This preprint is under consideration at BMC Ophthalmology. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Intravitreal Conbercept For Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion induced Macular Edema: One Initial Injection Versus Three Monthly Injections
Wei Wei
Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine
Corresponding Author
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Objective To compare the efficacy of one initial intravitreal injection of conbercept (IVC) versus three monthly IVCs in patients with macular edema (ME) after branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). Both options were followed by a pro re nata (PRN) retreatment regimen.
Methods This study retrospectively investigated and followed 49 patients with acute ME secondary to BRVO for over a year. 24 subjects received one initial injection (1+PRN group); while, 25 received three monthly injections (3+PRN group). The functional and anatomic outcomes were assessed during each follow-up.
Results The general characteristics of the 49 subjects were as follows: mean [SD] age, 56.12 [12.54] years; 28 [57.1%] female; 30 [61.2%] non-ischemic form. Both groups showed a stable gain in visual acuity (VA) with similar logMAR (mean ± SD) (1+PRN group 0.308±0.431, 3+PRN group 0.345±0.366) during the first 12 months. Additionally, both groups exhibited a significant reduction in central foveal thickness (CFT) with no statistically significant difference between them (1+PRN group 220.5 μm ±219.9 μm , 3+PRN group 230.2 μm ±220 μm ). Both treatment groups had similar improvements in logMAR and anatomic outcomes over time. The stratified analysis showed that patients with the non-ischemic form and those with the ischemic form had similar improvements in VA (0.351±0.387 VS 0.289±0.417, P =0.601) during the 12 months follow-ups. The number of injections was lower in the 1+PRN group (4.0±1.7) than in the 3+PRN group (4.6±1.2) ( P =0.155). No adverse effects or unexpected safety issues were reported in either group.
Conclusions Conpercept yielded stronger improvements in VA and CFT among patients with BRVO induced ME，independent of their retinal ischemia status. The results showed that the 3+PRN regimens do not lead to better functional outcomes or lower treatment needs in clinical practice as compared to the 1+PRN regimen.
Keywords
Branch retinal vein occlusion, Macular edema, Conpercept, PRN
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Revision
Version 1
Posted 10 Apr, 2020
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 08 May, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 04 May, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 17 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 13 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 11 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 10 Apr, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 10 Apr, 2020
Editor assigned
On 08 Apr, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 08 Apr, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 07 Apr, 2020
Editor invited
On 07 Apr, 2020
First submitted
On 30 Mar, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Ophthalmology
Learn more about our company.
This preprint is under consideration at BMC Ophthalmology. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Intravitreal Conbercept For Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion induced Macular Edema: One Initial Injection Versus Three Monthly Injections
Wei Wei
Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine
Corresponding Author
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Revision
Version 1
Posted 10 Apr, 2020
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 08 May, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 04 May, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 17 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 13 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 11 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 10 Apr, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 10 Apr, 2020
Editor assigned
On 08 Apr, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 08 Apr, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 07 Apr, 2020
Editor invited
On 07 Apr, 2020
First submitted
On 30 Mar, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Ophthalmology
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Objective To compare the efficacy of one initial intravitreal injection of conbercept (IVC) versus three monthly IVCs in patients with macular edema (ME) after branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). Both options were followed by a pro re nata (PRN) retreatment regimen.
Methods This study retrospectively investigated and followed 49 patients with acute ME secondary to BRVO for over a year. 24 subjects received one initial injection (1+PRN group); while, 25 received three monthly injections (3+PRN group). The functional and anatomic outcomes were assessed during each follow-up.
Results The general characteristics of the 49 subjects were as follows: mean [SD] age, 56.12 [12.54] years; 28 [57.1%] female; 30 [61.2%] non-ischemic form. Both groups showed a stable gain in visual acuity (VA) with similar logMAR (mean ± SD) (1+PRN group 0.308±0.431, 3+PRN group 0.345±0.366) during the first 12 months. Additionally, both groups exhibited a significant reduction in central foveal thickness (CFT) with no statistically significant difference between them (1+PRN group 220.5 μm ±219.9 μm , 3+PRN group 230.2 μm ±220 μm ). Both treatment groups had similar improvements in logMAR and anatomic outcomes over time. The stratified analysis showed that patients with the non-ischemic form and those with the ischemic form had similar improvements in VA (0.351±0.387 VS 0.289±0.417, P =0.601) during the 12 months follow-ups. The number of injections was lower in the 1+PRN group (4.0±1.7) than in the 3+PRN group (4.6±1.2) ( P =0.155). No adverse effects or unexpected safety issues were reported in either group.
Conclusions Conpercept yielded stronger improvements in VA and CFT among patients with BRVO induced ME，independent of their retinal ischemia status. The results showed that the 3+PRN regimens do not lead to better functional outcomes or lower treatment needs in clinical practice as compared to the 1+PRN regimen.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4