ranibizumab injections in patients with retinal vein occlusion: the SHORE study. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(12):2432-2442. PMID: 25060610. Link
Heier JS, Clark WL, Boyer DS, et al. Intravitreal aflibercept injection for macular edema due to central retinal vein occlusion: two-year results from the COPERNICUS study. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(7):1414-1420.e1. PMID: 24679444. Link
Ogura Y, Roider J, Korobelnik JF, et al. Intravitreal aflibercept for macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion: 18-month results of the phase 3 GALILEO study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;158(5):1032-1038.e2. PMID: 25068637. Link
Campochiaro PA, Clark WL, Boyer DS, et al. Intravitreal aflibercept for macular edema following branch retinal vein occlusion: the 24-week results of the VIBRANT study. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(3):538-544. PMID: 25315663. Link
Scott IU, VanVeldhuisen PC, Ip MS, et al; SCORE2 Investigator Group. Effect of bevacizumab vs aflibercept on visual acuity among patients with macular edema due to central retinal vein occlusion (SCORE2). JAMA. 2017;317(20):2072-2087. PMID: 28492910. Link
Tadayoni R, Paris LP, Danzig CJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of faricimab for macular edema due to retinal vein occlusion: 24-week results from the BALATON and COMINO trials. Ophthalmology. 2024;131(8):950-960. PMID: 38280653. Link
Danzig CJ, Tadayoni R, Cheung CMG, et al. Faricimab treat-and-extend dosing for macular edema due to retinal vein occlusion: 72-week results from the BALATON and COMINO trials. Ophthalmol Retina. 2025;9(9):848-859. PMID: 40107501. Link
Wolf S, Balciuniene VJ, Laganovska G, et al. RADIANCE: a randomized controlled study of ranibizumab in patients with choroidal neovascularization secondary to pathologic myopia. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(3):682-692.e2. PMID: 24326106. Link
Ikuno Y, Ohno-Matsui K, Wong TY, et al. Intravitreal aflibercept injection in patients with myopic choroidal neovascularization: the MYRROR study. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(6):1220-1227. PMID: 25745875. Link
Koh A, Lee WK, Chen LJ, et al. EVEREST study: efficacy and safety of verteporfin photodynamic therapy in combination with ranibizumab or alone versus ranibizumab monotherapy in patients with symptomatic macular polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy. Retina. 2012;32(8):1453-1464. PMID: 22426346. Link
Koh A, Lai TYY, Takahashi K, et al. Efficacy and safety of ranibizumab with or without verteporfin photodynamic therapy for polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy: the EVEREST II randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2017;135(11):1206-1213. PMID: 28983556. Link
Lim TH, Lai TYY, Takahashi K, et al. Comparison of ranibizumab with or without verteporfin photodynamic therapy for polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy: the EVEREST II randomized clinical trial (24-month results). JAMA Ophthalmol. 2020;138(9):935-942. PMID: 32672800. Link
Lee WK, Iida T, Ogura Y, et al. Efficacy and safety of intravitreal aflibercept for polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy in the PLANET study: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2018;136(7):786-793. PMID: 29801063. Link
Wong TY, Ogura Y, Lee WK, et al. Efficacy and safety of intravitreal aflibercept for polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy: two-year results of the PLANET study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2019;204:80-89. PMID: 30849345. Link
Krohne TU, Liu Z, Holz FG, Meyer CH. Intraocular pharmacokinetics of ranibizumab following a single intravitreal injection in humans. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;154(4):682-686.e2. PMID: 22818800. Link
Muether PS, Hermann MM, Droge K, Kirchhof B, Fauser S. Long-term stability of vascular endothelial growth factor suppression time under ranibizumab treatment in age-related macular degeneration. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;156(5):989-993.e2. PMID: 23938122. Link
Fauser S, Schwabecker V, Muether PS. Suppression of intraocular vascular endothelial growth factor during aflibercept treatment of age-related macular degeneration. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;158(3):532-536. PMID: 24879948. Link
Fauser S, Muether PS. Clinical correlation to differences in ranibizumab and aflibercept vascular endothelial growth factor suppression times. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016;100(11):1494-1498. PMID: 26888975. Link
Avery RL, Castellarin AA, Steinle NC, et al. Systemic pharmacokinetics following intravitreal injections of ranibizumab, bevacizumab or aflibercept in patients with neovascular AMD. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014;98(12):1636-1641. PMID: 25001321. Link
Avery RL, Castellarin AA, Steinle NC, et al. Systemic pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of intravitreal aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab. Retina. 2017;37(10):1847-1858. PMID: 28106709. Link
Hirata Y, Ueda T, Nishikawa N, et al. Recurrence of neovascular age-related macular degeneration after cessation of treat and extend regimen. Sci Rep. 2022;12:14768. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-19062-2. Link
Matsubara H, Kondo M, Uchida A, et al. Effects of suspension of anti-VEGF treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in clinical setting. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2022;260(6):1867-1876. PMID: 35094126. Link
Karacorlu M, Muslubas IS, Hocaoglu M, Ersoz MG, Arf S. Risk-based algorithm-guided treatment protocol for the management of neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Turk J Ophthalmol. 2019;49(5):258-269. PMID: 31650792. Link
Garweg JG, Stormann-Fischer C, Gerhardt C, Pfister IB. Continued anti-VEGF treatment does not prevent recurrences in eyes with stable neovascular age-related macular degeneration using a treat-and-extend regimen. Eye (Lond). 2022;36(4):862-868. PMID: 33941877. Link
Adrean SD, Chaili S, Grant S, Pirouz A. Recurrence rate of choroidal neovascularization in neovascular age-related macular degeneration managed with a treat-extend-stop protocol. Ophthalmol Retina. 2018;2(3):225-230. PMID: 31047590. Link
Peden MC, Suner IJ, Hammer ME, Grizzard WS. Long-term outcomes in eyes receiving fixed-interval dosing of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents for wet age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(4):803-808. PMID: 25596618. Link
Maguire MG, Martin DF, Ying GS, et al; CATT Research Group. Five-year outcomes with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: the Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(8):1751-1761. PMID: 27156698. Link
Rofagha S, Bhisitkul RB, Boyer DS, Sadda SR, Zhang K; SEVEN-UP Study Group. Seven-year outcomes in ranibizumab-treated patients in ANCHOR, MARINA, and HORIZON: a multicenter cohort study (SEVEN-UP). Ophthalmology. 2013;120(11):2292-2299. PMID: 23642856. Link
Campochiaro PA, Sophie R, Pearlman J, et al; RETAIN Study Group. Long-term outcomes in patients with retinal vein occlusion treated with ranibizumab: the RETAIN study. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(1):209-219. PMID: 24112944. Link
Karagiannis DA, Karampelas MD, Soumplis VM, Amariotakis C, Georgalas I, Kandarakis A. Recurrence of macular edema in retinal vein occlusions after treatment with intravitreal ranibizumab (Lucentis). Can J Ophthalmol. 2011;46(6):486-490. PMID: 22153634. Link
Wubben TJ, Johnson MW; Anti-VEGF Treatment Interruption Study Group. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy for diabetic retinopathy: consequences of inadvertent treatment interruptions. Am J Ophthalmol. 2019;204:13-18. PMID: 30878488. Link
Obeid A, Su D, Patel SN, et al. Outcomes of eyes lost to follow-up with proliferative diabetic retinopathy that received panretinal photocoagulation versus intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor. Ophthalmology. 2019;126(3):407-413. PMID: 30077614. Link
Lang GE, Stahl A, Voegeler J, et al. Observational outcomes in proliferative diabetic retinopathy patients following treatment with ranibizumab, panretinal laser photocoagulation or combination therapy: the non-interventional second year follow-up to the PRIDE study. Acta Ophthalmol. 2022;100(2):e578-e587. PMID: 34121335. Link
Naravane AV, Mundae R, Zhou Y, et al. Short term visual and structural outcomes of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment delay during the first COVID-19 wave: a pilot study. PLoS One. 2021;16(2):e0247161. PMID: 33596257. Link
Im JHB, Jin YP, Chow R, Dharia RS, Yan P. Delayed anti-VEGF injections during the COVID-19 pandemic and changes in visual acuity in patients with three common retinal diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surv Ophthalmol. 2022;67(6):1593-1602. PMID: 35970234. Link
Stone LG, Grinton ME, Talks JS. Delayed follow-up of medical retina patients due to COVID-19: impact on disease activity and visual acuity. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2021;259(7):1773-1780. PMID: 33977317. Link
Obeid A, Gao X, Ali FS, et al. Loss to follow-up among patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration who received intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2018;136(11):1251-1259. PMID: 30352121. Link
Soares RR, Mellen PL, Garrigan H, et al. Outcomes of eyes lost to follow-up with neovascular age-related macular degeneration receiving intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor. Ophthalmol Retina. 2020;4(2):134-140. PMID: 31540854. Link
Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(14):977-986. PMID: 8366922. Link
UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38. BMJ. 1998;317(7160):703-713. PMID: 9732337. Link
ACCORD Study Group; ACCORD Eye Study Group. Effects of medical therapies on retinopathy progression in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(3):233-244. PMID: 20587587. Link
Keech AC, Mitchell P, Summanen PA, et al; FIELD Study Investigators. Effect of fenofibrate on the need for laser treatment for diabetic retinopathy (FIELD study): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2007;370(9600):1687-1697. PMID: 17988728. Link
Wang J, Xu X, Elliott MH, Zhu M, Le YZ. Muller cell-derived VEGF is essential for diabetes-induced retinal inflammation and vascular leakage. Diabetes. 2010;59(9):2297-2305. PMID: 20530741. Link
Li J, Wang JJ, Zhang SX. NADPH oxidase 4-derived H2O2 promotes aberrant retinal neovascularization via activation of VEGF receptor 2 pathway in oxygen-induced retinopathy. J Diabetes Res. 2015;2015:963289. PMID: 25866826. Link
Age-Related Eye Disease Study Research Group. A randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial of high-dose supplementation with vitamins C and E, beta carotene, and zinc for age-related macular degeneration and vision loss: AREDS report no. 8. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119(10):1417-1436. PMID: 11594942. Link
Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 Research Group. Lutein + zeaxanthin and omega-3 fatty acids for age-related macular degeneration: the Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 (AREDS2) randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2013;309(19):2005-2015. PMID: 23644932. Link
Klein RJ, Zeiss C, Chew EY, et al. Complement factor H polymorphism in age-related macular degeneration. Science. 2005;308(5720):385-389. PMID: 15761122. Link
Haines JL, Hauser MA, Schmidt S, et al. Complement factor H variant increases the risk of age-related macular degeneration. Science. 2005;308(5720):419-421. PMID: 15761120. Link
Eye Disease Case-Control Study Group. Risk factors for branch retinal vein occlusion. Am J Ophthalmol. 1993;116(3):286-296. PMID: 8357052. Link
Eye Disease Case-Control Study Group. Risk factors for central retinal vein occlusion. Arch Ophthalmol. 1996;114(5):545-554. PMID: 8619763. Link
Rath EZ, Frank RN, Shin DH, Kim C. Risk factors for retinal vein occlusions: a case-control study. Ophthalmology. 1992;99(4):509-514. PMID: 1584567. Link
Jung SH, Kim KA, Sohn SW, Yang SJ. Association of aqueous humor cytokines with the development of retinal ischemia and recurrent macular edema in retinal vein occlusion. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55(4):2290-2296. PMID: 24398091. Link
Yong H, Qi H, Yan H, Wu Q, Zuo L. The correlation between cytokine levels in the aqueous humor and the prognostic value of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy for treating macular edema resulting from retinal vein occlusion. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2021;259(11):3243-3250. PMID: 34059950. Link
Bulloch G, Seth I, Zhu Z, Sukumar S, McNab A. Ocular manifestations of obstructive sleep apnea: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2024;262(1):19-32. PMID: 37227479. Link
Felfeli T, Alon R, Al Adel F, Elbaz U, Mandelcorn ED, Brent MH. Screening for obstructive sleep apnea amongst patients with retinal vein occlusion. Can J Ophthalmol. 2020;55(4):310-316. PMID: 32317117. Link
Ding Y, Yuan S, Liu X, et al. Protective effects of astragaloside IV on db/db mice with diabetic retinopathy. PLoS One. 2014;9(11):e112207. (Rodent model.) PMID: 25411784. Link
Zhao ZH, Xu M, Fu C, et al. A mechanistic exploratory study on the therapeutic efficacy of astragaloside IV against diabetic retinopathy revealed by network pharmacology. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:903485. (In silico and rodent.) PMID: 35814228. Link
Li Q, Zhang Y, Wang J, et al. Astragaloside IV attenuates ferroptosis and protects against iron overload-induced retinal injury. Exp Eye Res. 2024;246:110021. (Preclinical model.) PMID: 39117136. Link
Wu J, Ke X, Fu W, et al. Formononetin, an active compound of Astragalus membranaceus (Fisch) Bunge, inhibits hypoxia-induced retinal neovascularization via the HIF-1 alpha/VEGF signaling pathway. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2016;10:3071-3081. (Cell culture and rat model.) PMID: 27729769. Link
Zeng X, Zhu L, Liu J, et al. Study on the antioxidant effect of tanshinone IIA on diabetic retinopathy and its mechanism based on integrated pharmacology. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2022;2022:9990937. (In silico and rodent.) PMID: 36437835. Link
Alzhrani RM, Alhadidi Q, Bachu RD, Shah Z, Dey S, Boddu SHS. Tanshinone IIA inhibits VEGF secretion and HIF-1 alpha expression in cultured human retinal pigment epithelial cells under hypoxia. Curr Eye Res. 2017;42(12):1667-1673. (Cell culture.) PMID: 28937825. Link
Zhu Q, Zhang Y, Liu Y, Cheng H, Wang J, Zhang Y. Salvia miltiorrhiza extracts protect against retinal injury in a rat glaucoma model. Exp Ther Med. 2014;7(6):1513-1515. (Rat model.) PMID: 24926334. Link
Chan HC, Chang RCC, Koon-Ching Ip A, et al. Neuroprotective effects of Lycium barbarum Lynn on protecting retinal ganglion cells in an ocular hypertension model of glaucoma. Exp Neurol. 2007;203(1):269-273. (Rat model.) PMID: 17045262. Link
Mi XS, Feng Q, Lo ACY, et al. Protection of retinal ganglion cells and retinal vasculature by Lycium barbarum polysaccharides in a mouse model of acute ocular hypertension. PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e45469. (Mouse model.) PMID: 23094016. Link
He M, Pan H, Chang RCC, So KF, Brecha NC, Pu M. Activation of the Nrf2/HO-1 antioxidant pathway contributes to the protective effects of Lycium barbarum polysaccharides in the rodent retina after ischemia-reperfusion-induced damage. PLoS One. 2014;9(1):e84800. (Rat model.) PMID: 24400114. Link
Wang J, Yao Y, Liu X, Wang K, Zhou Q, Tang Y. Protective effects of Lycium barbarum polysaccharides on blood-retinal barrier via ROCK1 pathway in diabetic rats. Am J Transl Res. 2019;11(10):6304-6315. (Rat model.) PMID: 31737184. Link
Yao Q, Zhou Y, Yang Y, et al. Lycium barbarum polysaccharides improve retinopathy in diabetic Sprague-Dawley rats. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2018;2018:7943212. (Rat model.) PMID: 30581486. Link
Yang D, So KF, Lo ACY. Lycium barbarum polysaccharide extracts preserve retinal function and attenuate inner retinal neuronal damage in a mouse model of transient retinal ischaemia. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2017;45(7):717-729. (Mouse model.) PMID: 28349587. Link
Leszczynska A, Ramm L, Spoerl E, Pillunat LE, Terai N. The short-term effect of acupuncture on different ocular blood flow parameters in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma: a randomized, clinical study. Clin Ophthalmol. 2018;12:1285-1291. (Human; 56 glaucoma patients; no sham arm.) PMID: 30050281. Link
Takayama S, Seki T, Watanabe M, et al. Evaluation of the effects of acupuncture on blood flow in humans with ultrasound color Doppler imaging. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2012;2012:513638. (Human physiology study.) PMID: 22778772. Link
Nishinaka A, Tanaka M, Ohara K, et al. The changes in blood flow seen in the eye after foot acupuncture treatment in mice. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2020;2020:6405471. (Healthy mice; no disease model.) PMID: 32328137. Link
Bittner AK, Seger K, Salveson R, et al. Randomized controlled trial of electro-stimulation therapies to modulate retinal blood flow and visual function in retinitis pigmentosa. Acta Ophthalmol. 2018;96(3):e366-e376. (Human; pilot RCT, n=21.) PMID: 29130647. Link
Guo R, Zhang X, Su J, et al. Electroacupuncture ameliorates inflammatory response induced by retinal ischemia-reperfusion injury and protects the retina through the DOR-BDNF/TrkB pathway. Front Neuroanat. 2023;16:1057929. (Rat model.) PMID: 36686575. Link

Medical disclaimer

Medical Disclaimer: This article provides general education about the consequences of stopping treatment. It is not medical advice, diagnosis, a personal injection schedule, or a basis for deciding that treatment can stop. It does not establish a doctor-patient relationship. Individual risk depends on diagnosis, lesion type, visual potential, OCT findings, prior response, systemic health and ability to attend follow-up. Sudden floaters, dark haze, distortion, a curtain, marked vision loss, pain, redness or post-injection worsening requires urgent eye care. Do not stop, delay or lengthen anti-VEGF treatment, or change diabetes, blood-pressure, lipid, kidney or retinal treatment, without the responsible clinicians. Netra Restoration Therapy is adjunctive and cannot replace OCT, anti-VEGF, laser, photodynamic therapy, steroid monitoring, vitrectomy or emergency evaluation.

What Happens If You Stop Eye Injections for Macular Degeneration?