Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 2017
Comparison of different doses of subconjunctival sunitinib with bevacizumab in the treatment of corneal neovascularization in experimental rats.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hashemian Mohammad Nasser, Mahrjerdi Hadi Z, Mazloumi Mehdi, Safizadeh Mona S, Shakiba Yadollah, Rahimi Firouzeh, Afarideh Mohsen, Zare Mohamad Ali, Tafti Mohammadreza Fallah, Sepidan Bahram Bohrani, Abtahi Mohammad Ali, Abtahi Seyed-Hossein
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To compare the efficacy of subconjunctival administration of bevacizumab and different doses of sunitinib malate in reducing corneal neovascularization (CNV).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this experimental study, central corneal cauterization was created in the right eye of fifty male Sprague-Dawley rats. On day 1 (1 week after cauterization), rats were randomly assigned into five treatment groups. Group control (n = 10) received subconjunctival injection of 0.02 ml of base saline solution. Group 1 (n = 10) received 0.02 ml of bevacizumab (25 mg/ml). Group 2, 3, and 4 (n = 10 for each group) were treated with 0.02 ml of sunitinib malate (10, 20, and 50 μg/ml, respectively). On days 1, 7, and 14, digital photographs of the cornea were taken, and the area of CNV was measured.
RESULTS: During the 2-week follow-up, CNV area in treatment groups was less than in control group (P < 0.05). On day 7, corneal avascular area was highest in Group 3 at 63%. On day 14, the area of CNV in Groups 2 and 3 was less than in Group 1 (P = 0.031 and 0.011, respectively), but the difference between Groups 2 and 3 was not statistically significant (P = 0.552). The decreased CNV area on day 14 in Group 4 was significant in comparison to bevacizumab, but it was not significant on day 7 (P = 0.25 on day 7 and 0.002 on day 14).
CONCLUSION: Subconjunctival sunitinib malate is more effective than bevacizumab in regressing CNV. This effect is more prominent on day 14.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this experimental study, central corneal cauterization was created in the right eye of fifty male Sprague-Dawley rats. On day 1 (1 week after cauterization), rats were randomly assigned into five treatment groups. Group control (n = 10) received subconjunctival injection of 0.02 ml of base saline solution. Group 1 (n = 10) received 0.02 ml of bevacizumab (25 mg/ml). Group 2, 3, and 4 (n = 10 for each group) were treated with 0.02 ml of sunitinib malate (10, 20, and 50 μg/ml, respectively). On days 1, 7, and 14, digital photographs of the cornea were taken, and the area of CNV was measured.
RESULTS: During the 2-week follow-up, CNV area in treatment groups was less than in control group (P < 0.05). On day 7, corneal avascular area was highest in Group 3 at 63%. On day 14, the area of CNV in Groups 2 and 3 was less than in Group 1 (P = 0.031 and 0.011, respectively), but the difference between Groups 2 and 3 was not statistically significant (P = 0.552). The decreased CNV area on day 14 in Group 4 was significant in comparison to bevacizumab, but it was not significant on day 7 (P = 0.25 on day 7 and 0.002 on day 14).
CONCLUSION: Subconjunctival sunitinib malate is more effective than bevacizumab in regressing CNV. This effect is more prominent on day 14.