Bevacizumab versus ranibizumab in the treatment of exudative age-related macular degeneration
- 112 Downloads
The purpose of this article is to describe functional and morphological short-term results in patients with exudative age-related macular degeneration (AMD) of all subtypes, treated with intravitreal bevacizumab versus intravitreal ranibizumab. This was a retrospective case-controlled series of 30 patients treated with intravitreal bevacizumab and 30 patients treated with intravitreal ranibizumab for exudative AMD. All patients received three initial injections every 4 weeks. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) as well as greatest linear dimension (GLD) of the CNV in fluorescein angiography and central retinal thickness (CRT) in optical coherence tomography (OCT) were monitored 2–4 months after last injection. BCVA stabilized and slightly increased from logMAR 0.74 to 0.62 in the bevacizumab group, and from logMAR 0.76 to 0.58 in the ranibizumab group (P < 0.05 for each group). No statistical difference was seen between both groups at any time-point. CRT was significantly reduced in both groups at last follow-up. In contrast, GLD did not change significantly. Patients with exudative AMD of all subtypes benefit from intravitreal anti-VEGF injections. No significant difference between bevacizumab and ranibizumab is seen in the short-term follow-up.
KeywordsRanibizumab Bevacizumab Age-related macular degeneration Vascular endothelial growth factor Anti-VEGF treatment
- 1.Michaelson IC (1948) The mode of development of the vascular system of the retina with some observations on its significance for certain retinal diseases. Trans Ophthalmol Soc UK 68:137–180Google Scholar
- 18.Jaissle GB, Szurman P, Bartz-Schmidt KU, German Retina Society, German Society of Ophthalmology, German Professional Association of Ophthalmologists (2005) Recommendation for the implementation of intravitreal injections—statement of the German Retina Society, the German Society of Ophthalmology (DOG) and the German Professional Association of Ophthalmologists (BVA). Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 222(5):390–395Google Scholar