Eye2017187.Pdf
OPEN Eye (2018) 32, 391–399 Official journal of The Royal College of Ophthalmologists www.nature.com/eye 1,2,9 3,9 1 4 5 Comparison of J Cui , D Sun ,HLu,RDai, L Xing , CLINICAL STUDY H Dong1, L Wang1,DWei1, B Jiang3, Y Jiao2, effectiveness and MM Jablonski6, S Charles6,7,WGu2,8 1 safety between and H Chen conbercept and ranibizumab for treatment of neovascular age- 1Center of Integrative Research, The related macular First Hospital of Qiqihaer City, Qiqihaer, Heilongjiang, PR China degeneration. A 2Department of Orthopedic Surgery and BME-Campbell Clinic, University retrospective case- of Tennessee Health Science Center, controlled non- Memphis, TN, USA 3Department of Ophthalmology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of inferiority multiple Harbin Medical University, Harbin, center study Heilongjiang, PR China 4Department of Ophthalmology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, PR China Abstract 5Department of Ophthalmology, Purpose To compare the efficacy and safety significant difference in measured CRT, with The Third Affiliated Hospital of μ Qiqihar Medical University, of conbercept and ranibizumab when a mean decrease of 191.5 m for conbercept Qiqihaer, Heilongjiang, PR China administered according to a treat-and-extend and 187.8 μm for ranibizumab (P = 0.773). (TREX) protocol for the treatment of There was a statistically significant difference 6Department of Ophthalmology, = University of Tennessee Health neovascular age-related macular degeneration (P 0.001) between the drugs regarding the Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA (AMD) in China. number of treatments: 7.4 for conbercept and 7 Patients and methods Between May 2014 8.7 for ranibizumab. The difference in the Charles Retina Institute, Germantown, TN, USA and May 2015, 180 patients were treated in a distribution of injection intervals was statistically 1 : 1 ratio using conbercept or ranibizumab significant between two groups (P = 0.011).
[Show full text]