We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Analysis of outcomes for intravitreal bevacizumab in the treatment of choroidal neovascularization secondary to ocular histoplasmosis.
Ophthalmology 2012 Februrary
PURPOSE: To assess the long-term outcomes of intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) in the treatment of choroidal neovascularization (CNV) secondary to presumed ocular histoplasmosis syndrome (POHS).
DESIGN: Retrospective, comparative case series.
PARTICIPANTS: Interventional series of 150 eyes in 140 patients treated for subfoveal or juxtafoveal CNV secondary to POHS from January 2006 to January 2010.
INTERVENTION: Intravitreal bevacizumab monotherapy or combination IVB and verteporfin photodynamic therapy (IVB/PDT).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Visual acuity (VA) at 12 and 24 months was analyzed. Secondary outcome measures included the number of injections per year and treatment-free intervals.
RESULTS: A total of 117 eyes received IVB monotherapy, and 34 eyes underwent combination IVB/PDT treatment. For all patients, the average pretreatment logarithm of minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) was 0.63 (Snellen equivalent 20/86) with a 12-month logMAR VA of 0.45 (Snellen equivalent 20/56) and a 24-month logMAR VA of 0.44 (Snellen equivalent 20/55). The mean follow-up was 21.1 months with an average of 4.24 IVB injections per year. There was no significant difference in initial VA, VA at 12 months, VA at 24 months, or number of eyes with a 3-line gain between the IVB monotherapy and IVB/PDT groups. Thirty-eight percent (39/104) of eyes gained 3 lines or more, and 81.2% (84/104) of subjects had maintained or improved their starting VA at 1 year. The proportion of subjects maintaining a 3-line gain in VA was relatively preserved at 2 years (29.8%, 17/57) and 3 years (30.3%, 10/32) follow-up. There was no increase in the proportion of subjects losing 3 lines or more over 3 years of follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: There is no significant difference in VA outcomes between IVB monotherapy versus IVB/PDT combination therapy. The use of IVB alone or in combination with PDT results in significant visual stabilization in the majority of patients with CNV secondary to POHS.
DESIGN: Retrospective, comparative case series.
PARTICIPANTS: Interventional series of 150 eyes in 140 patients treated for subfoveal or juxtafoveal CNV secondary to POHS from January 2006 to January 2010.
INTERVENTION: Intravitreal bevacizumab monotherapy or combination IVB and verteporfin photodynamic therapy (IVB/PDT).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Visual acuity (VA) at 12 and 24 months was analyzed. Secondary outcome measures included the number of injections per year and treatment-free intervals.
RESULTS: A total of 117 eyes received IVB monotherapy, and 34 eyes underwent combination IVB/PDT treatment. For all patients, the average pretreatment logarithm of minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) was 0.63 (Snellen equivalent 20/86) with a 12-month logMAR VA of 0.45 (Snellen equivalent 20/56) and a 24-month logMAR VA of 0.44 (Snellen equivalent 20/55). The mean follow-up was 21.1 months with an average of 4.24 IVB injections per year. There was no significant difference in initial VA, VA at 12 months, VA at 24 months, or number of eyes with a 3-line gain between the IVB monotherapy and IVB/PDT groups. Thirty-eight percent (39/104) of eyes gained 3 lines or more, and 81.2% (84/104) of subjects had maintained or improved their starting VA at 1 year. The proportion of subjects maintaining a 3-line gain in VA was relatively preserved at 2 years (29.8%, 17/57) and 3 years (30.3%, 10/32) follow-up. There was no increase in the proportion of subjects losing 3 lines or more over 3 years of follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: There is no significant difference in VA outcomes between IVB monotherapy versus IVB/PDT combination therapy. The use of IVB alone or in combination with PDT results in significant visual stabilization in the majority of patients with CNV secondary to POHS.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app