Publication:

Corneal Neovascularization and the Utility of Topical VEGF Inhibition: Ranibizumab (Lucentis) Vs Bevacizumab (Avastin)

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

2012

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Elsevier BV
The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you.

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Journal Issue

Citation

Stevenson, William, Sheng-Fu Cheng, Mohammad H. Dastjerdi, Giulio Ferrari, and Reza Dana. 2012. “Corneal Neovascularization and the Utility of Topical VEGF Inhibition: Ranibizumab (Lucentis) Vs Bevacizumab (Avastin).” The Ocular Surface 10 (2) (April): 67–83. doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2012.01.005.

Abstract

Corneal avascularity is necessary for the preservation of optimal vision. The cornea maintains a dynamic balance between pro- and antiangiogenic factors that allows it to remain avascular under normal homeostatic conditions; however, corneal avascularity can be compromised by pathologic conditions that negate the cornea’s “angiogenic privilege.” The clinical relevance of corneal neovascularization has long been recognized, but management of this condition has been hindered by a lack of safe and effective therapeutic modalities. Herein, the etiology, epidemiology, pathogenesis, and treatment of corneal neovascularization are reviewed. Additionally, the authors’ recent findings regarding the clinical utility of topical ranibizumab (Lucentis®) and bevacizumab (Avastin®) in the treatment of corneal neovascularization are summarized. These findings clearly indicate that ranibizumab and bevacizumab are safe and effective treatments for corneal neovascularization when appropriate precautions are observed. Although direct comparisons are not conclusive, the results suggest that ranibizumab may be modestly superior to bevacizumab in terms of both onset of action and degree of efficacy. In order to justify the increased cost of ranibizumab, it will be necessary to demonstrate meaningful treatment superiority in a prospective, randomized, head-to-head comparison study.

Description

Research Data

Keywords

Terms of Use

This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material (LAA), as set forth at Terms of Service

Endorsement

Review

Supplemented By

Related Stories