Treatment regimens for administration of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents for neovascular age-related macular degeneration

Visual outcomes, safety profile and morphometric response of optical coherence tomography biomarkers to ranibizumab biosimilar treatment in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: Real-world evidence

Purpose:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and morphological response of intravitreal ranibizumab biosimilar (Razumab) in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (n-AMD) up to 12 weeks.

Methods:

Retrospective analysis of 20 eyes of n-AMD receiving 4 weekly intravitreal Razumab. Main outcome measures were mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), intraretinal-fluid (IRF), subretinal-fluid (SRF), central-subfield thickness (CSFT), maximum central-retinal thickness (CRT), and dimensions of pigment epithelial detachment (PED) from baseline to weeks 4, 8 and 12.

Results:

Improvement in BCVA was seen at all visits, although not significantly (4 weeks: P = 0.18; 8 weeks: P = 0.4; 12 weeks: P = 0. 06). At 12 weeks, 90% of eyes either maintained or had an improvement in BCVA, with 40% of them showing an improvement of ≥3-lines and only 5% of them losing ≥3-lines of visual acuity. The median PED height and PED width reduced by 20.5 µm (P = 0.03) and 557.5 µm (P = 0.14), respectively, along with a mean reduction of 57.26 µmin CSFT (P < 0.001) and 44.15 µm in CRT (P = 0.004), respectively, at 12 weeks. On qualitative analysis, resolution of SRF and IRF was observed in 45% and 25% of eyes ‘ at 12 weeks. There were no serious ocular or systemic side effects identified.

Conclusion:

In real-world scenario, Razumab is an efficacious and economical anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agent for optimal management of n-AMD. The therapeutic outcomes demonstrated reasonable stabilization and improvement in visual acuity, favorable anatomical outcomes pertaining to OCT-biomarkers with an acceptable safety profile.

Changing trends in the use of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) biosimilars: Insights from the Vitreoretinal Society of India Biosimilars of Anti-VEGF Survey

Purpose:

The aim of this study was to present the outcomes of the 2018 and 2020 Vitreo-retinal Society of India (VRSI) biosimilars of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) (VIBE) surveys.

Methods:

An online survey of members of VRSI was conducted in July 2018 and January 2020 regarding their practice-patterns on anti-VEGF biosimilars pertaining to safety, efficacy, pricing, and need for enhanced clinical trials before regulatory approval.

Results:

In 2018, 112 VRSI members participated, whereas in 2020, 98 society members participated. In both surveys, majority of respondents were aware of biosimilars (96%, 2018 vs. 100%, 2020; P = 0.9) and felt that approval of biosimilar drugs should be made more stringent with larger clinical trials (89%, 2018 vs. 91%, 2020; P = 0.93). An increase in use of ranibizumab-biosimilar (41%, 2018 to 56%, 2020; P = 0.2) and a simultaneous significant decline in use of bevacizumab-biosimilar (9%, 2018 to 2%, 2020; P = 0.04) was noted from 2018 to 2020. From 2018 to 2020, the proportion of respondents satisfied with safety (61% to 68%; P = 0.59) and efficacy (65% to 81%; P = 0.32) of ranibizumab-biosimilar increased. However, during the same period, we noted in reduction in satisfaction levels with safety of bevacizumab-biosimilar (30% to 25%; P = 0.54), whereas satisfaction with its efficacy was stable (29% vs 30%; P = 0.99). A substantial proportion of retina specialists considered that current cost of ranibizumab-biosimilar ($130) was sufficiently low for it to be used as a substitute for Avastin (37%, 2018 and 40%, 2020; P = 0.82).

Conclusion:

The VRSI surveys reveal that Indian vitreoretinal specialists are familiar with anti-VEGF biosimilars. There was a progressive trend favoring ranibizumab-biosimilar over bevacizumab-biosimilar. One-third of the participants deem the current price of ranibizumab-biosimilar as appropriate to replace Avastin. Simultaneously, the need for enhanced pharmacovigilance and larger clinical trials are warranted for regulatory approval of these agents.

Real-World Safety Outcomes of Intravitreal Ranibizumab Biosimilar (Razumab) Therapy for Chorioretinal Diseases

Introduction

To assess the safety profile of the intravitreal ranibizumab biosimilar molecule, Razumab^® (Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ahmedabad, India) in chorioretinal disorders under real-world conditions.

Methods

This was a multicenter, retrospective chart review which included patients from 15 centers receiving intravitreal Razumab (IVRz) injections from 2016 to 2020. Patient demographics, ocular examination data, and detailed safety information regarding serious adverse events (SAE) or serious adverse drug reactions (sADR), and non-serious AEs (nsAE) or non-serious ADRs (nsADR) occurring within 1 month of IVRz injections were compiled.

Results

A total of 6404 eyes of 6404 patients received 9406 IVRz injections [mean (± SD) = 1.49 (± 0.63)] during 4.25 years. Adverse events were reported after 1978 injections (21.03%): 64.16% nsAE, 32.96% nsADR, 2.37% sADR, and 0.51% SAE. The most frequent adverse events were subconjunctival hemorrhage (8.2% of total injections), transient blurring of vision (6.5% of total injections), and mild ocular pain (5.27% of total injections). Serious ocular (31 cases with retinal pigment epithelial tears [0.33%], two cases of non-infectious vitritis [0.02%], and one case of endophthalmitis [0.01%]) and systemic (seven patients with non-fatal myocardial infarction [0.12%] and six patients with non-fatal cerebrovascular accident [0.09%]) adverse events were infrequent.

Conclusion

The study reports the largest pooled safety data on IVRz use in a real-world scenario. The results did not raise any new ocular or systemic safety concerns for the biosimilar agent, with the incidence and spectrum of adverse reactions similar to those reported with other anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) drugs. The real-world evidence suggests that IVRz is a safe anti-VEGF agent in the management of chorioretinal disorders.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40123-021-00345-2.

Aflibercept for age-related macular degeneration: 4-year outcomes of a ‘treat-and-extend’ regimen with exit-strategy

Aim

To report long-term outcomes on best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and treatment intervals with a treat-and-extend (T&E) regimen in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).

Methods

This observational study included treatment-naïve patients with nAMD, treated with aflibercept. A specific T&E protocol without a loading phase and predefined exit criteria was administered. After reaching predefined ‘exit-criteria’, the treatment period was complete, and patients were observed three monthly.

Results

Eighty-two patients with a follow-up period of ≥2 years were included. BCVA (mean±SD, ETDRS letters) increased from 51.9±25.2 at baseline to 63.7±17.7 (p<0.0001) at 1 year, 61.7±18.5 (p<0.0001) at 2 years, 62.4±19.5 (p<0.0001, n=61) at 3 years and remained insignificantly higher than baseline at 4 years at 58.5±24.3 (p=0.22). Central subfield thickness (mean±SD, μm) decreased significantly from 387.5±107.6 (p<0.0001) at baseline to 291.9±65.5 (p<0.0001) at 1 year, and remained significantly lower until 4 years at 289.0±59.4 (p<0.0001). Treatment intervals (mean±SD, weeks) could be extended up to 9.3±3.1 weeks at 1 year and remained at 11.2±3.5 weeks at 4 years. Twenty-nine (35%) patients reached exit criteria and continued with three monthly observation only.

Conclusions

After 4 years of treatment, initial vision gains were maintained with a reasonable treatment burden, even without an initial loading phase. Our results on functional outcomes are comparable with large controlled studies.

Extended Pharmacokinetic Model of the Intravitreal Injections of Macromolecules in Rabbits. Part 2: Parameter Estimation Based on Concentration Dynamics in the Vitreous, Retina, and Aqueous Humor

PURPOSE

To estimate the diffusion coefficients of an IgG antibody (150 kDa) and its antigen-binding fragment (Fab; 50 kDa) in the neural retina (Dret) and the combined retinal pigment epithelium-choroid (DRPE-cho) with a 3-dimensional (3D) ocular pharmacokinetic (PK) model of the rabbit eye.

METHODS

Vitreous, retina, and aqueous humor concentrations of IgG and Fab after intravitreal injection in rabbits were taken from Gadkar et al. (2015). A least-squares method was used to estimate Dret and DRPE-cho with the 3D finite element model where mass transport was defined with diffusion and convection. Different intraocular pressures (IOP), initial distribution volumes (Vinit), and neural retina/vitreous partition coefficients (Kret/vit) were tested. Sensitivity analysis was performed for the final model.

RESULTS

With the final IgG model (IOP 10.1 Torr, Vinit 400 μl, Kret/vit 0.5), the estimated Dret and DRPE-cho were 36.8 × 10-9 cm2s-1 and 4.11 × 10-9 cm2s-1, respectively, and 76% of the dose was eliminated via the anterior chamber. Modeling of Fab revealed that a physiological model parameter "aqueous humor formation rate" sets constraints that need to be considered in the parameter estimation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study extends the use of 3D ocular PK models for parameter estimation using simultaneously macromolecule concentrations in three ocular tissues.

Radiotherapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration

BACKGROUND

Radiotherapy has been proposed as a treatment for new vessel growth in people with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of radiotherapy on neovascular AMD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and three trials registers and checked references of included studies. We last searched the databases on 4 May 2020.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials in which radiotherapy was compared to another treatment, sham treatment, low dosage irradiation or no treatment in people with choroidal neovascularisation (CNV) secondary to AMD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard procedures expected by Cochrane. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We considered the following outcomes at 12 months: best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) (loss of 3 or more lines, change in visual acuity), contrast sensitivity, new vessel growth, quality of life and adverse effects at any time point.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 studies (n = 2430 people, 2432 eyes) of radiation therapy with dosages ranging from 7.5 to 24 Gy. These studies mainly took place in Europe and North America but two studies were from Japan and one multicentre study included sites in South America. Three of these studies investigated brachytherapy (plaque and epimacular), the rest were studies of external beam radiotherapy (EBM) including one trial of stereotactic radiotherapy. Four studies compared radiotherapy combined with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) with anti-VEGF alone. Eleven studies gave no radiotherapy treatment to the control group; five studies used sham irradiation; and one study used very low-dose irradiation (1 Gy). One study used a mixture of sham irradiation and no treatment. Fifteen studies were judged to be at high risk of bias in one or more domains. Radiotherapy versus no radiotherapy There may be little or no difference in loss of 3 lines of vision at 12 months in eyes treated with radiotherapy compared with no radiotherapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.04, 811 eyes, 8 studies, I² = 66%, low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence suggests a small benefit in change in visual acuity (mean difference (MD) -0.10 logMAR, 95% CI -0.17 to -0.03; eyes = 883; studies = 10) and average contrast sensitivity at 12 months (MD 0.15 log units, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.25; eyes = 267; studies = 2). Growth of new vessels (largely change in CNV size) was variably reported and It was not possible to produce a summary estimate of this outcome. The studies were small with imprecise estimates and there was no consistent pattern to the study results (very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life was only reported in one study of 199 people; there was no clear difference between treatment and control groups (low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence was available on adverse effects from eight of 14 studies. Seven studies reported on radiation retinopathy and/or neuropathy. Five of these studies reported no radiation-associated adverse effects. One study of 88 eyes reported one case of possible radiation retinopathy. One study of 74 eyes graded retinal abnormalities in some detail and found that 72% of participants who had radiation compared with 71% of participants in the control group had retinal abnormalities resembling radiation retinopathy or choroidopathy. Four studies reported cataract surgery or progression: events were generally few with no consistent evidence of any increased occurrence in the radiation group. One study noted transient disturbance of the precorneal tear film but there was no evidence from the other two studies that reported dry eye of any increased risk with radiation therapy. None of the participants received anti-VEGF injections. Radiotherapy combined with anti-VEGF versus anti-VEGF alone People receiving radiotherapy/anti-VEGF were probably more likely to lose 3 or more lines of BCVA at 12 months compared with anti-VEGF alone (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.40 to 3.17, 1050 eyes, 3 studies, moderate-certainty). Most of the data for this outcome come from two studies of epimacular brachytherapy (114 events) compared with 20 events from the one trial of EBM. Data on change in BCVA were heterogenous (I² = 82%). Individual study results ranged from a small difference of -0.03 logMAR in favour of radiotherapy/anti-VEGF to a difference of 0.13 logMAR in favour of anti-VEGF alone (low-certainty evidence). The effect differed depending on how the radiotherapy was delivered (test for interaction P = 0.0007). Epimacular brachytherapy was associated with worse visual outcomes (MD 0.10 logMAR, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.15, 820 eyes, 2 studies) compared with EBM (MD -0.03 logMAR, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.03, 252 eyes, 2 studies). None of the included studies reported contrast sensitivity or quality of life. Growth of new vessels (largely change in CNV size) was variably reported in three studies (803 eyes). It was not possible to produce a summary estimate and there was no consistent pattern to the study results (very low-certainty evidence). For adverse outcomes, variable results were reported in the four studies. In three studies reports of adverse events were low and no radiation-associated adverse events were reported. In one study of epimacular brachytherapy there was a higher proportion of ocular adverse events (54%) compared to the anti-VEGF alone (18%). The majority of these adverse events were cataract. Overall 5% of the treatment group had radiation device-related adverse events (17 cases); 10 of these cases were radiation retinopathy. There were differences in average number of injections given between the four studies (1072 eyes). In three of the four studies, the anti-VEGF alone group on average received more injections (moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence is uncertain regarding the use of radiotherapy for neovascular AMD. Most studies took place before the routine use of anti-VEGF, and before the development of modern radiotherapy techniques such as stereotactic radiotherapy. Visual outcomes with epimacular brachytherapy are likely to be worse, with an increased risk of adverse events,  probably related to vitrectomy. The role of stereotactic radiotherapy combined with anti-VEGF is currently uncertain. Further research on radiotherapy for neovascular AMD may not be justified until current ongoing studies have reported their results.

Treatment regimens for administration of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents for neovascular age-related macular degeneration

BACKGROUND

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is one of the leading causes of permanent blindness worldwide. The current mainstay of treatment for neovascular AMD (nAMD) is intravitreal injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents: aflibercept, ranibizumab, and off-label bevacizumab. Injections can be given monthly, every two or three months ('extended-fixed'), or as needed (pro re nata (PRN)). A variant of PRN is 'treat-and-extend' whereby injections are resumed if recurrence is detected and then delivered with increasing intervals. Currently, injection frequency varies among practitioners, which underscores the need to characterize an optimized approach to nAMD management.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effects of monthly versus non-monthly intravitreous injection of an anti-VEGF agent in people with newly diagnosed nAMD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and three trials registers from 2004 to October 2019; checked references; handsearched conference abstracts; and contacted pharmaceutical companies to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different treatment regimens for anti-VEGF agents in people with newly diagnosed nAMD. We considered standard doses only (ranibizumab 0.5 mg, bevacizumab 1.25 mg, aflibercept 2.0 mg, or a combination of these).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods for trial selection, data extraction, and analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 RCTs. The total number of participants was 7732, ranging from 37 to 2457 in each trial. The trials were conducted worldwide. Of these, six trials exclusively took place in the US, and three included centers from more than one country. Eight trials were at high risk of bias for at least one domain and all trials had at least one domain at unclear risk of bias. Seven trials (3525 participants) compared a PRN regimen with a monthly injection regimen, of which five trials delivered four to eight injections using standard PRN and three delivered nine or 10 injections using a treat-and-extend regimen in the first year. The overall mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at one year was +8.8 letters in the monthly injection group. Compared to the monthly injection, there was moderate-certainty evidence that the mean difference (MD) in BCVA change at one year for the standard PRN subgroup was -1.7 letters (95% confidence interval (CI) -2.8 to -0.6; 4 trials, 2299 participants), favoring monthly injections. There was low-certainty evidence of a similar BCVA change with the treat-and-extend subgroup (0.5 letters, 95% CI -3.1 to 4.2; 3 trials, 1226 participants). Compared to monthly injection, there was low-certainty evidence that fewer participants gained 15 or more lines of vision with standard PRN treatment at one year (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.99; 4 trials, 2299 participants) and low-certainty evidence of a similar gain with treat-and-extend versus monthly regimens (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.36; 3 trials, 1169 participants). The mean change in central retinal thickness was a decrease of -166 μm in the monthly injection group; the MD compared with standard PRN was 21 μm (95% CI 6 to 32; 4 trials, 2215 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and with treat-and extend was 22 μm (95% CI 37 to -81 μm; 2 trials, 635 participants; low-certainty evidence), in favor of monthly injection. Only one trial (498 participants) measured quality of life and reported no evidence of a difference between regimens, but data could not be extracted (low-certainty evidence). Both PRN regimens (standard and 'treat-and-extend') used fewer injections than monthly regimens (standard PRN: MD -4.6 injections, 95% CI -5.4 to -3.8; 4 trials, 2336 participants; treat-and-extend: -2.4 injections, 95% CI -2.7 to -2.1 injections; moderate-certainty evidence for both comparisons). Two trials provided cost data (1105 participants, trials conducted in the US and the UK). They found that cost differences between regimens were reduced if bevacizumab rather than aflibercept or ranibizumab were used, since bevacizumab was less costly (low-certainty evidence). PRN regimens were associated with a reduced risk of endophthalmitis compared with monthly injections (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.46; 6 RCTs, 3175 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Using data from all trials included in this review, we estimated the risk of endophthalmitis with monthly injections to be 8 in every 1000 people per year. The corresponding risk for people receiving PRN regimens was 1 in every 1000 people per year (95% CI 0 to 4). Three trials (1439 participants) compared an extended-fixed regimen (number of injections reported in only one large trial: 7.5 in one year) with monthly injections. There was moderate-certainty evidence that BCVA at one year was similar for extended-fixed and monthly injections (MD in BCVA change compared to extended-fixed group: -1.3 letters, 95% CI -3.9 to 1.3; RR of gaining 15 letters or more: 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.10). The change in central retinal thickness was a decrease of 137 μm in the monthly group; the MD with the extended-fixed group was 8 μm (95% CI -11 to 27; low-certainty evidence). The frequency of endophthalmitis was lower in the extended-fixed regimen compared to the monthly group, but this estimate was imprecise (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.11; low-certainty evidence). If we assumed a risk of 8 cases of endophthalmitis in 1000 people receiving monthly injections over one year, then the corresponding risk with extended-fixed regimen was 2 in 1000 people (95% CI 0 to 9). Other evidence comparing different extended-fixed or PRN regimens yielded inconclusive results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that, at one year, monthly regimens are probably more effective than PRN regimens using seven or eight injections in the first year, but the difference is small and clinically insignificant. Endophthalmitis is probably more common with monthly injections and differences in costs between regimens are higher if aflibercept or ranibizumab are used compared to bevacizumab. This evidence only applies to settings in which regimens are implemented as described in the trials, whereas undertreatment is likely to be common in real-world settings. There are no data from RCTs on long-term effects of different treatment regimens.

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for neovascular age-related macular degeneration

BACKGROUND

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the most common cause of uncorrectable severe vision loss in people aged 55 years and older in the developed world. Choroidal neovascularization (CNV) secondary to AMD accounts for most cases of AMD-related severe vision loss. Intravitreous injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents aims to block the growth of abnormal blood vessels in the eye to prevent vision loss and, in some instances, to improve vision.

OBJECTIVES

• To investigate ocular and systemic effects of, and quality of life associated with, intravitreous injection of three anti-VEGF agents (pegaptanib, ranibizumab, and bevacizumab) versus no anti-VEGF treatment for patients with neovascular AMD• To compare the relative effects of one of these anti-VEGF agents versus another when administered in comparable dosages and regimens SEARCH METHODS: To identify eligible studies for this review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register (searched January 31, 2018); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to January 31, 2018); Embase Ovid (1947 to January 31, 2018); the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to January 31, 2018); the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) Registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch - searched January 31, 2018); ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov - searched November 28, 2018); and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en - searched January 31, 2018). We did not impose any date or language restrictions in electronic searches for trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated pegaptanib, ranibizumab, or bevacizumab versus each other or versus a control treatment (e.g. sham treatment, photodynamic therapy), in which participants were followed for at least one year.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We contacted trial authors for additional data. We compared outcomes using risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs). We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 RCTs that had enrolled a total of 6347 participants with neovascular AMD (the number of participants per trial ranged from 23 to 1208) and identified one potentially relevant ongoing trial. Six trials compared anti-VEGF treatment (pegaptanib, ranibizumab, or bevacizumab) versus control, and 10 trials compared bevacizumab versus ranibizumab. Pharmaceutical companies conducted or sponsored four trials but funded none of the studies that evaluated bevacizumab. Researchers conducted these trials at various centers across five continents (North and South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia). The overall certainty of the evidence was moderate to high, and most trials had an overall low risk of bias. All but one trial had been registered prospectively.When compared with those who received control treatment, more participants who received intravitreous injection of any of the three anti-VEGF agents had gained 15 letters or more of visual acuity (risk ratio [RR] 4.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.32 to 7.55; moderate-certainty evidence), had lost fewer than 15 letters of visual acuity (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.55; high-certainty evidence), and showed mean improvement in visual acuity (mean difference 6.7 letters, 95% CI 4.4 to 9.0 in one pegaptanib trial; mean difference 17.8 letters, 95% CI 16.0 to 19.7 in three ranibizumab trials; moderate-certainty evidence) after one year of follow-up. Participants treated with anti-VEGF agents showed improvement in morphologic outcomes (e.g. size of CNV, central retinal thickness) compared with participants not treated with anti-VEGF agents (moderate-certainty evidence). No trial directly compared pegaptanib versus another anti-VEGF agent and followed participants for one year; however, when compared with control treatments, ranibizumab and bevacizumab each yielded larger improvements in visual acuity outcomes than pegaptanib.Visual acuity outcomes after bevacizumab and ranibizumab were similar when the same RCTs compared the same regimens with respect to gain of 15 or more letters of visual acuity (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.12; high-certainty evidence) and loss of fewer than 15 letters of visual acuity (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.02; high-certainty evidence); results showed similar mean improvement in visual acuity (mean difference [MD] -0.5 letters, 95% CI -1.5 to 0.5; high-certainty evidence) after one year of follow-up, despite the substantially lower cost of bevacizumab compared with ranibizumab. Reduction in central retinal thickness was less among bevacizumab-treated participants than among ranibizumab-treated participants after one year (MD -11.6 μm, 95% CI -21.6 to -1.7; high-certainty evidence); however, this difference is within the range of measurement error, and we did not interpret it to be clinically meaningful.Ocular inflammation and increased intraocular pressure (IOP) after intravitreal injection were the most frequently reported serious ocular adverse events. Researchers reported endophthalmitis in less than 1% of anti-VEGF-treated participants and in no cases among control groups. The occurrence of serious systemic adverse events was comparable across anti-VEGF-treated groups and control groups; however, the numbers of events and trial participants may have been insufficient to show a meaningful difference between groups (evidence of low- to moderate-certainty). Investigators rarely measured and reported data on visual function, quality of life, or economic outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Results of this review show the effectiveness of anti-VEGF agents (pegaptanib, ranibizumab, and bevacizumab) in terms of maintaining visual acuity; studies show that ranibizumab and bevacizumab improved visual acuity in some eyes that received these agents and were equally effective. Available information on the adverse effects of each medication does not suggest a higher incidence of potentially vision-threatening complications with intravitreous injection of anti-VEGF agents compared with control interventions; however, clinical trial sample sizes were not sufficient to estimate differences in rare safety outcomes. Future Cochrane Reviews should incorporate research evaluating variable dosing regimens of anti-VEGF agents, effects of long-term use, use of combination therapies (e.g. anti-VEGF treatment plus photodynamic therapy), and other methods of delivering these agents.