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

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.].