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.
- intravitreal bevacizumab
- intravitreal ranibizumab
- pathologic myopia
- subfoveal myopic choroidal neovascularization
ASJC Scopus subject areas