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 I, 4.4% to 55.6%; P = .02 for aflibercept vs ranibizumab).

3 ed in the study eye with 0.5 mg intravitreal ranibizumab.

4 ents treated with aflibercept as compared to ranibizumab.

5 espectively) had increased odds of receiving ranibizumab.

6 vacizumab at 1 year than with aflibercept or ranibizumab.

7 rcept is used less frequently as compared to ranibizumab.

8 for anti-VEGF treatment with aflibercept and ranibizumab.

9 umab and -176 mum (95% CI, -202 to -149) for ranibizumab.

10 age of their injections with aflibercept and ranibizumab.

11 with the well-established safety profile of ranibizumab.

12 eous placebo injections BID + monthly 0.3 mg ranibizumab.

13 bevacizumab outweighs that of aflibercept or ranibizumab.

14 ravitreal injections of either 0.5 or 2.0 mg ranibizumab.

15 mab, and 13% (-8% to 35%) for aflibercept vs ranibizumab.

16 bercept Q4wks than for aflibercept Q8wks and ranibizumab.

17 le for the combination therapy of E10030 and ranibizumab.

18 ups, respectively, compared with 45 days for ranibizumab.

19 t report adverse events related to E10030 or ranibizumab.

20 TH258 were comparable to those observed with ranibizumab.

21 ificant difference in BCVA gains in favor of ranibizumab.

22 ed with panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) or ranibizumab.

23 ted macular degeneration (nAMD) treated with ranibizumab.

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

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

26 bsequently switched to either aflibercept or ranibizumab.

27 pants receiving aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab.

28 acular edema (DME) treated with intravitreal ranibizumab.

29 to a reduction of one or more injections of ranibizumab.

30 Monthly cohort eyes received ranibizumab 0.3 mg every 4 weeks.

31 ILA cohorts received 4 monthly injections of ranibizumab 0.3 mg followed by a treat and extend algori

32 sing with a treat and extend algorithm using ranibizumab 0.3 mg with and without angiography-guided m

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

34 bizumab 0.5 mg, and sham in combination with ranibizumab 0.5 mg (anti-VEGF monotherapy).

35 Patients were randomized (2:2:1) to ranibizumab 0.5 mg (n = 183), ranibizumab 0.5 mg with la

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 ith laser (n = 180), or laser (with optional ranibizumab 0.5 mg after month 6; n = 92).

39 nd treatment responses were generated by PRN ranibizumab 0.5 mg annualized injection frequency in the

40 nd weeks 4, 8, and 12 in 3 treatment groups: ranibizumab 0.5 mg every 4 weeks (Rq4) (n = 595), intrav

41 Ranibizumab 0.5 mg given monthly or PRN effectively trea

42 dividualized VA stabilization criteria using ranibizumab 0.5 mg in patients with BRVO.

43 with or without PED at baseline treated with ranibizumab 0.5 mg monthly (PED present at baseline, +9.

44 Intravitreal ranibizumab 0.5 mg or 2.0 mg monthly or pro re nata (PRN

45 ars) were randomized 1:1 to receive either a ranibizumab 0.5 mg T&E (n = 323) or monthly (n = 327) re

46 mary objective was to show noninferiority of ranibizumab 0.5 mg T&E versus monthly regimen, as assess

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

48 Thereafter, ranibizumab 0.5 mg was dosed as needed if monthly monito

49 zed (2:2:1) to ranibizumab 0.5 mg (n = 183), ranibizumab 0.5 mg with laser (n = 180), or laser (with

50 ab 0.5 mg, E10030 1.5 mg in combination with ranibizumab 0.5 mg, and sham in combination with ranibiz

51 nt groups: E10030 0.3 mg in combination with ranibizumab 0.5 mg, E10030 1.5 mg in combination with ra

52 In the ranibizumab 0.5-mg PRN group, mean numbers of injections

53 Ranibizumab 0.5-mg treatment resulted in a statistically

54 ibercept (2.0 mg), bevacizumab (1.25 mg), or ranibizumab (0.3 mg) administered up to monthly based on

55 Aflibercept (2.0 mg) and ranibizumab (0.3 mg) are not cost-effective relative to

56 bercept (2.0 mg), bevacizumab (1.25 mg), and ranibizumab (0.3 mg) for treatment of diabetic macular e

57 ckaged (compounded) bevacizumab (1.25 mg) or ranibizumab (0.3 mg); the worse the starting vision, the

58 The distribution of the 2 doses of ranibizumab (0.5 and 2.0 mg) in the 2 groups was similar

59 03, 0.3, 1.5, or 3.0 mg) in combination with ranibizumab (0.5 mg) at day 0, month 1, and month 2 in a

60 ion and were subsequently given intravitreal ranibizumab (0.5 mg) injections at weeks 2, 6, and 10.

61 30 (0.3, 1.5, or 3.0 mg) in combination with ranibizumab (0.5 mg) was injected at day 0, month 1, and

62 reated by a single intravitreal injection of ranibizumab (0.5 mg/0.05 mL).

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

64 ons (ranibizumab, 0.5 mg, vs sham and laser; ranibizumab, 0.3 mg, vs sham) were performed using Cox p

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

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

67 Pairwise comparisons (ranibizumab, 0.5 mg, vs sham and laser; ranibizumab, 0.3

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

69 degeneration were randomized to intravitreal ranibizumab, 0.5 or 2.0 mg, administered monthly or as n

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

71 .1 [9.4]; 95% CI, +1.6 to +7.3; P < .001) or ranibizumab (+13.6 [8.5]; 95% CI, +0.7 to +6.0; P = .009

72 9 [11.5]) over bevacizumab (+11.8 [12.0]) or ranibizumab (14.2 [10.6]) 1 year later (P < .001 for int

73 itional vision benefit with a higher dose of ranibizumab (2.0 mg).

74 the bevacizumab group (22.7%) compared with ranibizumab (20.1%; P = 0.0093) and aflibercept (17.8%;

75 5 mg of bevacizumab (218 eyes), or 0.3 mg of ranibizumab (218 eyes) as needed per protocol.

76 to macular laser, macular laser plus 0.5-mg ranibizumab (3-monthly doses, then as needed), or 0.5-mg

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

78 itreal bevacizumab (5), aflibercept (2), and ranibizumab (4).

79 was bevacizumab (52.6%, n = 49), followed by ranibizumab (44.1%, n = 41), pegaptanib (7.5%, n = 7), a

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

81 ndard deviation) at 1 year was higher in the ranibizumab (6.4 [+/-2.4]) and aflibercept groups (6.2 [

82 pt (6.5 +/- 3.9; AG) and 38 eyes switched to ranibizumab (7.1 +/- 5.3; RG) (>/= 3 injections, each).

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

84 ions for bevacizumab and 16.0 injections for ranibizumab (95% CI of mean difference, -3.4 to -1.0; P

85 ercept, 31.4% for bevacizumab, and 55.2% for ranibizumab (adjusted difference: 50.4%; 95% CI, 26.8% t

86 the efficacy and safety of 0.5 mg and 2.0 mg ranibizumab administered monthly or on an as-needed basi

87 ar degeneration (AMD) treated with as-needed ranibizumab after 4 years of follow-up.

88 zumab plus scatter laser photocoagulation or ranibizumab alone for an additional 30 months.

89 study was similar between the eyes receiving ranibizumab and aflibercept (74% vs. 77%, respectively;

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

91 ophthalmologists, biologic anti-VEGF agents ranibizumab and aflibercept accounted for 95% of all dru

92 In the age-adjusted model, both ranibizumab and aflibercept achieved better logMAR VA at

93 Ranibizumab and aflibercept alone accounted for 95% of t

94 Ranibizumab and aflibercept usage was correlated by perf

95 ceived $1.3 million in industry payments for ranibizumab and aflibercept.

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

97 for the 4.5- and 6.0-mg doses compared with ranibizumab and an increase of 30 days in the median tim

98 oroidal vasculopathy previously treated with ranibizumab and bevacizumab can show marked improvement

99 aphic and geographic variation in the use of ranibizumab and bevacizumab for the treatment of neovasc

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

101 TOPIC: A comparison between ranibizumab and bevacizumab of the incidence of systemic

102 No difference was observed in BCVA between ranibizumab and dexamethasone at months 1 and 2.

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

104 ient characteristics between those receiving ranibizumab and those receiving aflibercept.

105 mab + deferred laser and laser/very deferred ranibizumab and triamcinolone + laser/very deferred rani

106 aqueous tap was 38% for both bevacizumab and ranibizumab and was 43% for aflibercept.

107 injections, 64.6% were of bevacizumab, 22.0% ranibizumab, and 13.4% aflibercept; 62.7% were performed

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

109 zumab and 8.4 letters (95% CI, 6.3-10.5) for ranibizumab, and a change in OCT CSMT of -128 mum (95% C

110 r ophthalmic disease, including bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept.

111 nts from ranibizumab were more likely to use ranibizumab, and those receiving >90% of payments from a

112 Bevacizumab and ranibizumab are the most frequently used anti-vascular e

113 tters in the EMB arm and -0.9 letters in the ranibizumab arm (95% confidence interval of difference b

114 etters was 84% in the EMB arm and 92% in the ranibizumab arm (P = 0.007).

115 mm(2) in the EMB arm and by 1.3 mm(2) in the ranibizumab arm (P = 0.27).

116 creased by 1.2 mm(2) versus 0.4 mm(2) in the ranibizumab arm (P = 0.27).

117 de additional evidence supporting the use of ranibizumab as an alternative therapy to PRP for PDR, at

118 The latter 2 groups could initiate ranibizumab as early as 74 weeks from baseline, for pers

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

120 The odds of receiving bevacizumab vs ranibizumab as initial therapy for neovascular AMD among

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

122 All subjects received intravitreal ranibizumab at baseline and at week 4, and retreatment i

123 age number of injections 6.2) as compared to ranibizumab (average number of injections 5.7) in the fo

124 l photocoagulation, laterality of procedure, ranibizumab, bevacizumab, fundus photographs, fluorescei

125 ed with at least 4 consecutive injections of ranibizumab/bevacizumab spaced 4-6 weeks apart prior to

126 etinopathy of prematurity (ROP) treated with ranibizumab (Case 1) and compare it with a case of ROP w

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

128 icant but small relative clinical benefit of ranibizumab compared with bevacizumab for treatment of D

129 during 1 year, the ICERs of aflibercept and ranibizumab compared with bevacizumab were $1110000 per

130 vision, the 10-year ICERs of aflibercept and ranibizumab compared with bevacizumab were $287000 per Q

131 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of ranibizumab compared with PRP evaluated within 2 prespec

132 Analysis of RIDE and RISE pooled ranibizumab data through month 24.

133 gression models, the likelihood of receiving ranibizumab declined over time (adjusted odds ratio (aOR

134 confidence interval) in mean change between ranibizumab + deferred laser and laser/very deferred ran

135 re, on average, as dry as or drier than with ranibizumab despite the extended treatment interval.

136 yes without GA present at baseline receiving ranibizumab developed new GA, the role of ranibizumab in

137 Ranibizumab did not show a statistically significant inf

138 was -89 mum for bevacizumab and -137 mum for ranibizumab (difference, 48 mum; P < 0.001).

139 oke, the findings suggest that intravitreous ranibizumab does not increase the risk of systemic vascu

140 Subjects were randomized to 0.5 or 2.0 mg ranibizumab every month for 6 months and then were re-ra

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

142 nd 5 years, the group originally assigned to ranibizumab for 2 years lost more VA than the bevacizuma

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

144 ts given monthly injections of 0.5 or 2.0 mg ranibizumab for 6 months, there was no significant diffe

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

146 ive patients with AMD treated with as-needed ranibizumab for at least 2 years and up to 4 years were

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

148 a (DME) at baseline were required to receive ranibizumab for center-involved DME.

149 Eyes in both groups could receive ranibizumab for concomitant DME.

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

151 -life study of a T&E treatment protocol with ranibizumab for exudative ARMD in a 24-month period and

152 Relatively fewer patients received ranibizumab for initial neovascular AMD treatment in 200

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

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

155 ectiveness or safety between bevacizumab and ranibizumab for NVAMD treatment, but there was a large c

156 amcinolone + laser followed by very deferred ranibizumab for persistent thickening and vision impairm

157 is of the phase III RIDE and RISE studies of ranibizumab for treatment of DME.

158 ults suggest that 12 months after initiating ranibizumab for vision impairment from center-involved D

159 reat-and-extend (T&E) treatment regimen with ranibizumab for wet age-related macular degeneration (AR

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

161 .9 mum, laser [monotherapy and combined with ranibizumab from month 6] -197.5 mum).

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

163 Outcomes with 3 loading injections of 0.5 mg ranibizumab given monthly followed by pro re nata retrea

164 In the ranibizumab group (RG), the CMT increased from 396 +/- 1

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

166 evacizumab group, and 40 eyes (31.0%) in the ranibizumab group had DR improvement; no treatment group

167 207 in the bevacizumab group, and 208 in the ranibizumab group.

168 2 years in the aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab groups, respectively (global P = 0.08).

169 letters in the aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab groups, respectively, and VA letter score wa

170 letters in the aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab groups, respectively.

171 evacizumab group than in the aflibercept and ranibizumab groups.

172 A single intravitreal injection of ranibizumab had a long-lasting effect.

173 At 2 years, bevacizumab and ranibizumab had an equivalent effect on visual acuity an

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

175 which had received 2 years of high-frequency ranibizumab, had less severe MA than the respective fell

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

177 f of eyes treated for DME with intravitreous ranibizumab have persistent central-involved DME through

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

179 l agent throughout the study (bevacizumab or ranibizumab in CATT and ranibizumab in DRCR.net).

180 l agent throughout the study (bevacizumab or ranibizumab in CATT and ranibizumab in DRCR.net).

181 tudy (bevacizumab or ranibizumab in CATT and ranibizumab in DRCR.net).

182 tudy (bevacizumab or ranibizumab in CATT and ranibizumab in DRCR.net).

183 58 demonstrated noninferiority compared with ranibizumab in mean change in CSFT from baseline to mont

184 monthly sham, 0.3-mg ranibizumab, or 0.5-mg ranibizumab in RIDE and RISE or to macular laser, macula

185 ng ranibizumab developed new GA, the role of ranibizumab in the development of GA is unclear.

186 Eyes treated with ranibizumab in the first 2 years of the clinical trial h

187 2009 to 13.6 per 1000 in 2015) while that of ranibizumab initially increased significantly and then d

188 5% CI, 0.22-0.26; P < .001), aflibercept and ranibizumab injection use (r = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.29-0.34;

189 t the last follow-up visit, 1 year after the ranibizumab injection, when the patient showed further r

190 Panretinal photocoagulation or intravitreous ranibizumab injections (0.5 mg/0.05 ml).

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

192 fluid while receiving monthly bevacizumab or ranibizumab injections and were switched to strict, as-n

193 itiated on a loading phase of 3 intravitreal ranibizumab injections and who had at least 6 months fol

194 However, ranibizumab injections are costly.

195 omic response (</=10% CFT reduction) after 3 ranibizumab injections had visual acuity gains and DR im

196 Use of 0.3-mg ranibizumab injections increased from 0 of 4488 (before

197 Use of 0.5-mg ranibizumab injections increased from 1122 of 4488 pre-P

198 Eyes received a mean of 13.7 bevacizumab/ranibizumab injections prior to conversion, followed by

199 Regardless of dose (0.5 or 2.0 mg), monthly ranibizumab injections promote improvement and reduce pr

200 aser received a minimum of 3 initial monthly ranibizumab injections until visual acuity (VA) stabiliz

201 The mean number of PRN ranibizumab injections was 4.8 in the EMB arm and 4.1 in

202 f treatment-naive patients randomised 1:1 to ranibizumab "intensive" treatment (complete resolution o

203 packaged (compounded) bevacizumab, or 0.3-mg ranibizumab intravitreous injections performed up to mon

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

205 Genentech, Inc, South San Francisco, CA) and ranibizumab (Lucentis; Genentech, Inc.), using findings

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

207 However, ranibizumab maintained its efficacy throughout the study

208 Ranibizumab with laser was noninferior to ranibizumab monotherapy (mean average BCVA change: 15.4

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

210 ctions was 4.8 in the EMB arm and 4.1 in the ranibizumab monotherapy arm (P = 0.068).

211 group (-164.4+/-24.2 mum) compared with the ranibizumab monotherapy group (-110.4+/-17.2 mum; P = 0.

212 3 in the combination group, 5.7+/-1.2 in the ranibizumab monotherapy group, and 1.5+/-1.2 in the AKB-

213 8-treated subjects compared with 4.2% in the ranibizumab monotherapy group.

214 1+/-17.1 mum and 17.0%, respectively, in the ranibizumab monotherapy group.

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

216 Most subgroups favored ranibizumab monotherapy, some significantly so.

217 mg BID + monthly 0.3 mg ranibizumab; or (3) ranibizumab monotherapy: subcutaneous placebo injections

218 macular atrophy (ERMA) in eyes treated with ranibizumab monthly or using a treat-and-extend (TREX) r

219 Ranibizumab monthly was best able to resolve each type o

220 le patients were randomized 2:2:1 to receive ranibizumab (n = 183), ranibizumab with laser (n = 180),

221 cizumab, but superiority of aflibercept over ranibizumab, noted at 1 year, was no longer identified.

222 al neovascularization receiving intravitreal ranibizumab or aflibercept over 12 months.

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

224 dophthalmitis with bevacizumab compared with ranibizumab or aflibercept.

225 ents were associated exclusively with either ranibizumab or aflibercept.

226 Patients were assigned randomly to ranibizumab or bevacizumab and to 1 of 3 dosing regimens

227 termine whether beneficiaries first received ranibizumab or bevacizumab following initial diagnosis.

228 scans of eyes with NVAMD treated with either ranibizumab or bevacizumab over a 2-year period.

229 CATT participants were randomly assigned to ranibizumab or bevacizumab treatment and to 3 treatment

230 Treatment was assigned randomly to ranibizumab or bevacizumab with 3 different dosing regim

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

232 ls assigned randomly to monthly sham, 0.3-mg ranibizumab, or 0.5-mg ranibizumab in RIDE and RISE or t

233 of bevacizumab, 0.3- or 0.5-mg injections of ranibizumab, or 2.0-mg injections of aflibercept for age

234 ived intravitreal injections of bevacizumab, ranibizumab, or aflibercept between January 1, 2009 and

235 patients with nAMD who received bevacizumab, ranibizumab, or aflibercept only for 1 year between 2013

236 utaneous AKB-9778 15 mg BID + monthly 0.3 mg ranibizumab; or (3) ranibizumab monotherapy: subcutaneou

237 months follow-up for bevacizumab (P = .005), ranibizumab (P < .001), and aflibercept (P = .07) compar

238 umab (P < .001) and +11.2 (9.4) letters with ranibizumab (P = .03).

239 t vs. ranibizumab, P = 0.04; bevacizumab vs. ranibizumab, P = 0.01).

240 vs. bevacizumab, P < 0.001; aflibercept vs. ranibizumab, P = 0.04; bevacizumab vs. ranibizumab, P =

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

242 Pooled data from the ranibizumab plus prompt and deferred laser treatment arm

243 to pro re nata (PRN) groups receiving either ranibizumab plus scatter laser photocoagulation or ranib

244 The addition of scatter photocoagulation to ranibizumab PRN may reduce progression of RNP in patient

245 tients, but not CRVO patients, randomized to ranibizumab PRN plus laser showed significantly less pro

246 a of RNP compared with subsequent periods of ranibizumab PRN treatment.

247 n of RNP compared with patients treated with ranibizumab PRN.

248 tions per physician that were aflibercept or ranibizumab (r = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.25-0.29; P < .001).

249 ment (complete resolution of IRF and SRF) or ranibizumab "relaxed" treatment (resolution of IRF or >2

250 sing monthly aflibercept and 2 using monthly ranibizumab, representing 1328 patients.

251 growth factor (VEGF), such as aflibercept or ranibizumab, rescue vision in patients with retinal vasc

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

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

254 Patients who have not yet "responded" to PRN ranibizumab seem to exhibit retinal dehydration after sw

255 rage BCVA gain was significantly higher with ranibizumab than with dexamethasone (12.86 vs 2.96 lette

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

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

258 available at 5 years, eyes receiving initial ranibizumab therapy for center-involving DME likely have

259 hese results suggest that visual response to ranibizumab therapy in DME was not influenced by nonocul

260 remental cost-effectiveness ratios of 0.5-mg ranibizumab therapy vs PRP for PDR.

261 , and was not attributable to high-frequency ranibizumab therapy.

262 In RIDE and RISE, 9% to 10% of ranibizumab-treated eyes were delayed responders.

263 n after 3 injections), immediate responders (ranibizumab-treated patients with >10% CFT reduction aft

264 separated into 3 groups: delayed responders (ranibizumab-treated patients with </=10% central foveal

265 At month 24, among ranibizumab-treated patients, the mean BCVA change from

266 witching from bevacizumab to aflibercept- or ranibizumab treatment (final follow-up, AG/, RG).

267 severity during aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab treatment for DME.

268 ts qualified for inclusion if aflibercept or ranibizumab treatment had been initiated between June 1,

269 at baseline and responded better to initial ranibizumab treatment, suggesting that earlier anti-vasc

270 f 1057 patients within 3 months of beginning ranibizumab treatment, whereas an additional 135 (13.7%)

271 Ranibizumab use declined after 2014 while both the absol

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

273 ibercept vs bevacizumab, 25% (5% to 46%) for ranibizumab vs bevacizumab, and 13% (-8% to 35%) for afl

274 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

275 ; 20.4%; 95% CI, -3.1% to 44.0%; P = .09 for ranibizumab vs bevacizumab; and 30.0%; 95% CI, 4.4% to 5

276 ve risk (95% CI) for bevacizumab relative to ranibizumab was 1.06 [(0.84, 1.35); p=0.61] for >/=1 SAE

277 ce in CSFT change at month 1 comparison with ranibizumab was 22.86 mum (90% confidence interval [CI],

278 umab and triamcinolone + laser/very deferred ranibizumab was 4.4 (1.2-7.6, P = .001) and 2.8 (-0.9 to

279 Mean injection number of ranibizumab was 4.52.

280 E trials which were conducted at a time when ranibizumab was not available.

281 n patients with DME, vision improvement with ranibizumab was not influenced by systemic factors such

282 ered at doses up to 3 mg in combination with ranibizumab was well tolerated without evidence of syste

283 No new safety signals for ranibizumab were identified.

284 Providers receiving >90% of payments from ranibizumab were more likely to use ranibizumab, and tho

285 d within the retina of the eyes treated with ranibizumab when compared with the VEGF staining in Case

286 a Treat and Extend (T&E) protocol of 0.5 mg ranibizumab, which allows treatment extension in the pre

287 Ranibizumab with an individualized VA-based regimen, wit

288 ized 2:2:1 to receive ranibizumab (n = 183), ranibizumab with laser (n = 180), or laser only (n = 92)

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

290 In the ranibizumab with laser and laser-only groups, laser was

291 Ranibizumab with laser was noninferior to ranibizumab mo

292 nitial 3 monthly injections, patients in the ranibizumab with or without laser arms received VA stabi

293 Ranibizumab with or without laser led to superior BCVA o

294 Patients treated with ranibizumab with or without laser received a minimum of

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

296 Ranibizumab with or without laser was superior to laser

297 96 eyes (39.5%) randomly assigned to receive ranibizumab with persistent DME (central subfield thickn

298 is at 2 years, bevacizumab was equivalent to ranibizumab, with 7.4 and 6.6 letters gained, respective

299 from DME, treatment costs of aflibercept and ranibizumab would need to decrease by 69% and 80%, respe

300 sis including monthly aflibercept and 0.5-mg ranibizumab yielded an increased risk for cerebrovascula