Two-Year Outcomes of Intravitreal Bevacizumab for Choroidal Neovascularization in Japanese Patients With Pathologic Myopia

Hayashi, Kengo; Shimada, Noriaki; Moriyama, Muka; Hayashi, Wakako; Tokoro, Takashi; Ohno‐Matsui, Kyoko

doi:10.1097/iae.0b013e3182278bae

Cited by 48 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…14,27 Previous studies that have evaluated the use of anti-VEGF therapy in myopic CNV were also rather heterogeneous, as the studies have included prior treated eyes as well as non-subfoveal CNV. [28][29][30] In order to further assess the long-term efficacy of anti-VEGF therapy for myopic CNV, we evaluated the 2-year outcomes in the use of intravitreal bevacizumab and ranibizumab as the primary treatment for subfoveal myopic CNV. We also evaluated the prognostic factors that might influence the visual outcomes following anti-VEGF therapy for myopic CNV.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term outcome of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy with bevacizumab or ranibizumab as primary treatment for subfoveal myopic choroidal neovascularization

Lai

Luk

Lee

et al. 2012

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term outcome of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy with bevacizumab or ranibizumab as primary treatment for subfoveal myopic choroidal neovascularization

Lai

Luk

Lee

et al. 2012

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…6,[8][9][10][11][12] The mean final VA in patients treated with anti-VEGF drugs reported in the literature ranges from 0.23 to 0.55 (Table 2). [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][31][32][33][34][35][36] More importantly, in studies which have compared anti-VEGF with PDT treatment for myopic CNV, patients treated with anti-VEGF generally achieved better visual outcomes compared with the group treated with PDT. 7,24,25 It is important to note, however, that in these studies, patients…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…More recently, studies on treatment of myopic CNV with intravitreal injections of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents have reported good clinical outcomes. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12] However, anti-VEGF agents are associated with systemic risks such as cerebrovascular accidents and other arterial thromboembolic events, especially for patients with pre-existing disease. [13][14][15][16] In addition, intravitreal injections carry the risk of infectious endophthalmitis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of foveal-sparing with foveal-involving photodynamic therapy for myopic choroidal neovascularization

Tan

Chew

2013

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate the visual outcomes of choroidal neovascularization (CNV) secondary to pathological myopia in eyes treated with photodynamic therapy (PDT), and to determine the effect of lesion location and foveal involvement on visual prognosis. Methods Interventional case series of 24 consecutive patients with myopic CNV treated with PDT. The main outcome measure was final LogMAR visual acuity (VA). Results Of 24 eyes, the CNV lesion was subfoveal in 11 and extrafoveal in 13. Overall, the mean LogMAR VA at 24 months was 0.72. Extrafoveal CNV lesions achieved significantly better final VA compared with subfoveal CNV (LogMAR 0.45 vs 1.05, P ¼ 0.012). Eyes with extrafoveal CNV lesions were subdivided into foveal-sparing PDT (where the PDT laser spot did not involve the foveal center) and foveal-involved PDT (where the PDT laser covered the fovea). At all time points, the group with fovealsparing PDT had significantly better VA compared with the foveal-involved group. The final LogMAR VA for the foveal-sparing PDT group was 0.26 compared with 1.00 for the foveal-involved PDT group (P ¼ 0.003). At 24 months, 77.8% of foveal-sparing PDT cases achieved VA of Z20/40, compared with 25% of foveal-involved PDT cases and 9.1% of subfoveal CNV lesions (P ¼ 0.006). Conclusion For patients with myopic CNV, foveal-sparing PDT results in significantly better long-term visual outcomes compared with those with foveal-involved PDT. Fovealsparing PDT may be of value for treatment of myopic CNV patients who are not suitable for treatment with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections.

show abstract

“…In another prospective study, Silva et al [14] reported a significant gain of 8 letters in eyes treated with IVR. The overall sustainability of these results up to 2 years of follow-up has been documented with dichotomous outcomes; some studies revealed a loss of BCVA [18,19,20], whilst others demonstrated a maintenance of VA until 2 [21,22,23,24] and 3 years of follow-up [24] in eyes treated with IVB. Franqueira et al [25] also showed that treatment with IVR is a successful therapeutic option, improving VA for up to 3 years.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anti-VEGF Therapy in Myopic Choroidal Neovascularization: Long-Term Results

Freitas-da-Costa

Pinheiro-Costa²,

Carvalho³

et al. 2014

Ophthalmologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To evaluate the medium- and long-term efficacy of anti-VEGF agents in the treatment of choroidal neovascularization secondary to pathologic myopia (mCNV). Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with mCNV who had been treated with intravitreous anti-VEGF for at least 2 years. The best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) were compared before and after the treatment. The number of injections per year was also assessed. Results: The results were analysed at 2 years for 67 eyes, at 3 years for 52 eyes, at 4 years for 28 eyes and at 5 years for 13 eyes. The mean change from baseline BCVA was significant at 2 years (+8.6 letters; p < 0.001) and this gain remained significantly stable for a period of 5 years. The mean CRT showed a significant decrease over time, with a nadir at 2 years (-104.0 μm; p < 0.001). The mean number of injections performed during the first year was 5.2, being lower in subsequent years (p < 0.001). Conclusion: In this subset of patients with mCNV, an intravitreous therapy with anti-VEGF agents proved to have effective results over 5 years, with a sustained increase in BCVA.

show abstract

Two-Year Outcomes of Intravitreal Bevacizumab for Choroidal Neovascularization in Japanese Patients With Pathologic Myopia

Abstract: Intravitreal bevacizumab is a good treatment for eyes with nonsubfoveal CNV; however, another treatment is necessary for eyes with a subfoveally located CNV.

Cited by 48 publications

References 15 publications

Long-term outcome of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy with bevacizumab or ranibizumab as primary treatment for subfoveal myopic choroidal neovascularization

Long-term outcome of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy with bevacizumab or ranibizumab as primary treatment for subfoveal myopic choroidal neovascularization

Comparison of foveal-sparing with foveal-involving photodynamic therapy for myopic choroidal neovascularization

Anti-VEGF Therapy in Myopic Choroidal Neovascularization: Long-Term Results

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About