Ophthalmic surgery, lasers & imaging retina · 2017
Comparison of Ranibizumab and Bevacizumab for Macular Edema Secondary to Retinal Vein Occlusions in Routine Clinical Practice.
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.
Khan Mehnaz, 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
Аннотация
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.].
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.].
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AgedAngiogenesis InhibitorsBevacizumabFemaleFluorescein AngiographyFollow-Up StudiesFundus OculiHumansIntravitreal InjectionsMacula LuteaMacular EdemaMaleRanibizumabRetinal Vein OcclusionRetrospective StudiesTomography, Optical CoherenceTreatment OutcomeVascular Endothelial Growth Factor AVisual Acuity