Sara Vaz-Pereira1,2, Inês P Marques3, João Matias4, Filipe Mira5, Lígia Ribeiro6, Rita Flores7,8. 1. 1 Department of Ophthalmology, Hospital de Santa Maria, Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Norte, Lisbon - Portugal. 2. 2 Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon - Portugal. 3. 3 AIBILI Association for Innovation and Biomedical Research on Light and Image, Coimbra - Portugal. 4. 4 Department of Ophthalmology, Centro Hospitalar do Baixo Vouga, Aveiro - Portugal. 5. 5 Department of Ophthalmology, Centro Hospitalar Médio Tejo, EPE, Torres Novas - Portugal. 6. 6 Department of Ophthalmology, Centro Hospitalar Vila Nova de Gaia e Espinho, Vila Nova de Gaia - Portugal. 7. 7 Department of Ophthalmology, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Central, Lisbon - Portugal. 8. 8 Department of Ophthalmology, Nova Medical School, Lisbon - Portugal.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is an important cause of visual disability in the modern world. We aim to evaluate the real-world outcomes of patients with RVO treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in Portugal. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, observational, multicenter study including 8 centers across Portugal and 200 patients treated with either ranibizumab or bevacizumab. Data were collected at 3 time points: time of diagnosis (0 time point) and 6 and 12 months after initiating treatment. Demographic and clinical data were collected. RESULTS: Median visual acuity (VA) and central macular thickness (CMT) improved in the branch RVO (BRVO), central RVO (CRVO), bevacizumab, and ranibizumab groups at 6 and 12 months compared to baseline, with CMT improving further only in the CRVO and ranibizumab groups between 6 and 12 months (p = 0.002 and p = 0.001, respectively). The CMT was lower in the ranibizumab group compared to the bevacizumab group both at 6 and 12 months (p<0.02). Median CMT improved in both the good and poor baseline VA groups at 6 and 12 months compared to baseline (p<0.001). Median VA only improved for the group with poor baseline VA at 6 and 12 months of follow-up (p<0.001). Regression analysis identified several baseline variables as predictors of visual outcomes at 6 and 12 months, with different results depending on the analyzed group. CONCLUSIONS: Both treatments were effective, although less effective than results reported in clinical trials. The morphologic response was better with ranibizumab compared to bevacizumab, although functionally there were no differences.
PURPOSE:Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is an important cause of visual disability in the modern world. We aim to evaluate the real-world outcomes of patients with RVO treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in Portugal. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, observational, multicenter study including 8 centers across Portugal and 200 patients treated with either ranibizumab or bevacizumab. Data were collected at 3 time points: time of diagnosis (0 time point) and 6 and 12 months after initiating treatment. Demographic and clinical data were collected. RESULTS: Median visual acuity (VA) and central macular thickness (CMT) improved in the branch RVO (BRVO), central RVO (CRVO), bevacizumab, and ranibizumab groups at 6 and 12 months compared to baseline, with CMT improving further only in the CRVO and ranibizumab groups between 6 and 12 months (p = 0.002 and p = 0.001, respectively). The CMT was lower in the ranibizumab group compared to the bevacizumab group both at 6 and 12 months (p<0.02). Median CMT improved in both the good and poor baseline VA groups at 6 and 12 months compared to baseline (p<0.001). Median VA only improved for the group with poor baseline VA at 6 and 12 months of follow-up (p<0.001). Regression analysis identified several baseline variables as predictors of visual outcomes at 6 and 12 months, with different results depending on the analyzed group. CONCLUSIONS: Both treatments were effective, although less effective than results reported in clinical trials. The morphologic response was better with ranibizumab compared to bevacizumab, although functionally there were no differences.
Authors: Ian Pearce; Andreas Clemens; Michael H Brent; Lin Lu; Roberto Gallego-Pinazo; Angelo Maria Minnella; Catherine Creuzot-Garcher; Georg Spital; Taiji Sakamoto; Cornelia Dunger-Baldauf; Ian L McAllister Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-06-18 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Frank G Holz; Marta S Figueroa; Francesco Bandello; Yit Yang; Masahito Ohji; Hong Dai; Halina Wykrota; Sanjay Sharma; Cornelia Dunger-Baldauf; Sue Lacey; Wayne Macfadden; Paul Mitchell Journal: Retina Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 3.975
Authors: Rajya L Gurung; Liesel M FitzGerald; Bennet J McComish; Alex W Hewitt; Nitin Verma; Kathryn P Burdon Journal: BMJ Open Ophthalmol Date: 2021-05-03
Authors: Vivian Paraskevi Douglas; Konstantinos A A Douglas; Demetrios G Vavvas; Joan W Miller; John B Miller Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-04-08 Impact factor: 4.964