4.4 Article

Bevacizumab for choroidal neovascularization secondary to pathologic myopia: Is there a decline of the treatment efficacy after 2 years?

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00417-009-1285-1

Keywords

Pathologic myopia; Choroidal neovascularization; Bevacizumab; Photodynamic therapy

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Verteporfin in Photodynamic Therapy (VIP) Study failed to prove a statistically significant benefit for myopic choroidal neovascularization (CNV) at the end of the second year. Therefore, we wanted to evaluate whether the early effects seen under anti-VEGF treatment can be maintained over longer follow-up intervals. This consecutive case series included all patients at the Centre for Ophthalmology, Tuebingen, with a 2-year follow-up after treatment with 1.25 mg of bevacizumab alone or in combination with photodynamic therapy. Twenty-one eyes from 19 patients were analyzed in the retrospective evaluation of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central foveal thickness (CFT). Mean logMAR BCVA improved from 0.64 at baseline to 0.55 after 1 year (p = 0.32) and remained 0.55 at 2 years (p = 0.23). A subgroup analysis showed that mean logMAR BCVA in the monotherapy group improved from 0.7 to 0.5 at 2 years (n = 11, p = 0.06). In the combined therapy group, mean logMAR BCVA changed from 0.55 to 0.59 at 2 years (n = 10, p = 0.69). Mean CFT decreased significantly in both groups by 168 A mu m (p < 0.001) and 76 A mu m (p < 0.05) in the monotherapy and in the combined groups, respectively. No complications or adverse effects were observed. Although the limitations of the study design have to be acknowledged and carefully discussed, we found no obvious superiority of a combined treatment for myopic CNV, at least in terms of the functional outcome and the injection frequency. The results indicate that bevacizumab might be beneficial in the treatment of patients with CNV secondary to pathologic myopia.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available