These data suggest that decreases in plasma free-VEGF levels are greater after treatment with aflibercept or bevacizumab compared with ranibizumab at 4 weeks. At 52 and 104 weeks, a greater decrease was observed in bevacizumab versus ranibizumab. Results from 2 subgroups of participants who did not receive injections within at least 1 month and 2 months before collection suggest similar changes in VEGF levels after stopping injections. It is unknown whether VEGF levels return to normal as the drug is cleared from the system or whether the presence of the drug affects the assay's ability to accurately measure free VEGF. No significant associations between VEGF concentration and systemic factors were noted.

The clinical heterogeneity observed in leptospirosis may be associated with host factors or bacteria virulence. Human serum mannose-binding lectin (MBL) recognizes many pathogens, and low levels of this lectin are associated with susceptibility to infection. MBL is also implicated in the modulation of the inflammatory process. We determined the levels of serum MBL during leptospirosis infection. A double-antibody sandwich ELISA was used to detect the immunoreactive serum MBL. The ELISA plates were coated with monoclonal antibody to MBL and bound MBL or recombinant human MBL were detected by rabbit antihuman MBL serum. HRPO-conjugated goat anti-rabbit antibody was used for detection of the reaction. Two groups of patients seen at referral hospitals in Recife, PE, Brazil, were divided according to the year of infection, 2001 (N = 61) or 2002 (N = 57) and compared in terms of disease severity and levels of serum MBL. A group of healthy volunteers (N = 97) matched by age, gender, and ethnic background was used as control. Patients infected in 2001 had more severe outcomes than those infected in 2002, including jaundice, hemorrhage, respiratory alteration, and renal complication (P = 0.0009; chi-square test). The frequency of patients producing serum MBL >1000 ng/mL was higher in the 2001 group than in the 2002 and control groups (P < 0.01), suggesting an association of MBL level with disease severity. The involvement of MBL and genetic variation of the MBL2 gene should be further evaluated to establish the role of this lectin in the pathogenesis of leptospirosis.

ImportanceRetinal vein occlusion is the second most common retinal vascular disease. Bevacizumab was demonstrated in the Study of Comparative Treatments for Retinal Vein Occlusion 2 (SCORE2) to be noninferior to aflibercept with respect to visual acuity in study participants with macular edema due to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) or hemiretinal vein occlusion (HRVO) following 6 months of therapy. In this study, the cost-utility of bevacizumab vs aflibercept for treatment of CRVO is evaluated.ObjectiveTo investigate the relative cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab vs aflibercept for treatment of macular edema associated with CRVO or HRVO.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis economic evaluation study used a microsimulation cohort of patients with clinical and demographic characteristics similar to those of SCORE2 participants and a Markov process. Parameters were estimated and validated using a split-sample approach of the SCORE2 population. The simulated cohort included 5000 patients who were evaluated 100 times, each with a different set of characteristics randomly selected based on the SCORE2 trial. SCORE2 data were collected from September 2014 October 2019, and data were analyzed from October 2019 to July 2021.InterventionsBevacizumab (followed by aflibercept among patients with a protocol-defined poor or marginal response to bevacizumab at month 6) vs aflibercept (followed by a dexamethasone implant among patients with a protocol-defined poor or marginal response to aflibercept at month 6).Main Outcomes and MeasuresIncremental cost-utility ratio.ResultsThe simulation demonstrated that patients treated with aflibercept will have an expected cost $18 127 greater than those treated with bevacizumab in the year following initiation. When coupled with the lack of clinical superiority over bevacizumab (ie, patients treated with bevacizumab had a gain over aflibercept in visual acuity letter score of 4 in the treated eye and 2 in the fellow eye), these results demonstrate that first-line treatment with bevacizumab dominated aflibercept in the simulated cohort of SCORE2 participants. At current price levels, aflibercept would be considered the preferred cost-effective option only if treatment restored the patient to nearly perfect health.Conclusions and RelevanceWhile there will be some patients with CRVO-associated or HRVO-associated macular edema who will benefit from first-line treatment with aflibercept rather than bevacizumab, given the minimal differences in visual acuity outcomes and large cost differences for bevacizumab vs aflibercept, first-line treatment with bevacizumab is cost-effective for this condition.