Aflibercept Monotherapy or Bevacizumab First for Diabetic Macular Edema.

BACKGROUND: In eyes with diabetic macular edema, the relative efficacy of administering aflibercept monotherapy as compared with bevacizumab first with a switch to aflibercept if the eye condition does not improve sufficiently (a form of step therapy) is unclear. METHODS: At 54 clinical sites, we randomly assigned eyes in adults who had diabetic macular edema involving the macular center and a visual-acuity letter score of 24 to 69 (on a scale from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better visual acuity; Snellen equivalent, 20/320 to 20/50) to receive either 2.0 mg of intravitreous aflibercept or 1.25 mg of intravitreous bevacizumab. The drug was administered at randomization and thereafter according to the prespecified retreatment protocol. Beginning at 12 weeks, eyes in the bevacizumab-first group were switched to aflibercept therapy if protocol-specified criteria were met. The primary outcome was the mean change in visual acuity over the 2-year trial period. Retinal central subfield thickness and visual acuity at 2 years and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 312 eyes (in 270 adults) underwent randomization; 158 eyes were assigned to receive aflibercept monotherapy and 154 to receive bevacizumab first. Over the 2-year period, 70% of the eyes in the bevacizumab-first group were switched to aflibercept therapy. The mean improvement in visual acuity was 15.0 letters in the aflibercept-monotherapy group and 14.0 letters in the bevacizumab-first group (adjusted difference, 0.8 letters; 95% confidence interval, -0.9 to 2.5; P = 0.37). At 2 years, the mean changes in visual acuity and retinal central subfield thickness were similar in the two groups. Serious adverse events (in 52% of the patients in the aflibercept-monotherapy group and in 36% of those in the bevacizumab-first group) and hospitalizations for adverse events (in 48% and 32%, respectively) were more common in the aflibercept-monotherapy group. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial of treatment of moderate vision loss due to diabetic macular edema involving the center of the macula, we found no evidence of a significant difference in visual outcomes over a 2-year period between aflibercept monotherapy and treatment with bevacizumab first with a switch to aflibercept in the case of suboptimal response. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; Protocol AC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03321513.).

Clinical Risk Factors for Retinopathy of Prematurity Reactivation after Intravitreal Antivascular Endothelial Growth Factor Injection.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the rate and risk factors for reactivation of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) after intravitreal injection (IVI) of antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents. STUDY DESIGN: Infants who received IVI therapy between 2017 and 2022 were enrolled and divided into 2 groups: those with and without ROP reactivation. Information on ROP variables and patient variables were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 114 infants with 223 eyes were enrolled in the study. The ROP reactivation rate was 11.4% of infants (9.9% of eyes). The mean duration of reactivation was 84 ± 45 days. Among the 223 eyes treated with IVI, reactivation rates were 6% for bevacizumab, 13.9% for aflibercept, and 22.2% for ranibizumab. A multivariable regression model showed that ranibizumab was an independent risk factor (OR 11.4, P = .008) for reactivation. Other risk factors included infants with periventricular leukomalacia (OR 13.8, P = .003), patent ductus arteriosus ligation (OR 10.7, P = .032), and infants who still required invasive mechanical ventilation on the day of IVI therapy (OR 7.0, P = .018). CONCLUSIONS: All anti-VEGF agents carry a risk of ROP reactivation, with the risk being greater with ranibizumab 0.25 mg than with bevacizumab 0.625 mg. Reactivation of ROP should be assessed vigilantly, especially in those infants with increased risks. Future research to determine the optimal anti-VEGF selection and dosage in high-risk infants is warranted.

Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor therapy reduces the administration frequency of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents in patients with diabetic macular oedema with a history of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agent use: A cohort study using the Japanese health insurance claims database.

AIM: We assessed the effectiveness of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) in reducing the administration frequency of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents in patients with diabetic macular oedema (DMO) using a health insurance claims database. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analysed health insurance claims data covering 11 million Japanese patients between 2005 and 2019. We analysed the frequency and duration of intravitreal injection of anti-VEGF agents after initiating SGLT2is or other antidiabetic drugs. RESULTS: Among 2412 matched patients with DMO, the incidence rates of anti-VEGF agent injections were 230.1 per 1000 person-year in SGLT2i users and 228.4 times per 1000 person-year in non-users, respectively, and the risk ratio for events was unchanged in both groups. Sub-analysis of each baseline characteristic of the patients showed that SGLT2is were particularly effective in patients with a history of anti-VEGF agent use [p = .027, hazard ratio (HR): 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.22-0.91]. SGLT2is reduced the risk for the first (p = .023, HR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.22-0.91) and second (p = .021, HR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.17-0.89) anti-VEGF agent injections. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in the risk ratio for the addition of anti-VEGF therapy between the two treatment groups. However, the use of SGLT2is reduced the frequency of anti-VEGF agent administration in patients with DMO requiring anti-VEGF therapy. Therefore, SGLT2i therapy may be a novel, non-invasive, low-cost adjunctive therapy for DMO requiring anti-VEGF therapy.

Case report: heart failure related to intravitreal injection of anti-VEGF.

BACKGROUND: Intravitreal injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor is considered the first-line treatment for polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy. It has potential risks for circulatory system, which should be particularly carefully evaluated in older patients. In this case study, we aim to discuss the potential impact of this treatment regimen on cardiac health. CASE PRESENTATION: This case report describes an elderly patient with no prior history of heart disease who exhibited unexpected heart enlargement and dysfunction. Throughout the patient's hospital stay, various potential causes were investigated, leading to the hypothesis that a 10-year history of intravitreal injections of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor could be related to the observed clinical manifestations. The patient was advised to discontinue this treatment, and after a 2-month follow-up period, there was a gradual improvement in the patient's cardiac structure and function. CONCLUSION: This manuscript highlights the importance of conducting cardiac examinations before and after anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment, especially for individuals at risk of heart diseases like the elderly. It emphasizes the need to carefully weigh the benefits and risks of treatment regimens to ensure optimal therapeutic outcomes.

ASSOCIATION BETWEEN RETINAL PIGMENT EPITHELIUM TEAR AND ANTI-VASCULAR ENDOTHELIAL GROWTH FACTOR THERAPY: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: To identify the prevalence of retinal pigment epithelium tear (RPET) after anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy and determine the efficacy of continued anti-VEGF therapy in patients with RPET. METHODS: All relevant clinical trials and observational studies in several online databases were screened. The main outcomes were the incidence of RPET after anti-VEGF therapy and changes in visual acuity for patients with RPET treated with continued anti-VEGF. RESULTS: The pooled incidence of RPET after anti-VEGF therapy from 24 studies with 17,354 patients was 1.9% (95% CI: 1.3-2.7). Most new RPET cases were concentrated in the first month at baseline or after the first injection during anti-VEGF therapy and gradually decreased by the subsequent month or injection. 13 studies with 157 patients reported that for patients who received anti-VEGF therapy after RPET, their pooled best-corrected visual acuity improved, but did not reach a significant level (standardized mean differences 0.34; 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.71). CONCLUSION: The incidence of RPET after anti-VEGF therapy is low. The intravitreal anti-VEGF injection may accelerate this process. For patients with RPET, maintenance of anti-VEGF therapy ensures visual acuity stability.

COMPARISON OF THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF RANIBIZUMAB 0.5 MG VERSUS 1.0 MG WITH PARS PLANA VITRECTOMY FOR THE TREATMENT OF PROLIFERATIVE DIABETIC RETINOPATHY: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: To investigate the effectiveness of two regimens of ranibizumab-assisted pars plana vitrectomy in the treatment of patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy. METHODS: This is a prospective, 6-month, randomized controlled trial. Eighty patients with 87 eyes requiring pars plana vitrectomy treatment for proliferative diabetic retinopathy were included and randomly divided into a 1.0-mg injection group and a 0.5-mg injection group. The ranibizumab was delivered intraoperatively, at the close of surgery. The vitreous hemorrhage grade, best-corrected visual acuity, central macular thickness, and safety data were assessed to Month 6. RESULTS: The 1.0-mg injection group had a milder grade and a lower reoccurrence rate of early postoperatively vitreous hemorrhage than the 0.5-mg injection group (35.0% and 63.4%, respectively, P = 0.0195). The mean best-corrected visual acuity of two groups was significantly improved from baseline to 6 months after surgery, 1.60 ± 0.72 Logarithm of the Minimum Angle of Resolution (LogMAR) (<20/200) to 0.47 ± 0.49 LogMAR (20/59) for the 1.0-mg injection group and 1.51 ± 0.69 LogMAR (<20/200) to 0.50 ± 0.31 LogMAR (20/63) for the 0.5-mg injection group, but there was no significant difference between the two groups ( P = 0.74). There was no significant difference in the mean decrease in central macular thickness and probability of postoperative adverse events between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Intravitreal injection of 1.0 mg of ranibizumab after pars plana vitrectomy compared with the recommended dose of 0.5 mg significantly reduced the recurrence and severity of early postoperative vitreous hemorrhage in patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy. It also contributed to the early recovery of visual acuity after surgery and did not increase postoperative adverse events.

SHORT-TERM REACTIVATION OF RETINOPATHY OF PREMATURITY AFTER PRIMARY RANIBIZUMAB TREATMENT.

PURPOSE: Investigate risk factors for short-term reactivation of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) after intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) therapy and determine safety and efficacy of repeat injections. METHODS: Retrospective chart review study of patients screened for ROP as inpatients between 2013 and 2023 who received IVR within the UCLA health care system. Primary outcomes were rates and timing of short-term ROP reactivation, defined as repeat worsening of ROP to stage 2 or 3 before 52 weeks postmenstrual age, as well as risk factors for reactivation. Other outcomes included adverse events and rates of reactivation after a second intravitreal injection. RESULTS: Eighty-two eyes of 43 patients received primary IVR 0.25 mg/0.025 cc for type 1 ROP. Thirteen patients (22 eyes) (30.2% of patients, 26.8% of eyes) developed short-term reactivation an average of 7.2 weeks ± 1.7 weeks after treatment. Increased reactivation risk was associated with zone I disease (odds ratio 6.23, 95% CI, 1.35-28.7, P = 0.019), lower postmenstrual age at first injection (odds ratio 1.64, 95% CI, 1.19-2.26; P = 0.003), and lower gestational age at birth (odds ratio 1.80, 95% CI, 1.04-3.13, P = 0.037). Of the 13 patients that received repeat injections, five required laser treatment for a second reactivation (11.6% of patients receiving IVR). No eyes developed retinal vascular occlusion, endophthalmitis, or cataract. CONCLUSION: Repeat injections may be required after primary IVR for aggressive ROP. Repeat IVR treatment for ROP is effective and poses few ophthalmic adverse events, although additional reactivation remains a risk.

Endophthalmitis following same-day bilateral anti-VEGF injections: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To review the risk of endophthalmitis in same-day bilateral anti-VEGF injections. METHODS: We searched 12 literature databases for studies on the risk of endophthalmitis after same-day bilateral intravitreal anti-VEGF injections. Data extraction was made independently by two authors and discussed afterward until reaching consensus. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included with a total of 138,478 intravitreal anti-VEGF injections (69,239 bilateral injections sessions) given in at least 7579 patients. In total, 33 cases of endophthalmitis had occurred, and no cases were bilateral. The incidence of endophthalmitis ranged from 0 to 0.53% per intravitreal injection across studies. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that clinicians can consider same-day treatment of both eyes of patients in need of bilateral intravitreal anti-VEGF injection therapy, but larger studies are needed to quantify the exact risk of endophthalmitis.

Posterior vitreous attachment as a risk factor for endophthalmitis following intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor injection.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the importance of the status of posterior vitreous in eyes with endophthalmitis following intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF). METHODS: The absence or existence of posterior vitreous detachment (PVD) was elicited in 23 eyes of 23 patients with injection related endophthalmitis, during pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) and compared with 24 control eyes of 24 patients who received intravitreal anti-VEGF without any complication. RESULTS: Thirtten (54.2%) out of 24 patients in the control group had full PVD, whereas only 2 (9.5%) out of 23 eyes in endophthalmitis group (p < 0.001) had full PVD. In all eyes without PVD, posterior vitreous was inducted to be detached at least from optic nerve and macular area without any iatrogenic tear. CONCLUSION: The absence of PVD is a factor that increases the risk of endophthalmitis after intravitreal injections. Uncomplicated separation of the posterior vitreous from the retina in PPV contributes to better prognosis.

INVESTIGATION OF INCIDENCE AND CAUSES OF ACUTE VISION LOSS DURING ANTI-VASCULAR ENDOTHELIAL GROWTH FACTOR THERAPY FOR NEOVASCULAR AGE-RELATED MACULAR DEGENERATION DURING A FOUR-YEAR FOLLOW-UP.

PURPOSE: To investigate the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of patients with age-related macular degeneration who experienced acute vision loss despite periodic injections of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment for 4 years. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients who were diagnosed with treatment-naive neovascular age-related macular degeneration and completed a 4-year follow-up. The incidence and risk factors for the occurrence of three or more lines of visual loss at every checkup were investigated. RESULTS: The analysis included 76 eyes of 76 patients. Acute vision loss occurred in 30 eyes (39.5%) over 4 years. Lower baseline best-corrected visual acuity and disrupted ellipsoid zone were independent predictors of vision loss occurrence. Although the causes and timing of visual acuity loss varied, retinal pigment epithelium tears were observed only in the first year. Most patients (86.7%) who experienced vision loss recovered their vision to pre-loss levels at least once; however, the final best-corrected visual acuity was worse than that in the group that did not experience acute vision loss. CONCLUSION: Approximately half of the patients with age-related macular degeneration experienced acute vision loss during a 4-year follow-up, despite continuous anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment. Most patients recovered from vision losses temporarily; however, they experienced worse visual outcomes subsequently.

TEN-YEAR VISUAL OUTCOME AND CHANGE IN CHORIORETINAL ATROPHY AFTER INTRAVITREAL RANIBIZUMAB FOR MACULAR NEOVASCULARIZATION IN PATHOLOGIC MYOPIA.

PURPOSE: To investigate the 10-year visual outcome and chorioretinal atrophy after a single intravitreal ranibizumab injection followed by a pro re nata regimen for myopic macular neovascularization in pathologic myopia, and to identify the factors associated with 10-year best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). METHODS: This retrospective observational study evaluated 26 consecutive treatment-naïve eyes (26 patients) with myopic macular neovascularization in pathologic myopia who underwent a single intravitreal ranibizumab followed by a pro re nata regimen of intravitreal ranibizumab and/or intravitreal aflibercept injection and observed over 10 years. We assessed changes in BCVA and morphological parameters, including the META-PM Study category as a chorioretinal atrophy index. RESULTS: The logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution BCVA changed from 0.36 (Snellen, 20/45) ± 0.39 to 0.39 (20/49) ± 0.36 over 10 years of observation. Compared to baseline, 1-year BCVA improved ( P = 0.002), whereas 2 to 10-year BCVA was not significantly different. Total injection frequency was 3.8 ± 2.6. In none of the eyes, 10-year BCVA was 20/200 or less. Ten-year BCVA correlated with baseline BCVA ( P = 0.01, r = 0.47). The META-PM Study category progressed in 60% of eyes. There were no drug-induced complications. CONCLUSION: Best-corrected visual acuity in eyes with myopic macular neovascularization in pathologic myopia was maintained for 10 years after a single intravitreal ranibizumab followed by a pro re nata regimen without drug-induced complications. The META-PM Study category progressed in 60% of eyes, especially those with older baseline age. Early diagnosis and treatment of myopic macular neovascularization are essential to maintain good long-term BCVA.

Systemic and Ocular Adverse Events with Intravitreal Anti-VEGF Therapy Used in the Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy: a Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents are used routinely in the management of neovascular conditions including proliferative diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema. While the efficacy of anti-VEGF agents has been well-validated, their ocular and systemic adverse events should always be considered and discussed with patients. The aim of this review is to discuss the most recent literature reports regarding the various ocular and systemic adverse events associated with intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment in diabetic retinopathy. RECENT FINDINGS: The most frequently reported adverse ocular events include subconjunctival hemorrhage, vitreous hemorrhage, increased intraocular pressure, uveitis, endophthalmitis, ocular surface disease, and traumatic cataract. Subconjunctival hemorrhage and vitreous hemorrhage are the most common ocular adverse events reported with intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment. The most serious (though rare) ocular adverse events include endophthalmitis and rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. A consensus regarding the association of systemic adverse events (such as myocardial infarction, stroke, and death) with intravitreal anti-VEGF treatments has not been established. Intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy is used in the treatment of diabetic retinopathy, macular degeneration, and other diseases. These agents are associated with a variety of ocular and systemic adverse events that ophthalmologists should always consider.

Ten-year mortality and long-term visual acuity outcomes in patients with exudative age-related macular degeneration treated with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections.

PURPOSE: There are limited real-world data on long-term mortality and visual outcomes in patients treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) for exudative age-related macular degeneration (exudative AMD). We assessed 10-year mortality and clinical outcomes in exudative AMD patients treated with intravitreal therapy (IVT) anti-VEGF injections on a pro-re-nata (PRN) regime following a standard loading regime. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of the first 216 exudative AMD patients receiving IVT anti-VEGF for exudative AMD at a public tertiary referral hospital in Scotland. Main outcome measures were mortality, cause of death and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). RESULTS: A total of 216 patients were included. Mean age at presentation was 79.1 years [standard deviation (SD) 6.9]. Mean follow-up duration was 6.6 years (SD 3.2) during which there was a mean 24.3 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letter loss in BCVA (P < 0.0001). Patients received a mean of 2.2 (SD 1.8) injections per year of follow-up. Overall, 52.6% (113/216) died during the period studied. Observed annual mortality incidence risk was 6.5% (SD 3.1) and was found to be significantly lower (P = 0.0064) than the expected annual death incidence risk (9.6%, SD 1.5) based on age and sex standardised Scottish mortality risk. The most common causes of death were malignancies (21.3%) and infection (20.0%). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the relatively good long-term prognosis in vision and mortality in exudative AMD treated with a PRN regime in the real world. Although the majority lost vision, the rate of decline was significantly slower than that which would have been experienced in the pre-anti-VEGF era and reassuringly standardised mortality risk was lower than the national average.

Non-immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions secondary to intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factors.

PURPOSE: To describe a series of non-immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions after intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (anti-VEGFs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective report of 6 patients with cutaneous non-immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions following intravitreal anti-VEGF injections, 4 after ranibizumab, 1 after bevacizumab and 1 after aflibercept. RESULTS: Clinical manifestations ranged from mild maculopapular rash, purpura to severe generalized erythroderma, with or without systemic involvement such as microscopic hematuria and proteinuria or fever. In two out of the six patients, reintroduction of either the same or an alternative anti-VEGF drug did induce a recurrence of the drug hypersensitivity reaction, while 4 patients showed no recurrence. CONCLUSION: Cutaneous non-immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions secondary to intravitreal anti-VEGF may occur. Continuation of the same drug or switch to another anti-VEGF may either induce recurrence or be well supported by the patient. The decision of drug discontinuation should be guided by the severity of the disease.

RISK OF INTRAOCULAR INFLAMMATION AFTER INJECTION OF ANTIVASCULAR ENDOTHELIAL GROWTH FACTOR AGENTS: A Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: This meta-analysis investigates the incidence of intraocular inflammation (IOI) after intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor injections in neovascular age-related macular degeneration. METHODS: A systematic search was performed on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central from January 2005 to April 2021. Randomized controlled trials comparing IOI after intravitreal bevacizumab, ranibizumab, brolucizumab, or aflibercept in neovascular age-related macular degeneration were included. Primary outcomes were sight-threatening IOI, final best-corrected visual acuity, and change in best-corrected visual acuity from baseline. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of other IOI events. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Overall, 11,460 unique studies were screened, of which 14 randomized controlled trials and 6,759 eyes at baseline were included. There was no difference between agents for the risk of endophthalmitis and retinal vascular occlusion. Compared with aflibercept, brolucizumab had a higher incidence of generalized IOI (risk ratio = 6.24, 95% confidence interval = [1.40-27.90]) and vitreous haze/floaters (risk ratio = 1.64, 95% confidence interval = [1.00-2.67]). There were no significant differences between comparators for other secondary end points. CONCLUSION: There was no difference in the risk of severe sight-threatening IOI outcomes between intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor agents. There was a significantly higher risk of generalized IOI after brolucizumab relative to aflibercept. Our results alongside other recent safety findings suggest the need for further investigation in the risk-benefit profile of brolucizumab for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration.

Intravitreal Ranibizumab Alone or in Combination with Calcium Dobesilate for the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema in Nonproliferative Diabetic Retinopathy Patients: 12-Month Outcomes of a Retrospective Study.

Objective: This study investigates the efficacy of CaD combined with intravitreal ranibizumab for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) in patients with nonproliferative DR. Methods: This retrospective, observational, case-control study enrolled consecutive patients newly diagnosed with DME. The patients were treated with 3-monthly loading dose injections of intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) followed by pro re nata injections (3 + PRN), with or without daily oral CaD. The patients were treated and followed up for 12 months. We reviewed their medical records to determine the optical coherence tomography (OCT) findings, number of injections, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and central macular thickness (CMT) at 3, 6, and 12 months after the first injection. Results: We reviewed 102 eyes of 102 patients; 54 patients received IVR combined with oral CaD (IVR + CaD group) and 48 received only IVR (IVR group). In both groups, BCVA was higher, and CMT was lower, at 3, 6, and 12 months after the injection compared to those at the baseline (p < 0.05 for all), while there were no significant differences in BCVA improvement or CMT reduction between the two groups (p > 0.05). The mean number of IVR injections was significantly lower in the IVR + CaD group than the IVR group (5.4 ± 1.1 vs. 6.7 ± 1.6 injections, p < 0.05) during 1 year of treatment. No adverse events were noted in either group. Conclusions: Compared to IVR alone, the addition of oral CaD to IVR in DME patients was safe and effective for improving visual function and restoring the retinal anatomy and was associated with the need for fewer injections.

Concerns on ranibizumab and zoledronic acid safety for experimentally treating women with endometriosis.

Correspondence to the original research entitled "Effects of ranibizumab and zoledronic acid on endometriosis in a rat model" published by Ozdemir et al.

[Ocular hypertension after intravitreal injections]. / Oftal'mogipertenziya vsledstvie intravitreal'nykh in"ektsii.

Intravitreal injections (IVI) of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration with choroidal neovascularization have become much more popular nowadays. Anti-VEGF therapy is generally well-tolerated; however, one of its possible side effects is ocular hypertension - elevation of intraocular pressure (IOP) above the accepted norm, but without structural and functional changes in the retina and optic nerve common for glaucoma. The average duration of IOP elevation is 30 to 60 minutes, but it can increase when the patient has primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). There is currently no uniform understanding of the pathogenesis of elevated IOP after IVI, as well as the effect of IOP fluctuations on the functional prognosis and the condition of the ocular tunics. This review considers the main causes and mechanisms of IOP elevation after IVI, analyzes recent publications on the consequences of ocular hypertension for the neurosensory part of the retina and the optic nerve, and examines the conditions for transition of IOP fluctuations into clinically significant ocular hypertension or POAG.

Risk of Systemic Adverse Events after Intravitreal Bevacizumab, Ranibizumab, and Aflibercept in Routine Clinical Practice.

PURPOSE: Intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pharmacotherapy plays a central role in the management of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), diabetic retinal disease (DRD), and retinal venous occlusive disease (RVO). Within clinical trials, rates of systemic serious adverse events (SAEs) after anti-VEGF treatment have been low. However, the comparative systemic safety profile of common anti-VEGF agents remains incompletely understood. The goal of this study was to compare the systemic safety of intravitreal bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept in real-world practice. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Using a large U.S. administrative claims database of commercially insured and Medicare Advantage enrollees, we identified adult cohorts receiving initial anti-VEGF injections for nAMD, DRD, and RVO between January 1, 2007, and June 30, 2018. We included patients with 1 year of insurance coverage before initial treatment. METHODS: We compared predefined systemic outcomes between anti-VEGF agents occurring within 180 days of treatment initiation using propensity score-weighted Cox proportional hazards models. Patients were censored upon treatment with a different anti-VEGF medication or termination of health plan coverage. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were acute myocardial infarction (MI), acute cerebrovascular disease (CVD), major bleeding, and all-cause hospitalization. RESULTS: A total of 87 844 patients received initial anti-VEGF injections for nAMD, DRD, and RVO between January 1, 2007, and June 30, 2018 (69 007 bevacizumab; 10 895 ranibizumab; 7942 aflibercept). Postinjection 180-day event rates per 100 patients for MI, CVD, major bleeding, and all-cause hospitalization were similar for bevacizumab (0.64, 0.59, 0.34, and 10.41, respectively), ranibizumab (0.62, 0.53, 0.40, and 9.44, respectively), and aflibercept (0.63, 0.60, 0.20, and 9.88, respectively). No differences were identified for the risk of MI, CVD, major bleeding, or all-cause hospitalization when comparing the risk-adjusted effect of treatment initiation with bevacizumab versus ranibizumab (hazard ratio [HR], 0.96 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.74-1.25]; HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.78-1.38]; HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.61-1.19]; HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.96-1.10], all P > 0.05), bevacizumab versus aflibercept (HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.68-1.33], HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.71-1.38], HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.60-1.74], HR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.93-1.10], all P > 0.05), or aflibercept versus ranibizumab (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.62-1.35], HR, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.74-1.69], HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.53-1.73], HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.92-1.13], all P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We observed no differences in the risk of acute MI, CVD, major bleeding, or all-cause hospitalization after treatment initiation with intravitreal bevacizumab, ranibizumab, or aflibercept during routine clinical practice.

Drug-related adverse effects of antivascular endothelial growth factor agents.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents have provided historic therapeutic breakthroughs in the treatment of retinal disease. New anti-VEGF agents are emerging for the treatment of retinal vascular diseases. Both systemic and ocular adverse effect need to be understood in managing patients. This review aims to highlight the adverse effects seen with routine use of bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept, as well as with new medications such as brolucizumab and abicipar. RECENT FINDINGS: We review the recent findings of intraocular inflammation (IOI) of brolucizumab and abicipar in the context of the efficacy and safety reported with the routine anti-VEGF agents. Specifically, brolucizumab has been reported to cause occlusive retinal vasculitis in the setting of IOI, which has not been seen in other anti-VEGF medications. In addition, abicipar appears to cause IOI at a higher rate of patients than other anti-VEGF agents have previously. SUMMARY: Newer anti-VEGF agents pose a significant risk of adverse events not seen with routine anti-VEGF agents.