4.3 Article

Comparison of intravitreal ziv-aflibercept and bevacizumab monotherapy in treatment-naive polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy

期刊

INDIAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 67, 期 7, 页码 1114-1118

出版社

WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_638_18

关键词

Intravitreal bevacizumab; intravitreal ziv-aflibercept; polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To report the visual and anatomical outcomes of intravitreal ziv-aflibercept (IVZ) and bevacizumab (BVZ) monotherapy in treatment-naive polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV). Methods: This was a retrospective case series of 16 eyes (8 eyes each in IVZ and BVZ groups). The study period was from January 2016 to March 2018. The inclusion criteria were treatment-naive PCV patients who were treated with either IVZ or BVZ monotherapy on pro re nata protocol and followed up monthly for 6 months. The change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and pigment epithelial detachment (PED) height was measured at baseline and 6 months. Results: A total of 16 eyes were studied. IVZ group had an improvement in BCVA by 0.15 logarithm of minimum angle of resolution (logMAR; approximately 1.5 lines) at 6 months, whereas BVZ group had a reduction in BCVA by 0.21 logMAR (approximately 2 lines) (P = 0.027). Five patients and one patient in IVZ and BVZ groups, respectively, had >= 5 letters gain of BCVA. IVZ group had significant reduction in PED height (P = 0.048), whereas the change in CMT was not significant at 6 months (P = 0.681). The mean number of injections (2.87 +/- 0.83 in IVZ and 2.25 +/- 0.89 BVZ group; P = 0.168) and longest treatment-free interval (3.00 +/- 2.20 months in IVZ and 2.12 +/- 1.96 months in BVZ group; P = 0.41) were not significantly different. Conclusion: The visual and anatomical outcomes in terms of PED reduction in treatment-naive PCV patients were better in IVZ group compared with BVZ. IVZ monotherapy is a viable, cost-effective alternative in these patients with good safety profile.

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

4.3
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