PurposeTo compare the efficacy and safety of conbercept and ranibizumab when administered according to a treat-and-extend (TREX) protocol for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) in China.Patients and methodsBetween May 2014 and May 2015, 180 patients were treated in a 1 : 1 ratio using conbercept or ranibizumab from four hospitals. Patients received either conbercept 0.5 mg or ranibizumab 0.5 mg intravitreal injections. Follow-up time was 1 year and treated based on a TREX approach. Main outcomes and measures include best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), using Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS); number of injections; central retinal thickness (CRT); and leakage of choroidal neovascularization before and after the treatment was analyzed by fluorescein fundus angiography and indocyanine green angiography.ResultsThe 1-year visit was completed by 168 (93.3%) of patients. Mean BCVA was equivalent between two cohorts, and were improved by 12.7±7.770 and 12.3±7.269 letters in the conbercept and ranibizumab cohorts, respectively (P=0.624). There was no significant difference in measured CRT, with a mean decrease of 191.5 μm for conbercept and 187.8 μm for ranibizumab (P=0.773). There was a statistically significant difference (P=0.001) between the drugs regarding the number of treatments: 7.4 for conbercept and 8.7 for ranibizumab. The difference in the distribution of injection intervals was statistically significant between two groups (P=0.011). During the study, there were no cases of endophthalmitis or intraocular inflammation.ConclusionBoth drugs had equivalent effects in visual and anatomic gains at 1 year when administered. In the conbercept group, longer treatment intervals were achieved with more patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cui et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: