Efficacy in the treatment of age-related macular degeneration by bevacizumab versus ranibizumab: a meta-analysis_Chinese Journal of Ocular Fundus Diseases

Authors：

DuYuxiang ¹ , GuoDadong ² , SiJunkang ¹ , 唐凯 ¹ ,  毕宏生 ²

1. Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan 250002, China;
2. ;

Corresponding author：

毕宏生, Email: bhs201307@163.com

Keywords：

Macular degeneration/drug therapy; Antibodies, monoclonal; Meta-analysis

DOI：

10.3760/cma.j.issn.1005-1015.2014.03.018

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To evaluate the efficacy in the treatment of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) by bevacizumab versus ranibizumab. Methods A computerized search was conducted in the Embase, Ovid, PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WanFang Data and VIP database of Chinese journal. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing bevacizumab with ranibizumab for AMD from inception to November, 2013 were collected. Methodology qualifies of studies were performed by experienced reviewers according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Further, the materials were analyzed with software RevMan 5.2.6. Visual acuity and central foveal thickness before and 3, 6, 12 months after treatment between the two treatment methods were compared. Results A total of 5 RCTs were included in this meta analysis, including 1954 patients (967 patients in the bevacizumab group, 987 eyes in the ranibizumab group). There was no difference in improving visual acuity after treatment between two groups [3 months: weighted mean difference (WMD)=0.32, 95% CI: -0.84 -1.49, P=0.59; 6 months: WMD=0.47, 95% CI: -0.67 -1.62, P=0.42; 12 months: WMD=0.84, 95% CI: -0.23 -1.90, P=0.12]. There was no difference in cutting down the central foveal thickness after treatment between two groups (3 months: WMD=6.21, 95% CI: -6.23-18.65, P=0.33; 6 months: WMD=4.06, 95% CI: -6.16-14.27, P=0.44; 12 months: WMD=-5.39, 95% CI: -14.41-3.63, P=0.24). Conclusion Bevacizumab has equal efficacy to ranibizumab in the treatment of AMD.

Citation： DuYuxiang, GuoDadong, SiJunkang. Efficacy in the treatment of age-related macular degeneration by bevacizumab versus ranibizumab: a meta-analysis. Chinese Journal of Ocular Fundus Diseases, 2014, 30(3): 304-307. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1005-1015.2014.03.018 Copy

1.	Malik RA, Li C, Aziz W, et al. Elevated plasma CD105 and vitreous VEGF levels in diabetic retinopathy[J]. J Cell Mol Med,2005,9:692-697.
2.	Yazdani S, Hendi K, Pakravan M, et al. Intravitreal bevacizumab for neovascular glaucoma: a randomized controlled trial[J]. J Glaucoma,2009,18:632-637.
3.	Patel PJ, Bunce C, Tufail A, et al. A randomised, double-masked phase Ⅲ/Ⅳ study of the efficacy and safety of Avastin^® (Bevacizumab) intravitreal injections compared to standard therapy in subjects with choroidal neovascularisation secondary to age-related macular degeneration: clinical trial design[J/OL]. Trials,2008,9:56[2013-10-17].http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/9/1/56.
4.	Anothaisintawee T, Leelahavarong P, Ratanapakorn T, et al. The use of comparative effectiveness research to inform policy decisions on the inclusion of bevacizumab for the treatment of macular diseases in Thailand's pharmaceutical benefit package[J]. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res,2012,4:361-374.
5.	Schmucker C, Ehlken C, Agostini HT, et al. A safety review and meta-analyses of bevacizumab and ranibizumab: off-label versus goldstandard[J/OL]. PLoS One,2012,7:E42701[2013-10-17]. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0042701.
6.	Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test[J]. BMJ,1997,315:629-634.
7.	Krebs I, Schmetterer L, Boltz A, et al. A randomised double-masked trial comparing the visual outcome after treatment with ranibizumab or bevacizumab in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration[J]. Br J Ophthalmol,2013,97:266-271.
8.	Kodjikian L, Souied EH, Mimoun G, et al. Ranibizumab versus bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: results from the GEFAL Noninferiority Randomized Trial[J]. Ophthalmology,2013,120:2300-2309.
9.	CATT Research Group, Martin DF, Maguire MG, et al. Ranibizumab and bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration[J]. N Engl J Med,2011,364:1897-1908.
10.	IVAN Study Investigators, Chakravarthy U, Harding SP, et al. Ranibizumab versus bevacizumab to treat neovascular age-related macular degeneration: one-year findings from the IVAN randomized trial[J]. Ophthalmology,2012,119:1399-1411.
11.	Biswas P, Sengupta S, Choudhary R, et al. Comparative role of intravitreal ranibizumab versus bevacizumab in choroidal neovascular membrane in age-related macular degeneration[J]. Indian J Ophthalmol,2011,59:191-196.
12.	Steinbrook R. The price of sight--ranibizumab, bevacizumab, and the treatment of macular degeneration[J]. N Engl J Med,2006,355:1409-1412.

1. Malik RA, Li C, Aziz W, et al. Elevated plasma CD105 and vitreous VEGF levels in diabetic retinopathy[J]. J Cell Mol Med,2005,9:692-697.
2. Yazdani S, Hendi K, Pakravan M, et al. Intravitreal bevacizumab for neovascular glaucoma: a randomized controlled trial[J]. J Glaucoma,2009,18:632-637.
3. Patel PJ, Bunce C, Tufail A, et al. A randomised, double-masked phase Ⅲ/Ⅳ study of the efficacy and safety of Avastin^® (Bevacizumab) intravitreal injections compared to standard therapy in subjects with choroidal neovascularisation secondary to age-related macular degeneration: clinical trial design[J/OL]. Trials,2008,9:56[2013-10-17].http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/9/1/56.
4. Anothaisintawee T, Leelahavarong P, Ratanapakorn T, et al. The use of comparative effectiveness research to inform policy decisions on the inclusion of bevacizumab for the treatment of macular diseases in Thailand's pharmaceutical benefit package[J]. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res,2012,4:361-374.
5. Schmucker C, Ehlken C, Agostini HT, et al. A safety review and meta-analyses of bevacizumab and ranibizumab: off-label versus goldstandard[J/OL]. PLoS One,2012,7:E42701[2013-10-17]. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0042701.
6. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test[J]. BMJ,1997,315:629-634.
7. Krebs I, Schmetterer L, Boltz A, et al. A randomised double-masked trial comparing the visual outcome after treatment with ranibizumab or bevacizumab in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration[J]. Br J Ophthalmol,2013,97:266-271.
8. Kodjikian L, Souied EH, Mimoun G, et al. Ranibizumab versus bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: results from the GEFAL Noninferiority Randomized Trial[J]. Ophthalmology,2013,120:2300-2309.
9. CATT Research Group, Martin DF, Maguire MG, et al. Ranibizumab and bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration[J]. N Engl J Med,2011,364:1897-1908.
10. IVAN Study Investigators, Chakravarthy U, Harding SP, et al. Ranibizumab versus bevacizumab to treat neovascular age-related macular degeneration: one-year findings from the IVAN randomized trial[J]. Ophthalmology,2012,119:1399-1411.
11. Biswas P, Sengupta S, Choudhary R, et al. Comparative role of intravitreal ranibizumab versus bevacizumab in choroidal neovascular membrane in age-related macular degeneration[J]. Indian J Ophthalmol,2011,59:191-196.
12. Steinbrook R. The price of sight--ranibizumab, bevacizumab, and the treatment of macular degeneration[J]. N Engl J Med,2006,355:1409-1412.

Chinese Journal of Ocular Fundus Diseases

Efficacy in the treatment of age-related macular degeneration by bevacizumab versus ranibizumab: a meta-analysis

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content