Bevacizumab versus ziv-aflibercept in branch retinal vein occlusion

• Published in: Indian journal of ophthalmology Vol. 67; no. 7; pp. 1109 - 1113
• Main Authors: Braimah, Imoro, Singh, Sumit, Uplanchiwar, Bhushan, Mansour, Ahmad, Chhablani, Jay
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: India Wolters Kluwer India Pvt. Ltd 01.07.2019; Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd; Medknow Publications & Media Pvt. Ltd; Wolters Kluwer - Medknow; Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
• Subjects: Acuity; Aflibercept; Aged; Angiogenesis inhibitors; Angiogenesis Inhibitors - administration & dosage; Bevacizumab; Bevacizumab - administration & dosage; Branch retinal venous occlusion; Comparative analysis; Cost control; Diabetic retinopathy; Dosage and administration; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug dosages; Drug therapy; Edema; Female; Fluorescein Angiography; Follow-Up Studies; Fundus Oculi; Humans; Immunotherapy; Intravitreal Injections; Lasers; macular edema; Male; Medical imaging; Middle Aged; Monoclonal antibodies; Occlusion; Ophthalmology; Ophthalmoscopy; optical coherence tomography; Original; Patients; Povidone; Ranibizumab; Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor - administration & dosage; Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor - antagonists & inhibitors; Recombinant Fusion Proteins - administration & dosage; Retina; Retina - diagnostic imaging; Retinal diseases; Retinal Vein Occlusion - diagnosis; Retinal Vein Occlusion - drug therapy; Slit Lamp Microscopy; Statistical analysis; Tomography, Optical Coherence; Treatment Outcome; Visual Acuity; Ziv-aflibercept; India; Lebanon; California; United States > US; Illinois; bevacizumab; macular edema; Branch retinal venous occlusion; optical coherence tomography; Ziv-aflibercept
• ISSN: 0301-4738; 1998-3689
• DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_1532_18

Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of treatment with intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) and ziv-aflibercept (IVZ) in patients with macular edema (ME) post-branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). Methods: Patients with treatment naïve ME post-BRVO were included retrospectively if they received either IVB (0.05 ml/1.25 mg) or IVZ (0.05 ml/1.25 mg) monotherapy with a follow up of 12 months. Results: Thirty-two and 17 eyes received IVB and IVZ, respectively. The mean improvement in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 0.36 ± 0.3 logarithm of minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) in the IVB group and 0.27 ± 0.3 in the IVZ group (P = 0.35). The mean change in central macular thickness was 178.9 ± 180.9 and 173.5 ± 344.4 μm in IVB and IVZ groups, respectively (P = 0.94). The mean number of injections was higher in the IVB group (4.0 ± 1.8) compared with 1.82 ± 0.8 in the IVZ group (P < 0.0001). The IVZ group had significantly fewer number of visits (P < 0.0001) and longer maximum treatment-free intervals (P = 0.0081). Conclusion: IVZ appears to be cost-effective with the similar visual outcome and less number of visits in comparison to IVB.