| Popis: |
Suthasinee Sinawat,1,2 Suthasinee Hemanak,1 Kwanchanok Chanthowong,1 Supat Sinawat,3 Yosanan Yospaiboon1,2 1Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand; 2KKU Eye Center, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand; 3Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, ThailandCorrespondence: Suthasinee Sinawat; Yosanan Yospaiboon, Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, 123 Mitraparb Highway, Khon Kaen, 40002, Thailand, Tel +66-4336-3010, Fax +66-4334-8383, Email ssuthasinee@kku.ac.th; yyosanan@gmail.comPurpose: To compare the efficacy of intravitreal ziv-aflibercept (IVZ) and bevacizumab (IVB) injections for the treatment of macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion.Methods: Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 3 monthly IVZ (1.25 mg/0.05 mL) or IVB (1.25 mg/0.05 mL) followed by the pro-re-nata protocol for persistent or recurrent macular edema. The primary outcomes were best-corrected visual acuity and central subfield thickness. An interim analysis was planned when half of the participants completed the follow-up.Results: Twenty-four participants were recruited. At 6 months, mean best-corrected visual acuity in the IVB and IVZ groups improved from 1.23 ± 0.64 to 0.76 ± 0.56 logMAR (p = 0.003) and from 1.13 ± 0.59 to 0.53 ± 0.26 logMAR (p = 0.003), respectively. The percentage of visual improvement and reduction in central subfield thickness in the IVZ group were insignificantly better than those in the IVB group (44.41 ± 26.72 vs 39.64 ± 24.22%; p = 0.65) and (51.94 ± 20.35 vs 45.78 ± 24.71%; p = 0.51), respectively. Although the mean number of injections was lower in the IVZ group (4.55 ± 1.29 vs 4.82 ± 1.33), the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.68). No ocular or systemic adverse events were observed.Conclusion: The interim analysis demonstrated that the visual and anatomical results of IVZ were insignificantly better than those of IVB at 6 months of follow-up. The results also showed that IVZ was non-inferior to IVB for anatomical improvement but inconclusive for visual improvement.Clinical Trial Registration: (identifier: TCTR20191205008).Keywords: ziv-aflibercept, bevacizumab, central retinal vein occlusion, macular edema |
