Comparison of intravitreal bevacizumab and dexamethasone implant for the treatment of macula oedema associated with branch retinal vein occlusion

Min Kim, Dong Hyun Lee, Suk Ho Byeon, Hyoung Jun Koh, Sung Soo Kim, Sungchul Lee

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background/aims To compare the functional and anatomical outcomes of intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) with those of dexamethasone implant injection (IVD) for macular oedema associated with branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). Methods Seventy-two patients with centre-involving macular oedema secondary to BRVO were retrospectively enrolled in the study; these patients were treated with either 1.25 mg IVB (44 eyes; mean injections: 2.92 ±1.38) pro re nata (PRN) by follow-up monthly or 700 μg IVD (28 eyes; mean injections: 1.71±0.47) given at 6-month intervals PRN and were followed for at least 12 months. Main outcome measures were changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central foveal thickness (CFT). Results There was no statistically significant difference of mean change of the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution BCVA between IVB and IVD groups at monthly visits, up to 12 months (all p>0.05); however, there was a trend towards greater BCVA gain in the IVB group than in the IVD group at 6 months ( p=0.053). Additionally, 52.6% in the IVB group and 50% in the IVD group gained two or more lines of Snellen visual acuity at 12 months ( p=0.85). The mean CFT decreased by 160 μm for the IVB group and by 140.7 μm for the IVD group at 12 months. Both the IVB group and the IVD group achieved statistically similar improvement of CFT at monthly visits, up to 5 months (all p>0.05); however, the CFT began to deteriorate after 5 months in the IVD group, and at 6 months, improvement in the IVB group was significantly greater than that in the IVD group ( p=0.007). After a second IVD injection at 6 months, the IVD group showed significant improvement of CFT, and there was no significant difference of CFT change between the IVB and IVD groups until 12 months. Conclusions For macular oedema secondary to BRVO, IVB administered PRN monthly and IVD administered PRN at 6-month intervals, yielded functionally and anatomically comparable outcomes at 12 months.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1271-1276
Number of pages6
JournalBritish Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume99
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015 Sep 1

Fingerprint

Retinal Vein Occlusion
Dexamethasone
Edema
Visual Acuity
Macular Edema
Therapeutics
Injections
Bevacizumab
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Ophthalmology
  • Sensory Systems
  • Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience

Cite this

@article{d2539d16cdae449792021fc305ac8241,
title = "Comparison of intravitreal bevacizumab and dexamethasone implant for the treatment of macula oedema associated with branch retinal vein occlusion",
abstract = "Background/aims To compare the functional and anatomical outcomes of intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) with those of dexamethasone implant injection (IVD) for macular oedema associated with branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). Methods Seventy-two patients with centre-involving macular oedema secondary to BRVO were retrospectively enrolled in the study; these patients were treated with either 1.25 mg IVB (44 eyes; mean injections: 2.92 ±1.38) pro re nata (PRN) by follow-up monthly or 700 μg IVD (28 eyes; mean injections: 1.71±0.47) given at 6-month intervals PRN and were followed for at least 12 months. Main outcome measures were changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central foveal thickness (CFT). Results There was no statistically significant difference of mean change of the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution BCVA between IVB and IVD groups at monthly visits, up to 12 months (all p>0.05); however, there was a trend towards greater BCVA gain in the IVB group than in the IVD group at 6 months ( p=0.053). Additionally, 52.6{\%} in the IVB group and 50{\%} in the IVD group gained two or more lines of Snellen visual acuity at 12 months ( p=0.85). The mean CFT decreased by 160 μm for the IVB group and by 140.7 μm for the IVD group at 12 months. Both the IVB group and the IVD group achieved statistically similar improvement of CFT at monthly visits, up to 5 months (all p>0.05); however, the CFT began to deteriorate after 5 months in the IVD group, and at 6 months, improvement in the IVB group was significantly greater than that in the IVD group ( p=0.007). After a second IVD injection at 6 months, the IVD group showed significant improvement of CFT, and there was no significant difference of CFT change between the IVB and IVD groups until 12 months. Conclusions For macular oedema secondary to BRVO, IVB administered PRN monthly and IVD administered PRN at 6-month intervals, yielded functionally and anatomically comparable outcomes at 12 months.",
author = "Min Kim and Lee, {Dong Hyun} and Byeon, {Suk Ho} and Koh, {Hyoung Jun} and Kim, {Sung Soo} and Sungchul Lee",
year = "2015",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-306236",
language = "English",
volume = "99",
pages = "1271--1276",
journal = "British Journal of Ophthalmology",
issn = "0007-1161",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "9",

}

Comparison of intravitreal bevacizumab and dexamethasone implant for the treatment of macula oedema associated with branch retinal vein occlusion. / Kim, Min; Lee, Dong Hyun; Byeon, Suk Ho; Koh, Hyoung Jun; Kim, Sung Soo; Lee, Sungchul.

In: British Journal of Ophthalmology, Vol. 99, No. 9, 01.09.2015, p. 1271-1276.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of intravitreal bevacizumab and dexamethasone implant for the treatment of macula oedema associated with branch retinal vein occlusion

AU - Kim, Min

AU - Lee, Dong Hyun

AU - Byeon, Suk Ho

AU - Koh, Hyoung Jun

AU - Kim, Sung Soo

AU - Lee, Sungchul

PY - 2015/9/1

Y1 - 2015/9/1

N2 - Background/aims To compare the functional and anatomical outcomes of intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) with those of dexamethasone implant injection (IVD) for macular oedema associated with branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). Methods Seventy-two patients with centre-involving macular oedema secondary to BRVO were retrospectively enrolled in the study; these patients were treated with either 1.25 mg IVB (44 eyes; mean injections: 2.92 ±1.38) pro re nata (PRN) by follow-up monthly or 700 μg IVD (28 eyes; mean injections: 1.71±0.47) given at 6-month intervals PRN and were followed for at least 12 months. Main outcome measures were changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central foveal thickness (CFT). Results There was no statistically significant difference of mean change of the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution BCVA between IVB and IVD groups at monthly visits, up to 12 months (all p>0.05); however, there was a trend towards greater BCVA gain in the IVB group than in the IVD group at 6 months ( p=0.053). Additionally, 52.6% in the IVB group and 50% in the IVD group gained two or more lines of Snellen visual acuity at 12 months ( p=0.85). The mean CFT decreased by 160 μm for the IVB group and by 140.7 μm for the IVD group at 12 months. Both the IVB group and the IVD group achieved statistically similar improvement of CFT at monthly visits, up to 5 months (all p>0.05); however, the CFT began to deteriorate after 5 months in the IVD group, and at 6 months, improvement in the IVB group was significantly greater than that in the IVD group ( p=0.007). After a second IVD injection at 6 months, the IVD group showed significant improvement of CFT, and there was no significant difference of CFT change between the IVB and IVD groups until 12 months. Conclusions For macular oedema secondary to BRVO, IVB administered PRN monthly and IVD administered PRN at 6-month intervals, yielded functionally and anatomically comparable outcomes at 12 months.

AB - Background/aims To compare the functional and anatomical outcomes of intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) with those of dexamethasone implant injection (IVD) for macular oedema associated with branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). Methods Seventy-two patients with centre-involving macular oedema secondary to BRVO were retrospectively enrolled in the study; these patients were treated with either 1.25 mg IVB (44 eyes; mean injections: 2.92 ±1.38) pro re nata (PRN) by follow-up monthly or 700 μg IVD (28 eyes; mean injections: 1.71±0.47) given at 6-month intervals PRN and were followed for at least 12 months. Main outcome measures were changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central foveal thickness (CFT). Results There was no statistically significant difference of mean change of the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution BCVA between IVB and IVD groups at monthly visits, up to 12 months (all p>0.05); however, there was a trend towards greater BCVA gain in the IVB group than in the IVD group at 6 months ( p=0.053). Additionally, 52.6% in the IVB group and 50% in the IVD group gained two or more lines of Snellen visual acuity at 12 months ( p=0.85). The mean CFT decreased by 160 μm for the IVB group and by 140.7 μm for the IVD group at 12 months. Both the IVB group and the IVD group achieved statistically similar improvement of CFT at monthly visits, up to 5 months (all p>0.05); however, the CFT began to deteriorate after 5 months in the IVD group, and at 6 months, improvement in the IVB group was significantly greater than that in the IVD group ( p=0.007). After a second IVD injection at 6 months, the IVD group showed significant improvement of CFT, and there was no significant difference of CFT change between the IVB and IVD groups until 12 months. Conclusions For macular oedema secondary to BRVO, IVB administered PRN monthly and IVD administered PRN at 6-month intervals, yielded functionally and anatomically comparable outcomes at 12 months.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84940608056&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84940608056&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-306236

DO - 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-306236

M3 - Review article

C2 - 25777815

AN - SCOPUS:84940608056

VL - 99

SP - 1271

EP - 1276

JO - British Journal of Ophthalmology

JF - British Journal of Ophthalmology

SN - 0007-1161

IS - 9

ER -