In Brief Background: To evaluate the anatomical and functional outcomes of intravitreal bevacizumab (1.25 or 2.5 mg) in the treatment of inflammatory choroidal neovascularization at 24 months. Methods: We reviewed the clinical records of 22 consecutive patients (23 eyes) with choroidal neovascularization secondary to chorioretinal inflammatory disease in this interventional retrospective multicenter case series. Sixteen eyes (63.6%) received a dose of 1.25 mg of intravitreal bevacizumab, and 7 eyes (36.4%) received a dose of 2.5 mg of intravitreal bevacizumab. Results: At baseline, the mean best-corrected visual acuity was 0.68 logarithm of minimum angle of resolution (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart = 20/100). After intravitreal bevacizumab, best-corrected visual acuity improved significantly to 0.41 logarithm of minimum angle of resolution (20/51), 0.42 logarithm of minimum angle of resolution (20/53), and 0.40 logarithm of minimum angle of resolution (20/50) at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively (P < 0.05). Fourteen eyes (60.8%) received 1 injection. Central macular thickness by optical coherence tomography decreased from 375.3 μm (range: 240-634 μm) at baseline to 241.6 μm (range: 189-306 μm) at 24 months of follow-up (P < 0.0001). Conclusion: Intravitreal bevacizumab at doses of 1.25 mg and 2.5 mg seems to provide stability or improvement in best-corrected visual acuity, optical coherence tomography, and fluorescein angiogram in inflammatory choroidal neovascularization at 24 months. All patients were treated after the underlying uveitic condition was controlled. Intravitreal bevacizumab at doses of 1.25 mg and 2.5 mg seems to provide stability or improvement in best-corrected visual acuity, optical coherence tomography, and fluorescein angiogram in inflammatory choroidal neovascularization at 24 months. All patients were treated after the underlying uveitic condition was controlled.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arévalo et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: