Comparing the Efficacy of Bevacizumab and Ranibizumab in Patients with Retinal Vein Occlusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Comparing the efficacy of intravitreal injections of bevacizumab to ranibizumab in the treatment of macular edema (ME) resulting from retinal vein occlusion (RVO). DESIGN: Comparative, randomized, double-masked, multicenter, noninferiority clinical trial. The noninferiority margin was 4 letters. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with vision loss resulting from ME secondary to a branch or (hemi) central RVO who might benefit from anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment were eligible for participation. METHODS: From June 2012 through February 2018, 277 participants were randomized to receive injections of 1.25 mg bevacizumab (n = 139) or 0.5 mg ranibizumab (n = 138). The follow-up was 6 months with a monthly dosing interval. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a change in visual acuity from baseline at 6 months. Changes in the central area thickness and safety were studied as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The mean visual acuity (±standard deviation) improved, with 15.3±13.0 letters for bevacizumab and 15.5±13.3 letters for ranibizumab after 6 months of monthly treatment. The lower limit of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval was -1.724 letters, which is within the noninferiority margin of 4 letters. Even in the branch and (hemi-)central RVO subgroups, minimal differences were found in visual acuity outcomes between treatment arms. Changes in central area thickness on OCT at 6 months did not differ significantly between treatment groups, with a decrease of 287.0±231.3 μm in the bevacizumab group and 300.8±224.8 μm in the ranibizumab group. Severe adverse events (SAEs) were also distributed equally over both treatment groups: 10 participants (7.1%) in the bevacizumab group and 13 participants (9.2%) in the ranibizumab group experienced SAEs. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed, based on the change in visual acuity, that bevacizumab is noninferior to ranibizumab for patients with ME resulting from RVO of either subtype when receiving monthly injections for a period of 6 months. In addition, anatomic and safety outcomes did not differ between treatment groups. Based on our findings, bevacizumab may be an effective alternative to ranibizumab.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".