Search

Purpose: To compare treatment outcomes of treatment-naïve eyes with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) with bevacizumab as the first-line treatment, according to the guidelines of the Dutch Ophthalmological Society, with those treated first with either ranibizumab or aflibercept, as used in many other countries, all treated using a treat-and-extend strategy. Methods: Data were obtained from the prospectively designed Fight Ret

Purpose: To generate conclusive evidence regarding the noninferiority of intravitreal bevacizumab compared with ranibizumab in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). Design: Comparative, randomized, double-masked, multicenter, noninferiority clinical trial. Participants: Eligible patients were older than 18 years, diagnosed with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus, with glycosylated hemoglobin of less than 12%, central area thickness of more than 325 mm, and visual impairment from DME with a best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between 24 letters and 78 letters. Methods: From June 2012 through February 2018, a total of 170 participants were randomized to receive 6 monthly injections of either 1.25 mg bevacizumab (n ¼ 86) or 0.5 mg ranibizumab (n ¼ 84). Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcome was change in BCVA from baseline to month 6 compared between the 2 treatment arms. The noninferiority margin was 3.5 letters. Results: The difference in mean BCVA between treatment arms was 1.8 letters in favor of ranibizumab after 6 months of follow-up; BCVA improved by 4.96.7 letters in the bevacizumab group and 6.78.7 letters in the ranibizumab group. The lower bound of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) was e3.626 letters, exceeding the noninferiority margin of 3.5 letters. Central area thickness decreased more with ranibizumab (138.2114.3 mm) compared with bevacizumab (64.2104.2 mm). In a post hoc subgroup analysis, participants with a worse BCVA at baseline (69 letters) improved by 6.77.0 letters with bevacizumab and 10.410.0 letters with ranibizumab, and central area thickness decreased significantly more in the ranibizumab arm of this subgroup compared with the bevacizumab arm. Participants with an initially better BCVA at baseline (70 letters) did not demonstrate differences in BCVA or OCT outcomes between treatment arms. Conclusions: Based on change in BCVA from baseline to month 6, the noninferiority of 1.25 mg bevacizumab to 0.5 mg ranibizumab was not confirm

Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of bevacizumab and ranibizumab in the treatment of exudative age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Design: Multicentre, randomized, controlled, double-masked clinical trial in 327 patients. The noninferiority margin was 4 letters. Patients: Patients ≥ 60 years of age with primary or recurrent sub- or juxtafoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV) secondary to AMD with a total area of CNV < 12 disc areas and a best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) score between 20 and 78 letters on an EDTRS like chart in the study eye. Methods: Monthly intravitreal injections with 1.25 mg bevacizumab or 0.5 mg ranibizumab were given during one year. Intention to treat with last observation carried forward analysis was performed. Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcome was the change in BCVA in the study eye from baseline to 12 months. Results: The mean gain in BCVA was 5.1 (±14.1) letters in the bevacizumab group (n = 161) and 6.4 (±12.2) letters in the ranibizumab group (n = 166) (p = 0.37). The lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the difference in BCVA gain was 3.72. The response to bevacizumab was more varied; 24% of patients showed a gain of ≥15 letters, 11% a loss of ≥15 letters and 65% a gain or loss < 15 letters compared to 19%, 5% and 76% respectively for ranibizumab (p = 0.038). No significant differences in absolute CRT and CRT change (p = 0.13) or in the presence of subretinal or intraretinal fluid (p = 0.14 and 0.10, respectively) were observed. However, the presence of any fluid on SD-OCT (subretinal and/or intraretinal) differed significantly (p = 0.020), with definite fluid on SD-OCT in 45% of the patients for bevacizumab versus 31% for ranibizumab. The occurrence of serious adverse events and adverse events was similar, with 34 SAEs and 256 AEs in the bevacizumab group and 37 SAEs and 299 AEs in the ranibizumab group (p = 0.87 and p = 0.48, respectively). Conclusions: Bevacizumab was not inferior to ranibizumab. The respo

Background: The effectiveness of ranibizumab in the treatment of diabetic macular edema has been proven with large clinical trials. For bevacizumab only two clinical trials have been published and a head-to-head comparison is lacking to date. However, if proved non-inferior to ranibizumab, use of the off-label bevacizumab could reduce costs enormously without a loss in visual acuity. A cost-effectiveness study has been designed to substantiate this hypothesis. Aim: To compare the effectiveness and costs of 1.25 mg of bevacizumab to 0.5 mg ranibizumab given as monthly intravitreal injections during 6 months in patients with diabetic macular edema. It is hypothesized that bevacizumab is non-inferior to ranibizumab regarding its effectiveness. Design: This is a randomized, controlled, double masked, clinical trial in 246 patients in seven academic trial centres in The Netherlands. Outcomes: The primary outcome measure is the change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in the study eye from baseline to month 6. Secondary outcomes are the proportions of patients with a gain or loss of 15 letters or more or a BCVA of 20/40 or more at 6 months, the change in leakage on fluorescein angiography and the change in foveal thickness by optical coherence tomography at 6 months, the number of adverse events in 6 months, and the costs per quality adjusted life-year of the two treatments.