ライフサイエンスコーパス: ranibizumab

1 , -5.7% to 11.4%; P = .51 for aflibercept vs ranibizumab).

2 ter visual acuity and anatomic outcomes with ranibizumab.

3 02 once every 4 weeks either with or without ranibizumab.

4 th better vision outcomes after 24 months of ranibizumab.

5 randomized 1:1 to 6.0 mg faricimab or 0.3 mg ranibizumab.

6 trials of a drug that would become known as ranibizumab.

7 re treated with bevacizumab and one eye with ranibizumab.

8 during the observation period compared with ranibizumab.

9 with the well-established safety profile of ranibizumab.

10 ed with panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) or ranibizumab.

11 ted macular degeneration (nAMD) treated with ranibizumab.

12 ects entered a treat-and-extend protocol for ranibizumab.

13 ent-level data sets on treatment of DME with ranibizumab.

14 D in 1 eye randomized 1:2 to monthly or TREX ranibizumab.

15 vacizumab may be an effective alternative to ranibizumab.

16 mpared with 57 (75%) of 76 infants receiving ranibizumab 0.1 mg and 45 (66%) of 68 infants after lase

17 bizumab 0.2 mg, compared with five following ranibizumab 0.1 mg and seven after laser therapy.

18 , 225 participants (ranibizumab 0.2 mg n=74, ranibizumab 0.1 mg n=77, laser therapy n=74) were random

19 9 (95% Cl 0.99-4.82, p=0.051), and following ranibizumab 0.1 mg was 1.57 (95% Cl 0.76-3.26); for rani

20 l intravitreal dose of ranibizumab 0.2 mg or ranibizumab 0.1 mg, or laser therapy.

21 eks (two-sided alpha=0.05 for superiority of ranibizumab 0.2 mg against laser therapy).

22 umab 0.1 mg was 1.57 (95% Cl 0.76-3.26); for ranibizumab 0.2 mg compared with 0.1 mg the OR was 1.35

23 occurred in 56 (80%) of 70 infants receiving ranibizumab 0.2 mg compared with 57 (75%) of 76 infants

24 In the treatment of ROP, ranibizumab 0.2 mg might be superior to laser therapy, w

25 , 2015, and June 29, 2017, 225 participants (ranibizumab 0.2 mg n=74, ranibizumab 0.1 mg n=77, laser

26 eive a single bilateral intravitreal dose of ranibizumab 0.2 mg or ranibizumab 0.1 mg, or laser thera

27 ds ratio (OR) of treatment success following ranibizumab 0.2 mg was 2.19 (95% Cl 0.99-4.82, p=0.051),

28 an unfavourable structural outcome following ranibizumab 0.2 mg, compared with five following ranibiz

29 ent was 10.3% and 9.9% in patients receiving ranibizumab 0.3 mg and ranibizumab 0.5 mg treatment, res

30 red with 1.1% and 1.6% of patients receiving ranibizumab 0.3 mg and ranibizumab 0.5 mg, respectively

31 cohort eyes received 4 monthly injections of ranibizumab 0.3 mg followed by a treat and extend dosing

32 patients (n = 759) were randomized 1:1:1 to ranibizumab 0.3 mg monthly, 0.5 mg monthly, or monthly s

33 trial found that treat and extend dosing of ranibizumab 0.3 mg with and without angiography-guided m

34 %, 24.4%, and 25.4% of patients in the sham, ranibizumab 0.3 mg, and ranibizumab 0.5 mg arms, respect

35 ate among the anti-VEGF agents (bevacizumab, ranibizumab 0.3 mg, ranibizumab 0.5 mg, and aflibercept)

36 Ranibizumab 0.5 mg administered according to a T&E regim

37 long-term (24-month) efficacy and safety of ranibizumab 0.5 mg administered pro re nata (PRN) with o

38 atients in the sham, ranibizumab 0.3 mg, and ranibizumab 0.5 mg arms, respectively).

39 es 3 initial plus 4 additional injections of ranibizumab 0.5 mg for eligible patients with neovascula

40 Study eyes received a ranibizumab 0.5 mg injection at baseline and every 4 wee

41 Patients received intravitreal ranibizumab 0.5 mg injections in adherence with local pr

42 mized (1:1) to receive three initial monthly ranibizumab 0.5 mg injections, then retreatment guided b

43 Participants were randomized to receive ranibizumab 0.5 mg monthly until either complete resolut

44 ter 24 months, sham patients crossed over to ranibizumab 0.5 mg monthly.

45 to receive either intravitreal injections of ranibizumab 0.5 mg or aflibercept 2.0 mg and were treate

46 s with a DRSS score of at least 47 receiving ranibizumab 0.5 mg per study protocol experienced at lea

47 patients in the OLE (n = 500) could receive ranibizumab 0.5 mg PRN based on predefined DME re-treatm

48 rom ranibizumab monthly to an individualized ranibizumab 0.5 mg PRN dosing regimen.

49 Treatment with ranibizumab 0.5 mg resulted in significant improvements

50 To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ranibizumab 0.5 mg treat-and-extend (T&E) versus monthly

51 in patients receiving ranibizumab 0.3 mg and ranibizumab 0.5 mg treatment, respectively, compared wit

52 EGF agents (bevacizumab, ranibizumab 0.3 mg, ranibizumab 0.5 mg, and aflibercept).

53 ight patients were included in the analysis (ranibizumab 0.5 mg, n = 141; aflibercept 2.0 mg, n = 137

54 of patients receiving ranibizumab 0.3 mg and ranibizumab 0.5 mg, respectively (P < 0.001 for both ran

55 /ml, PDS 100-mg/ml, and monthly intravitreal ranibizumab 0.5-mg arms, respectively.

56 /ml, PDS 100-mg/ml, and monthly intravitreal ranibizumab 0.5-mg arms, respectively.

57 n the PDS 100-mg/ml and monthly intravitreal ranibizumab 0.5-mg arms, with a lower total number of ra

58 n the PDS 100-mg/ml and monthly intravitreal ranibizumab 0.5-mg arms.

59 utcomes comparable with monthly intravitreal ranibizumab 0.5-mg injections but with a reduced total n

60 0-mg/ml formulations or monthly intravitreal ranibizumab 0.5-mg injections.

61 40 mg/ml, 100 mg/ml, or monthly intravitreal ranibizumab 0.5-mg injections.

62 0-mg/ml, 100-mg/ml, and monthly intravitreal ranibizumab 0.5-mg treatment arms, respectively.

63 n the PDS 100-mg/ml and monthly intravitreal ranibizumab 0.5-mg treatment arms.

64 in eyes that received bevacizumab (0.32) and ranibizumab (0.28) compared with aflibercept (P = 0.003,

65 sed 1:1 to receive either the same dosage of ranibizumab (0.5 mg) injections pro re nata alone (IVOM-

66 Intravitreous ranibizumab (0.5 mg) versus PRP for PDR.

67 (0.3 mg, 1 mg, or 2 mg) in combination with ranibizumab (0.5 mg), or as monotherapy (2 mg).

68 Patients received injection with ranibizumab (0.5 mg/0.05 ml) and were followed weekly fo

69 (0.64, 0.59, 0.34, and 10.41, respectively), ranibizumab (0.62, 0.53, 0.40, and 9.44, respectively),

70 o aflibercept, 2.0 mg; bevacizumab, 1.25 mg; ranibizumab, 0.3 mg, up to every 4 weeks through 2 years

71 with ranibizumab, 0.5 mg; 250 patients with ranibizumab, 0.3 mg; and 581 patients with sham/laser.

72 cardiovascular and cerebrovascular safety of ranibizumab, 0.5 mg and 0.3 mg, compared with sham with

73 Overall, 936 patients were treated with ranibizumab, 0.5 mg; 250 patients with ranibizumab, 0.3

74 ps (-0.048 [0.44] bevacizumab, -0.053 [0.46] ranibizumab, -0.040 [0.39] aflibercept; P = 0.46).

75 mized 3:3:3:2 to receive the PDS filled with ranibizumab 10 mg/ml, 40 mg/ml, 100 mg/ml, or monthly in

76 :3:3:2 to treatment with the PDS filled with ranibizumab 10-mg/ml, 40-mg/ml, and 100-mg/ml formulatio

77 Central area thickness decreased more with ranibizumab (138.2+/-114.3 mum) compared with bevacizuma

78 r bevacizumab (8/9931, 0.081%) compared with ranibizumab (3/54 776, 0.005%; P = 0.005) and aflibercep

79 erse events was higher with bevacizumab than ranibizumab (39.9% vs. 31.7%; adjusted risk ratio, 1.30;

80 aded active over 3 years was similar between ranibizumab (43%) and aflibercept (51%; P = 0.9).

81 e of PDR-worsening was greater with PRP than ranibizumab (45% vs. 31%; HR, 1.62; 99% CI, 1.01 to 2.60

82 A total of 965 eyes of 897 patients (ranibizumab, 499 eyes [469 patients]; aflibercept, 466 e

83 %) receiving aflibercept and 2 268 receiving ranibizumab (74%).

84 nt; 332 of 358 (93%) were treated first with ranibizumab, 78 (23%) of whom switched to aflibercept.

85 nd June 30, 2018 (69 007 bevacizumab; 10 895 ranibizumab; 7942 aflibercept).

86 acular edema and RVO, most eyes treated with ranibizumab achieve substantial vision gains, and only o

87 for neovascular AMD, including intravitreal ranibizumab, aflibercept, and bevacizumab.

88 n treatment arms was 1.8 letters in favor of ranibizumab after 6 months of follow-up; BCVA improved b

89 for bevacizumab and 15.5+/-13.3 letters for ranibizumab after 6 months of monthly treatment.

90 dard therapy, i.e. intravitreal injection of ranibizumab alone.

91 The Ranibizumab AMD Clinical Efficacy in Real-world practice

92 confidence interval [CI], 0.27-0.45 mm) for ranibizumab and +0.28 mm (95% CI, 0.19-0.37 mm) for afli

93 h bevacizumab 6.21x more cost-effective than ranibizumab and 3.06x more cost-effective than afliberce

94 ween both groups: 9.6 (95% CI, 9.2-10.0) for ranibizumab and 9.5 (95% CI, 9.1-9.9) for aflibercept.

95 6), and no differences were observed between ranibizumab and aflibercept (P = 1.0).

96 Ranibizumab and aflibercept alone accounted for 95% of t

97 Ranibizumab and aflibercept are both approved for the tr

98 Both ranibizumab and aflibercept improved vision and decrease

99 h of MA over 24 months were observed between ranibizumab and aflibercept in nAMD patients treated usi

100 Substituting bevacizumab for ranibizumab and aflibercept in the 2018 new-onset NVAMD

101 Intravitreal NVAMD bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept monotherapies accrue conside

102 aled bevacizumab was cost-effective, whereas ranibizumab and aflibercept were not.

103 payments totaling $4 454 325 associated with ranibizumab and aflibercept.

104 bursement and use of bevacizumab relative to ranibizumab and aflibercept.

105 long-term follow-up data on the efficacy of ranibizumab and bevacizumab (>=5 years), but these data

106 anti-VEGF treatments including aflibercept, ranibizumab and bevacizumab in diabetic macular edema (D

107 CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Relative safety of ranibizumab and bevacizumab is important in choosing an

108 obtain 37, 21 and 13 additional aflibercept, ranibizumab and bevacizumab responder patients, respecti

109 Fortuitously, both ranibizumab and bevacizumab were packaged at similar mol

110 onth 6 was 180, 219 and 354 for aflibercept, ranibizumab and bevacizumab, respectively.

111 ders and 6-month responders) to aflibercept, ranibizumab and bevacizumab, respectively.

112 uro , 2019) were considered for aflibercept, ranibizumab and bevacizumab.

113 minantly (>=80%) administered bevacizumab or ranibizumab and evaluated changes in preferences over th

114 creased from 7% (10/141) to 37% (43/117) for ranibizumab and from 6% (8/137) to 32% (35/108) for afli

115 eek 52 following a year of fixed dosing with ranibizumab and IAI were maintained at week 96 in eyes t

116 vision-impairing DME, 80 and 87 were in the ranibizumab and PRP groups, respectively.

117 ization to 2 drug dosages (0.5 mg and 2.0 mg ranibizumab) and 2 regimens (monthly and PRN).

118 vacizumab was $11,033/QALY, $79,600/QALY for ranibizumab, and $44,801/QALY for aflibercept.

119 ts, 6723 received bevacizumab, 2749 received ranibizumab, and 4387 received aflibercept only for 1 ye

120 onth-of-life loss, and revealed bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept conferred 0.141, 0.141, and

121 systemic safety of intravitreal bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept in real-world practice.

122 cost-utility analyses comparing bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept monotherapies for neovascul

123 lmic medical costs expended for bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept monotherapies were compared

124 mic (medical) cost perspective, bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept NVAMD monotherapies were al

125 initiating index treatment with bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept, 19.3%, 15.8%, and 15.5% of

126 1-time alternative treatment to aflibercept, ranibizumab, and bevacizumab, respectively.

127 ith bevacizumab and 10.4+/-10.0 letters with ranibizumab, and central area thickness decreased signif

128 .0 mg faricimab, 1.5 mg faricimab, or 0.3 mg ranibizumab, and patients previously treated with anti-V

129 isual acuity and OCT improvements similar to ranibizumab, and this observation soon led to the intrav

130 Of the 176 ranibizumab- and 180 bevacizumab-treated patients, 53.2

131 hickness decreased significantly more in the ranibizumab arm of this subgroup compared with the bevac

132 udy PRP through month 24 (P < 0.001 for both ranibizumab arms vs. sham).

133 mab 0.5 mg, respectively (P < 0.001 for both ranibizumab arms vs. sham).

134 At baseline, imbalance in MA rates across ranibizumab arms was evident (0.5 mg monthly, 19.1%; 0.5

135 Although the use of aflibercept or ranibizumab as a comparative cost metric is logical from

136 Over 2 years, compared with PRP, 0.5-mg ranibizumab as given in this trial is within the $50000/

137 At 1 month, 19% (35 of 188) of ranibizumab-assigned eyes showed complete neovasculariza

138 were randomized 1:1 to receive intravitreal ranibizumab at a dose of 0.5 mg in either a T&E or month

139 Intravitreous 0.5-mg ranibizumab at baseline and as frequently as every 4 wee

140 stically superior visual acuity gains versus ranibizumab at week 24 in treatment-naive patients.

141 thalmologists who predominantly administered ranibizumab before aflibercept's availability, 77 (53.1%

142 al injection of aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab between January 1, 2016, and May 31, 2018.

143 nferred greater QALY gain for less cost than ranibizumab but was not cost-effective compared to bevac

144 eneficiaries were 45% less likely to receive ranibizumab compared to non-blacks (P < .0001).

145 ated the efficacy and safety of intravitreal ranibizumab compared with laser therapy in treatment of

146 Data by ranibizumab dose were pooled; data by dosing schedule (p

147 yes without baseline MA were similar between ranibizumab doses (0.5 mg, 25.9%; 2.0 mg, 25.4%) and tre

148 yses if they received 3 of 3 initial monthly ranibizumab doses and 5 of 6 initial monthly ranibizumab

149 rogression rates of new MA among study arms, ranibizumab doses, or treatment regimens.

150 ranibizumab doses and 5 of 6 initial monthly ranibizumab doses, respectively, and met all the followi

151 ived three intravitreal injections of 0.5 mg ranibizumab during the upload phase and were then random

152 Bevacizumab and ranibizumab each conferred an 11-year, 1.339 QALY gain v

153 y 8 weeks after 3 initial monthly doses, and ranibizumab every 4 weeks with documented baseline CNV t

154 Most (56.8%) patients treated with ranibizumab experienced 1-step or more improvement in DR

155 al retinal thickness (CRT) in eyes receiving ranibizumab for 3 common retinal diseases.

156 Use of bevacizumab and ranibizumab for AMD plateaued as of 2011/2012 and decrea

157 , especially in eyes not required to receive ranibizumab for center-involved DME.

158 ibizumab group and 25 to the PRP group (plus ranibizumab for DME).

159 g OCEAN study enrolled patients treated with ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degenera

160 portion of beneficiaries that first received ranibizumab for neovascular AMD was 35%, and varied sign

161 l acuity, that bevacizumab is noninferior to ranibizumab for patients with ME resulting from RVO of e

162 versus laser (monotherapy and combined with ranibizumab from month 6; 17.3/15.5 vs. 11.6 letters; P

163 .9 mum, laser [monotherapy and combined with ranibizumab from month 6] -197.5 mum).

164 Four hundred sixty-eight eyes treated with ranibizumab from randomization with gradable DRSS on bas

165 mab (from 1.84 in 2009 to 3.40 in 2014), and ranibizumab (from 3.11 in 2009 to 4.48 in 2014), whereas

166 re median injections over 12 months than the ranibizumab group although this difference was not signi

167 6.6 letters (95% CI,4.7-8.5 letters) for the ranibizumab group and +4.6 letters (95% CI, 2.7-6.6 lett

168 ing DME at baseline, 21 were assigned to the ranibizumab group and 25 to the PRP group (plus ranibizu

169 fidence interval [CI], 0-3.1 letters) in the ranibizumab group and of +1.6 letters (95% CI, -0.2 to 3

170 umab group and 13 participants (9.2%) in the ranibizumab group experienced SAEs.

171 vacizumab group and 6.7+/-8.7 letters in the ranibizumab group.

172 vacizumab group and 300.8+/-224.8 mum in the ranibizumab group.

173 photodynamic therapy (PDT), bevacizumab, and ranibizumab groups, respectively.

174 b utilization and 68 (46.9%) continued using ranibizumab >=80% of the time after aflibercept became a

175 ost-CATT, whereas 96 (30.3%) continued using ranibizumab >=80% of the time.

176 with bevacizumab, and 57 of 151 (37.7%) with ranibizumab had improvement of DR severity (adjusted dif

177 g from bevacizumab to either aflibercept, or ranibizumab, has a strong anatomical effect in eyes with

178 treatment initiation with bevacizumab versus ranibizumab (hazard ratio [HR], 0.96 [95% confidence int

179 y of worsening PDR was 42% (PRP) versus 34% (ranibizumab; hazard ratio [HR], 1.33; 99% confidence int

180 -1.10], all P > 0.05), or aflibercept versus ranibizumab (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.62-1.35], HR, 1.12 [95%

181 ypropylene syringes, 14.4% of eyes receiving ranibizumab in 1.0-mL BD polypropylene syringes or more

182 ompared monthly versus pro re nata dosing of ranibizumab in patients with branch and central RVO.

183 r endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A), with ranibizumab in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME

184 clinically significant VA improvements with ranibizumab in patients with RVO.

185 t baseline and after 3 monthly injections of ranibizumab in the study group.

186 of intravitreal injections of bevacizumab to ranibizumab in the treatment of macular edema (ME) resul

187 photodynamic therapy (PDT) with intravitreal ranibizumab in the treatment of polypoidal choroidal vas

188 The treat and extend algorithm of ranibizumab in the TREX-DME trial resulted in significan

189 rom baseline at week 24 for faricimab versus ranibizumab in treatment-naive patients.

190 2009 to 13.6 per 1000 in 2015) while that of ranibizumab initially increased significantly and then d

191 Patients not requiring a month 3 PRN ranibizumab injection achieved similar visual gains over

192 group comparison p = 0.075) and needed fewer ranibizumab injections (cumulative proportion of injecti

193 dition of laser did not reduce the number of ranibizumab injections (mean injections: 11.4 vs. 11.3;

194 mly assigned to receive monthly intravitreal ranibizumab injections either until macular edema resolv

195 icipants in the relaxed group received fewer ranibizumab injections over 24 months (mean, 15.8 [stand

196 In eyes with DME, monthly intravitreal ranibizumab injections resulted in significant reduction

197 study aimed to observe the effectiveness of ranibizumab injections under this reimbursement system.

198 The mean number of ranibizumab injections was 8.2 in Group I and 8.4 in Gro

199 After 7 monthly ranibizumab injections, mean BCVA improved by 18.3+/-12.

200 After 3 initial ranibizumab injections, SD-OCT detected nAMD activity in

201 tral macular thickness and overall number of ranibizumab injections.

202 mean (standard deviation [SD]) of 4.3 (1.7) ranibizumab injections.

203 121 of 500 (24%) did not require additional ranibizumab injections.

204 ty (BCVA) and change in BCVA after 7 monthly ranibizumab injections.

205 s with additional laser therapy needed fewer ranibizumab injections.

206 ndomized clinical trial results suggest that ranibizumab is a reasonable treatment alternative to pan

207 ravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) and intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) in actual practice for treating patien

208 intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB), intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR), and intravitreal aflibercept (IVA) fo

209 , monthly ranibizumab with TRP, or 3 monthly ranibizumab (loading doses) followed by as-needed (PRN)

210 vitreal administration of anti-VEGF antibody ranibizumab (Lucentis(R)) from Genentech and aflibercept

211 real OPT-302 as monotherapy or combined with ranibizumab (Lucentis; Genentech, South San Francisco, C

212 cular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agent ranibizumab (Lucentis; Roche, Basel, Switzerland) compar

213 Ranibizumab may improve vision and anatomy in patients w

214 yes with versus without DR ultra-response to ranibizumab (mean, 7.4 vs. 7.6 in year 1; mean, 4.2 vs.

215 er monotherapy over 24 months from baseline (ranibizumab monotherapy -224.7 mum, ranibizumab with las

216 is; Roche, Basel, Switzerland) compared with ranibizumab monotherapy in patients with neovascular age

217 ver 70% of OLE patients after switching from ranibizumab monthly to an individualized ranibizumab 0.5

218 Patients either received intravitreal 0.5 mg ranibizumab monthly, monthly ranibizumab with TRP, or 3

219 s of 1.25 mg bevacizumab (n = 139) or 0.5 mg ranibizumab (n = 138).

220 (3:1) to OPT-302 (2 mg) in combination with ranibizumab (n = 23) or as monotherapy (n = 8).

221 ither 1.25 mg bevacizumab (n = 86) or 0.5 mg ranibizumab (n = 84).

222 s who had previously received treatment with ranibizumab (n=23) more than one month prior to their en

223 We identified 383 eyes (ranibizumab, n = 166 eyes; aflibercept, n = 217 eyes) of

224 Neither ranibizumab nor aflibercept was superior to the other in

225 With ranibizumab not yet commercially available, intravitreal

226 VA change compared with those maintained on ranibizumab only.

227 anti-VEGF showed a higher odds of receiving ranibizumab or aflibercept compared with bevacizumab (OR

228 2013 through December 31, 2015, with either ranibizumab or aflibercept that were tracked in the regi

229 ucomatous patients injected with VEGF traps (ranibizumab or aflibercept) due to either AMD or DME com

230 14 (20.4%) with bevacizumab, 191 (6.3%) with ranibizumab or aflibercept, 560 (18.6%) with focal laser

231 d anti-VEGF payments were more likely to use ranibizumab or aflibercept, as compared to off-label bev

232 ents were associated exclusively with either ranibizumab or aflibercept.

233 ; bevacizumab: OR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.91; ranibizumab or aflibercept: OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49-0.99;

234 ; bevacizumab: OR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.91; ranibizumab or aflibercept: OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49-0.99;

235 Participants assigned to ranibizumab or bevacizumab and to 1 of 3 dosing regimens

236 Treatment was assigned randomly to ranibizumab or bevacizumab and to 3 dosing regimens for

237 igned to 4 treatment groups defined by drug (ranibizumab or bevacizumab) and dosing regimen (monthly

238 duction had little impact on preferences for ranibizumab or bevacizumab.

239 e randomly assigned to treatment with either ranibizumab or bevacizumab.

240 nt initiation with intravitreal bevacizumab, ranibizumab, or aflibercept during routine clinical prac

241 Eyes that received intravitreal bevacizumab, ranibizumab, or aflibercept for nAMD and were LTFU for >

242 th intravitreal injections with bevacizumab; ranibizumab; or photodynamic therapy (PDT).

243 cept than in those receiving bevacizumab and ranibizumab (P <= 0.01 for both comparisons at each time

244 tically significant gain of 3.6 letters over ranibizumab (P = 0.03).

245 st to follow-up within 12 months (21% vs. 9% ranibizumab; P < 0.01).

246 4 letters for aflibercept vs. 0.4 letter for ranibizumab; P = 0.4) and -30 mum (-85 vs. -55 mum; P <

247 Ophthalmologists who received aflibercept or ranibizumab payments were more likely to receive the maj

248 In year 1, eyes received ranibizumab q4 weeks (Rq4), IAI 2 mg q4 weeks (2q4), or

249 Among patients requiring ranibizumab re-treatment (279/367), 84% to 94%, 2%, and

250 Among patients not requiring ranibizumab re-treatment from months 36 to 48 (88/367),

251 In eyes with PDR, ranibizumab resulted in less PDR worsening compared with

252 0 mg faricimab, 1.5 mg faricimab, and 0.3 mg ranibizumab resulted in mean improvements of 13.9, 11.7,

253 Ranibizumab retreatment guided by monthly SD-OCT achieve

254 he efficacy and safety of two individualized ranibizumab retreatment schemes in neovascular age-relat

255 al center point thickness, and the number of ranibizumab retreatments at and between study visits wer

256 Many ophthalmologists who favored ranibizumab switched to bevacizumab after CATT publicati

257 Patients treated with a ranibizumab T&E protocol who tolerated some SRF achieved

258 ative efficacy and safety of bevacizumab and ranibizumab that used searches of bibliographic database

259 the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of ranibizumab therapy compared with PRP were $55568/qualit

260 Ranibizumab therapy cost $106,582 and returned $265,870

261 evacizumab therapy, $0.7 billion (2.5%) from ranibizumab therapy, and $3.6 billion (12.6%) from aflib

262 More switches from ranibizumab to aflibercept (P < 0.001) took place than v

263 Switching patients from ranibizumab to aflibercept resulted in no difference in

264 witches, albeit low, were more frequent from ranibizumab to aflibercept than vice versa.

265 ophthalmologists administering predominantly ranibizumab to Medicare beneficiaries pre-CATT, 221 (69.

266 VA change from baseline (first injection of ranibizumab) to month 24.

267 Approximately 30% of ranibizumab-treated eyes achieved DR ultra-response at y

268 No ranibizumab-treated patients with prior PRP at baseline

269 s within 3 months of treatment initiation in ranibizumab-treated patients with retinal vein occlusion

270 e PRP, experienced more clinical events than ranibizumab-treated patients.

271 Ranibizumab treatment also significantly reduced clinica

272 Ranibizumab treatment reduced on-study PRP treatment and

273 Ranibizumab treatment resulted in visual and anatomic ga

274 a suboptimal response after 3 or 6 months of ranibizumab treatment were identified as switching candi

275 an switching, however, patients continued on ranibizumab treatment, and visual and anatomic outcomes

276 After the loading ranibizumab treatment, these OCTA biomarkers improved bu

277 improvement while continuing their original ranibizumab treatment.

278 tor for visual improvement after the loading ranibizumab treatment.

279 ly associated with BCVA gain after 7 monthly ranibizumab treatments were younger age (P < 0.0001) and

280 ab 0.5-mg arms, with a lower total number of ranibizumab treatments with the PDS.

281 njections but with a reduced total number of ranibizumab treatments.

282 beneficiaries pre-CATT, 221 (69.7%) reduced ranibizumab use post-CATT, whereas 96 (30.3%) continued

283 libercept's availability, 77 (53.1%) reduced ranibizumab utilization and 68 (46.9%) continued using r

284 We calculated weekly bevacizumab and ranibizumab utilization during 3 timeframes: (1) before

285 ws a minimal functional benefit over that to ranibizumab, visual prognosis remains limited.

286 ab; 8.9%; 95% CI, 1.7% to 16.1%; P = .01 for ranibizumab vs bevacizumab; and 2.9%; 95% CI, -5.7% to 1

287 But, before ranibizumab was approved for the treatment of exudative

288 inferiority of 1.25 mg bevacizumab to 0.5 mg ranibizumab was not confirmed.

289 The group receiving ranibizumab was older.

290 Intravitreal OPT-302 with or without ranibizumab was well tolerated with low systemic exposur

291 o week 12 following combination OPT-302 with ranibizumab were +10.8 letters (95% confidence interval

292 betic retinopathy severity improvements with ranibizumab were maintained in over 70% of OLE patients

293 Patients receiving ranibizumab were older (mean difference, +2.7 years).

294 e, +26 mum) at baseline than those receiving ranibizumab, which were not significantly different.

295 aseline (ranibizumab monotherapy -224.7 mum, ranibizumab with laser -248.9 mum, laser [monotherapy an

296 Ranibizumab with or without laser led to superior BCVA o

297 A greater reduction in CSFT was seen with ranibizumab with or without laser versus laser monothera

298 ned randomly to aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab with protocol-defined follow-up and re-treat

299 avitreal 0.5 mg ranibizumab monthly, monthly ranibizumab with TRP, or 3 monthly ranibizumab (loading

300 38 receiving aflibercept, and 1896 receiving ranibizumab) with complete IOP data from 3032 patients w