4.6 Article

Earlier therapeutic effects associated with high dose (2.0mg) Ranibizumab for treatment of vascularized pigment epithelial detachments in age-related macular degeneration

期刊

EYE
卷 29, 期 1, 页码 80-87

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/eye.2014.233

关键词

-

资金

  1. Roche-Genentech Inc.
  2. Owen Locke Foundation
  3. Kirchgessner Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Summary statement Intravitreal high dose (2 mg) ranibizumab may lead to quicker resolution of choroidal neovascularization (CNV) and associated retinal pigment epithelial detachment in eyes with exudative age-related macular degeneration, although it may possibly correlate with RPE tears in certain cases. Purpose This prospective study compared the outcomes of 0.5 vs 2.0mg intravitreal ranibizumab injections (RI) for treating vascularized pigment epithelial detachment (vPED) due to age-related macular degeneration. Methods Patients with vPED were randomized to receive 2.0 vs 0.5mg RI monthly for 12 months or for 4 months and then repeated on a pro-re nata basis. Optical coherence tomography, fundus photography, and fluorescein and indocyanine-green angiography were obtained at baseline and subsequent specific intervals. Outcome measures were best-corrected standardized visual acuities, central 1-mm thickness, surface area (SA), greatest linear diameter (GLD), heights (PED and CNV), and amount of subretinal fluid (SRF) and cystoid macular edema (CME). Results Both groups yielded reductions of the central 1-mm thickness, PED and CNV SA and PED height and GLD, SRF, and CME. Vision improvement and reduction in SRF and PED height occurred earlier for eyes receiving the 2.0mg dose. Cataract progression was similar but RPE tears developed more often with the 2.0mg dose. Conclusions There were similar visual and anatomical outcomes at the end of the study; however, the higher dose yielded more rapid reductions and more complete resolution of the PED, although there was possible increased tendency for an RPE tear with the higher dose.

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

4.6
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