Background: To compare an intravitreal high-dose injection of triamcinolone acetonide with an intravitreal injection of bevacizumab for the treatment of progressive exudative age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Method: The comparative nonrandomized retrospective clinical interventional study included 305 patients with progressive AMD, divided into a bevacizumab group of 36 patients (1.5 mg bevacizumab) and a triamcinolone group of 269 patients (about 20 mg triamcinolone). All patients were consecutively included, in the first phase of the study for triamcinolone, and in the second phase of the study for bevacizumab. The mean follow-up was 8.5 ± 6.8 months (2–35.7 months). Results: In the bevacizumab group, best visual acuity increased significantly (p < 0.001) by 3.2 ± 3.4 Snellen lines, with 25 (69%) eyes and 21 (58%) eyes, improving by at least 2 and 3 Snellen lines, respectively. In the triamcinolone group, the visual acuity change was not statistically significant for any specific follow-up examination within the first 3 months. The maximal increase in visual acuity, the visual acuity change at 2 months after injection and the percentage of patients with an improvement by at least 2 and 3 Snellen lines were significantly (p < 0.001) higher in the bevacizumab group than in the triamcinolone group. Intraocular pressure increased significantly (p < 0.001) in the triamcinolone group and did not change significantly (p = 0.47) in the bevacizumab group. Conclusion: In exudative AMD, intravitreal bevacizumab (1.5 mg) compared with intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (about 20 mg) results in a higher improvement of visual acuity and does not markedly influence intraocular pressure within 2 months after injection.

Keywords:
Intravitreal bevacizumab, Intravitreal Avastin, Intravitreal triamcinolone, Age-related macular degeneration, Intraocular pressure, Intraocular steroids, Subfoveal neovascularization
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel
2008
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.