4.4 Review

A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE ADVERSE EVENTS OF INTRAVITREAL ANTI-VASCULAR ENDOTHELIAL GROWTH FACTOR INJECTIONS

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0b013e3182278ab4

关键词

adverse events; age-related macular degeneration/AMD; anti-vascular endothelial growth factor/anti-VEGF; Avastin; bevacizumab; Lucentis; Macugen; pegaptanib; ranibizumab

资金

  1. Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw), The Hague [152001002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Intravitreal ranibizumab and pegaptanib are registered for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. No formal safety study has been conducted for intravitreal bevacizumab. These anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) drugs are being used on a large scale in daily practice for different ocular diseases. The objective of the present study was to systematically assess and compare the incidences of adverse events of anti-VEGFs. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in April 2009 with no date restrictions in PubMed, Embase, Toxline, and the Cochrane library. We used the terms pegaptanib, bevacizumab, ranibizumab, intravitreal, and specific and general terms for adverse events. Studies describing adverse events after anti-VEGF injections and the official safety data were included. Results: Two hundred and seventy-eight articles were included, and the incidences of adverse events were calculated separately for effect, safety, and specific side effect studies. The incidences of serious ocular and nonocular adverse events were approximately below 1 per 100 injections for intravitreal bevacizumab, intravitreal ranibizumab, and intravitreal pegaptanib. Most mild ocular adverse events were below 5 per 100 injections. Conclusion: The reported rates of serious adverse events were low after anti-VEGF injections. There is no sufficient evidence to conclude that there is a difference in incidences between the anti-VEGFs. RETINA 31: 1449-1469, 2011

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据