Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26477843›Full record

SynthesisOphthalmology2016

Intravitreal Bevacizumab Versus Ranibizumab for Treatment of Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Findings from a Cochrane Systematic Review.

Sharon D Solomon, Kristina B Lindsley, Magdalena G Krzystolik, Satyanarayana S Vedula, Barbara S Hawkins

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Ophthalmology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Expression of VEGFA-regulating miRNAs and mortality in wet AMD.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2019
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sharon D SolomonWilmer Eye Institute, School of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Kristina B LindsleyDepartment of Epidemiology, Bloomberg School of Public Health, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Magdalena G KrzystolikRetina Service, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Providence, Rhode Island.
Satyanarayana S VedulaThe Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Barbara S HawkinsWilmer Eye Institute, School of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland; Department of Epidemiology, Bloomberg School of Public Health, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. Electronic address: bhawkins@jhmi.edu.

Funding

Comparative Effectiveness Research & the Cochrane Eyes & Vision GroupU01EY020522 · NEI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI DICKERSIN, KAY · 2010 to 2016
$9.2M
NEI NIH HHS EY-020522NEI NIH HHS U01 EY020522
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

topicTo summarize the relative effects of bevacizumab (Avastin; Genentech, Inc, South San Francisco, CA) and ranibizumab (Lucentis; Genentech, Inc.), using findings from a Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group systematic review. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (NVAMD) is the most common cause of uncorrectable vision loss among the elderly in developed countries. Bevacizumab and ranibizumab are the most frequently used anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents injected intravitreally to treat NVAMD.

methodsFor this systematic review, we included only randomized controlled trials in which the 2 anti-VEGF agents had been compared directly. The primary outcome was 1-year gain in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of ≥15 letters. We followed Cochrane methods for trial selection, data extraction, and data analyses. Relative effects of bevacizumab versus ranibizumab are presented as estimated risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

resultsWe identified 6 eligible randomized controlled trials with 2809 participants. The proportion of eyes that gained ≥15 letters of BCVA by 1 year was similar for the 2 agents when the same regimens were compared (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.73-1.11). The mean change in BCVA from baseline also was similar (MD, -0.5 letter; 95% CI, -1.6 to +0.6). Other BCVA and quality of life outcomes were similar for the 2 agents. One-year treatment cost with ranibizumab was 5.1 and 25.5 times the cost for bevacizumab in the 2 largest trials. Ocular adverse events were uncommon (<1%), and rates were similar for the 2 agents.

conclusionsWe found no important difference in effectiveness or safety between bevacizumab and ranibizumab for NVAMD treatment, but there was a large cost difference.

Indexed as

Visual AcuityAngiogenesis InhibitorsBevacizumabHumansIntravitreal InjectionsMacular DegenerationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRanibizumabRetinal NeovascularizationTreatment OutcomeAngiogenesis InhibitorsBevacizumabRanibizumab

Identifiers

PMID26477843
PMCPMC4695272

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.