4.6 Article

Residual edema evaluation with ranibizumab 0.5 mg and 2.0 mg formulations for diabetic macular edema (REEF study)

Journal

EYE
Volume 29, Issue 4, Pages 534-541

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/eye.2014.338

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Genentech, Inc. [FVF4978s]
  2. California Retina Research Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To compare the efficacy of ranibizumab 0.5-mg and 2.0-mg intravitreal injections for persistent diabetic macular edema (DME) previously treated with bevacizumab. Methods In all, 43 patients with residual center-involved DME following intravitreal bevacizumab were included in this 12-month prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter study. Enrolled patients received three monthly ranibizumab 0.5-mg injections. At month 3, patients with residual macular edema switched to three monthly injections of ranibizumab 2.0-mg. Assessments included monthly visual acuity and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. Results Mean visual acuity improved by +6.4 letters at month 3 and +8.8 letters at month 6. Mean central subfield thickness (CST) decreased by -113 mu m at month 3 and -165 mu m at month 6. Before enrollment, 29/43 (67.4%) patients showed <10% CST reduction following monthly bevacizumab treatment. After three monthly ranibizumab 0.5-mg injections, 22/29 (75.9%) patients showed >10% reduction in CST, whereas 6 showed <10% reduction. Of these six, three (50%) showed >10% reduction in CST after switching to three monthly ranibizumab 2.0-mg doses. No serious adverse events were observed to month 6. Conclusion Ranibizumab 0.5-mg or 2.0-mg may improve visual and anatomic outcomes in patients with DME who demonstrated minimal or no response to bevacizumab therapy. Moreover, increased dosage of ranibizumab (2.0-mg) may provide additional benefit over ranibizumab 0.5-mg in some patients. However, 2.0-mg ranibizumab is not currently commercially licensed or available.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available