Comparative evaluation between ranibizumab combined with laser and bevacizumab combined with laser versus laser alone for macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion

To evaluate the anatomical and functional efficacy of combination therapy of intravitreal ranibizumab with laser or intravitreal bevacizumab with laser treatment compared to only laser treatment for macular edema due to branch retinal vein occlusion [BRVO]. Thirty eyes of 30 patients with BRVO of at least 6 weeks duration were randomized into three groups- Group 1 received a single dose of intravitreal Ranibizumab followed by grid laser treatment. Group 2 received a single dose of intravitreal Bevacizumab followed by grid laser treatment, and Group 3 received grid laser alone. Outcomes at 6 months follow-up were reported. Data were collected on best corrected visual acuity [BCVA], central foveal thickness [CFT], and gain in lines of Snellen acuity. At 6 month follow up, the difference in the mean BCVA and CFT between the three treatment groups was not statistically significant [P> 0.05, all comparisons]. Six eyes [60%] in Group 1, four eyes [40%] in Group 2 and two eyes [20%] in Group 3 had a statistically significant gain of >/=3 lines of Snellen acuity [P< 0.05]. Both ranibizumab and bevacizumab combined with laser photocoagulation, resulted in better outcomes than grid laser treatment

Comparison of intravitreal bevacizumab, intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide, and macular grid augmentation in refractory diffuse diabetic macular edema: a prospective, randomized study

In spite of laser being the gold standard treatment for Diabetic Macular edema [DME], some patients do not respond to laser. Various treatment modalities are being tried in the management of refractory diffuse DME [DDME]. To compare the efficacy of intravitreal bevacizumab [IVB], intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide [IVTA], and macular grid augmentation in the management of refractory DDME. Prospective randomized study in a tertiary eye care center. Sixty patients with refractory DDME were randomly assigned to three groups: Group 1 received IVB [1.25 mg/0.05 ml], Group 2 received IVTA [4 mg/0.1ml], and Group 3 underwent laser augmentation. Primary outcome measures were best corrected visual acuity [BCVA] and central macular thickness [CMT] at the end of 6 months. Analysis was performed using SPSS 14.0. Group 1 and 2 showed significant improvement in mean BCVA from 20/160 at baseline to 20/80 and from 20/125 to 20/63, respectively, at 6 months [P < 0.05]. These groups also showed a significant reduction in the mean CMT from 457 +/- 151 micro at baseline to 316 +/- 136 micro and from 394 +/- 61 micro to 261 +/- 85 micro, respectively, at 6 months [P < 0.05]. Group 3 showed only small improvement in mean BCVA from 20/100 to 20/80 [P = 1.0] while mean CMT increased from 358 +/- 89 micro at baseline to 395 +/- 127 micro at 6 months [P = 0.191]. Eight [40%] eyes in Group 2 had intraocular pressure [IOP] rise and 10 [50%] eyes developed cataract. Both IVB and IVTA may be effective in the treatment of refractory DDME compared with macular grid augmentation. IVTA may be associated with side effects such as IOP rise and cataract formation