the fluid, and retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) status and extent of atrophy, would be helpful in the future.We agree with you that the different use of anti-VEGF drugs, although they were not significantly different between the two groups, is a weak point of our article as we mentioned in the manuscript. We are preparing further studies that are more refined in controlling the anti-VEGF agent type. We ask for your warm interest in our future research.For the subfoveal choroidal thickness (CT), we measured baseline CT and admit our definition could make misunderstanding. "The outer layer of the Bruch membrane to the inner surface of the sclera" seems a more clear definition. However, because two observers independently and manually measured the CT, the pigment epithelial detachment related errors you worried about did not occur. We also agree with your suggestion that the choroidal vascularity index (CVI) may be informative of the total choroidal vessel area in eyes with nAMD. However, subfoveal CT is still a valuable factor, which has been frequently used in AMD-relating journals even after the introduction of the CVI concept. Sasaki et al 4 reported the association of subfoveal CT with the pathology of intermediate AMD and its features in Asians. Minnella et al 5 reported that CT can be considered as a potential biomarker reflecting the pharmacological effect of anti-VEGF drugs. Even though, it would have been a better research study if the CVI had been measured together with CT as you suggested. We look forward to further research on this. At last, as you mentioned, the odds ratio of CT was low. However, although it would be less important than other factors, it seems difficult to ignore it because it was statistically significant and showed a correlation with a tendency. Thank you for your considerate pointing out.