Intravitreal ranibizumab versus bevacizumab for treatment of myopic choroidal neovascularization.

PURPOSE

To compare intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) and intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) in the treatment of subfoveal choroidal neovascularization associated with pathologic myopia.

METHODS

Fifty-five patients fulfilling inclusion and exclusion criteria were randomized either to IVB or to IVR. After the first injection, re-treatments were performed on a pro re nata basis in monthly examinations over an 18-month follow-up. Primary outcome measures were the change in mean best-corrected visual acuity and the proportion of eyes improving in best-corrected visual acuity by >1 and >3 lines at the 18-month examination.

RESULTS

Forty-eight eyes received the treatment and were subsequently included in the analysis. At the 18-month examination, a significant improvement of 1.7 lines and 1.8 lines compared with baseline were noticed in the IVR and IVB subgroups, respectively. The difference in the final mean best-corrected visual acuity between the groups was not significant. A 3-line gain or higher was noted in 30% of eyes in the IVR subgroup and 44% of eyes in the IVB subgroup. Although both groups attained a significant improvement in central macular thickness, the IVR subgroup achieved a faster central macular thickness reduction. A significantly lower number of injections were administered in the IVR subgroup (2.5) compared with the IVB subgroup (4.7; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Intravitreal ranibizumab and IVB are effective in the treatment of subfoveal myopic choroidal neovascularization. Intravitreal ranibizumab achieved greater efficacy than IVB in terms of the mean number of injections administered.