Journal
EYE
Volume 24, Issue 11, Pages 1708-1715Publisher
NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/eye.2010.147
Keywords
bevacizumab; ranibizumab; Avastin; Lucentis; macular degeneration
Categories
Funding
- Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System, Jamaica Plain, MA, USA
- VA Boston
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Purpose To report 1-year visual and anatomic outcomes of a prospective, double-masked randomised clinical trial comparing bevacizumab with ranibizumab for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Methods Patients who met inclusion criteria were randomised 2 : 1 to bevacizumab or ranibizumab. All subjects and investigators (except for the pharmacist responsible for study assignments) were masked to treatment arms. Visual acuity was taken on Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart. Patients were given either bevacizumab or ranibizumab every month for the first 3 months, followed by an optical coherence tomography-guided, variable-dosing treatment schedule. Main outcomes measured included visual acuity, foveal thickness, and total number of injections over the 1-year treatment period. Results In total, 15 patients received bevacizumab and 7 patients received ranibizumab. The average pre-operative visual acuity was 34.9 letters in the bevacizumab group, and 32.7 letters in the ranibizumab group. At 1-year follow-up, mean vision was 42.5 letters in the bevacizumab group, and 39.0 letters in the ranibizumab group. Two-tailed t-test failed to showed statistical significance between the two groups (P = 0.5). Patients in the bevacizumab group underwent an average of eight injections, whereas patients in the ranibizumab group underwent a mean of four injections (P = 0.001). Conclusion The 1-year outcomes of a prospective, double-masked, randomised clinical trial comparing bevacizumab with ranibizumab failed to show a difference in visual and anatomic outcomes between the two treatments for choroidal neovascularisation in AMD. Total injections given over the treatment period were significantly different between the two groups. Further studies with larger sample sizes are warranted. Eye (2010) 24, 1708-1715; doi: 10.1038/eye.2010.147; published online 1 October 2010
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available