Intravitreal conbercept for branch retinal vein occlusion induced macular edema: one initial injection versus three monthly injections

Abstract

Background: To compare the efficacy of one initial intravitreal injection of conbercept (IVC) versus three monthly IVCs in patients with macular edema (ME) after branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). Both options were followed by a pro re nata (PRN) retreatment regimen. Methods: This study retrospectively investigated and followed 60 patients with acute ME secondary to BRVO for over a year. 30 subjects received one initial injection (1 + PRN group); while, 30 received three monthly injections (3 + PRN group). The functional and anatomic outcomes were assessed during each follow-up. Results: The general characteristics of the 60 subjects were as follows: mean [SD] age, 57.43 [13.06] years; 33 [55%] female; 36 [60%] non-ischemic form. Both groups showed a stable gain in visual acuity (VA) with similar logMAR (mean ± SD) (1 + PRN group 0.308 ± 0.399, 3 + PRN group 0.34 ± 0.352) during the first 12 months. Additionally, both groups exhibited a significant reduction in central foveal thickness (CFT) with no statistically significant difference between them (1 + PRN group 222.1 μm ± 197.1 μm, 3 + PRN group 228.4 μm ± 200.2 μm). Both treatment groups had similar improvements in logMAR and anatomic outcomes over time. The stratified analysis showed that patients with the non-ischemic form and those with the ischemic form had similar improvements in VA (0.346 ± 0.366 VS 0.29 ± 0.39, P = 0.575) during the 12 months follow-ups. The number of injections was lower in the 1 + PRN group (4.0 ± 1.6) than in the 3 + PRN group (4.7 ± 1.3) (P = 0.068). No adverse effects or unexpected safety issues were reported in either group. Conclusions: Conbercept yielded significant improvements in VA and CFT among patients with BRVO induced ME, independent of their retinal ischemia status. The results showed that the 3 + PRN regimen do not lead to better functional outcomes or lower treatment needs in clinical practice as compared to the 1 + PRN regimen.

Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Treatment for Macular Edema in Eyes with Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion with vs Without Glaucoma – Does Glaucoma Affect Visual Outcome in Eyes with BRVO-ME After antiVEGF Injections?

“…32 However, several studies have reported that the improvement in visual outcomes and CRT were similar between single injections and three-monthly injections. [33][34][35] Although it is difficult to compare the previous RCT with other studies, including our study, due to the differences in inclusion criteria, these results suggest that the 1+PRN regimen may be a useful protocol for BRVO-ME with fewer injections. However, since our study was a retrospective study, we could not define strict re-injection criteria.…”

Effect of Conbercept Treatment on Macular Edema and Microvascular Structure in Eyes with Retinal Vein Occlusions

“… 16 , 19 In our study we established the efficacy on logMAR BCVA and CRT of conbercept intravitreal injection for the treatment of macular edema secondary to RVO, which was compatible with the findings of previous studies. 8 , 20 In the study, we established the safety of intravitreal conbercept therapy on RVO, there are no ocular side adverse events (SAE) in the study eye which were related to the drug or the injection procedure in both BRVO and CRVO groups.…”

Analysis on short-term change of macular function and the correlates after intravitreal conbercept for CRVO-ME

“…Compared with monoclonal antibody drugs such as ranibizumab,conbercept is a novel anti-VEGF reagent, is a humanized soluble,VEGF receptor(VEGFR) protein comprising extra-cellular domain-2 of VEGFR-1, and extra-cellular domain-3 and-4 of VEGFR2. All of these domains are connected via the Fc region of human immunoglobulin G. The most notable characteristic of conbercept is that it binds not only VEGF-A, but also VEGF-B, VEGF-C, and placental growth factor(PIGF) all with high affinity [ 14 ]. Furthermore, the affinity of conbercept to VEGF-A is even greater than that of ranibizumab [ 15 , 16 ].…”