Comparison of Ranibizumab and Bevacizumab for Macular Edema Secondary to Retinal Vein Occlusions in Routine Clinical Practice

Comparison of Ranibizumab and Bevacizumab for Macular Edema Secondary to Retinal Vein Occlusions in Routine Clinical Practice

Copyright 2017, SLACK Incorporated.

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Ophthalmic surgery, lasers & imaging retina. - 2013. - 48(2017), 6 vom: 01. Juni, Seite 465-472
1. Verfasser: Khan, Mehnaz (VerfasserIn)
Weitere Verfasser: Wai, Karen M, Silva, Fabiana Q, Srivastava, Sunil, Ehlers, Justis P, Rachitskaya, Aleksandra, Babiuch, Amy, Deasy, Ryan, Kaiser, Peter K, Schachat, Andrew P, Yuan, Alex, Singh, Rishi P
Format: Online-Aufsatz
Sprache:English
Veröffentlicht: 2017
Zugriff auf das übergeordnete Werk:Ophthalmic surgery, lasers & imaging retina
Schlagworte:Journal Article Angiogenesis Inhibitors Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A Bevacizumab 2S9ZZM9Q9V Ranibizumab ZL1R02VT79
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Copyright 2017, SLACK Incorporated.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To determine outcomes of intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) (Lucentis; Genentech, South San Francisco, CA) versus bevacizumab (IVB) (Avastin; Genentech, South San Francisco, CA) for treatment of macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) in routine clinical practice
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective study identified treatment-naïve patients with ME secondary to RVO where treatment with either IVB or IVR was initiated. Retreatment criteria were based on ophthalmic examination and/or spectral-domain optical coherence tomography findings
RESULTS: Central RVO/hemi-RVO cohort: At 12 months, change in visual acuity (VA) (IVR: +12.9 letters, IVB +6.9 letters; P = .53), central subfield thickness (CST) (IVR: -144.1 μm, IVB: -153.9 μm; P = .88), and number of injections (IVR: 5.40 injections, IVB: 5.64 injections; P = .70) were not different between groups. Branch RVO cohort: At 12-month follow-up, no differences in change in VA (IVR: +15.2 letters, IVB: +10.6 letters; P = .46), CST (IVR: -23.1 μm, IVB: -91.4 μm; P = .16), or number of injections (IVR: 5.93 injections, IVB: 5.13 injections; P = .15) were noted
CONCLUSION: There is no notable difference in outcome between IVR and IVB when treating ME from RVO in routine clinical practice. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2017;48:465-472.]
Beschreibung:Date Completed 13.09.2017
Date Revised 08.04.2022
published: Print
Citation Status MEDLINE
ISSN:2325-8179
DOI:10.3928/23258160-20170601-04