June 2013
Volume 54, Issue 15
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2013
Intravitreal Bevacizumab and Ranibizumab for Diabetic Macular Edema; A single center retrospective study
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Daniel Choi
    Ophthalmology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL
  • Jennifer Lim
    Ophthalmology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Daniel Choi, None; Jennifer Lim, QLT (F), Genentech (R), Regeneron (R)
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2013, Vol.54, 2412. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Daniel Choi, Jennifer Lim; Intravitreal Bevacizumab and Ranibizumab for Diabetic Macular Edema; A single center retrospective study. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013;54(15):2412.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Purpose: To compare visual acuity outcomes and optical coherence tomography (OCT) meaurements after bevacizumab or ranibizumab intravitreal injections in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME).

Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted to determine visual and anatomic outcomes for diabetic macular edema patients who were treated with either bevacizumab or ranibizumab. Patients with less than six months follow up or who had received both types of treatments were excluded. Visual acuities before and after each injection were recorded and converted to logMAR for statistical analysis. OCT central subfield thickness (CST) measurements were recorded. Visual acuity and CST were compared between drugs at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months.

Results: 32 patients (43 eyes) received intravitreal bevacizumab and 9 patients (13 eyes) received intravitreal ranibizumab for DME. The difference in average visual acuity at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months was not statistically significant. Bevacizumab patients had a baseline logMAR of 0.685 while ranibizumab patients had a baseline logMAR of 0.808 (p = 0.41). At 12 months, logMAR improved to 0.467 and 0.411 for the bevacizumab and ranibizumab treated groups respectively (p = 0.61). The difference in CST findings was not statistically significant at any time point. At 6 months, 35% and 45% of patients treated with bevacizumab and ranibizumab respectively had gained at least 3 lines of visual acuity (logMAR +.3). The proportion of patients gaining this level of visual acuity was not statistically significant (p = 0.79) despite a statistically different mean number of injections by 6 months: bevacizumab 3.29 vs ranibizumab 4.77 (p = 0.04).

Conclusions: Our study demonstrates no statistically significant difference in the visual acuity outcomes following intravitreal bevacizumab versus intravitreal ranibizumab treatment of diabetic macular edema. However, a larger prospective clinical trial will be necessary to further evaluate the differences in efficacy and complications of these two treatment regimens.

Keywords: 499 diabetic retinopathy • 498 diabetes • 466 clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: treatment/prevention assessment/controlled clinical trials  

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.