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.

IMPORTANCE Requirements regulating pharmaceutical prescriptions can affect physicians' choice of therapy in a clinical setting. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the change in bevacizumab use after the regulatory requirement for patient-specific prescriptions (PSPs) for off-label medications in Ohio. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This study retrospectively reviewed the aggregate data from the billing records of patients receiving 1.25-mg injections of bevacizumab, 0.3-or 0.5-mg injections of ranibizumab, or 2.0-mg injections of aflibercept for age-related macular degeneration or diabetic macular edema in a 9-member retinal specialty private practice. The review assessed 4488 intravitreal injections in the 3-month period before (May 1 to July 30, 2012) and 5253 injections in the 3-month period after (May 1 to July 30, 2013) the Ohio Board of Pharmacy's requirement of PSPs for bevacizumab. Relative proportions of the drugs used for intravitreal injections were calculated and frequencies were compared. A Likert scale survey was conducted among the 9 physicians to identify reasons for their change in prescription of bevacizumab. The survey inquired about (1) the burden of PSPs, (2) concern about differences in efficacy, and (3) concern about differences in safety. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Difference in drug use before and after the PSP requirement for bevacizumab and the physicians' reasons for change in their drug use. RESULTS Bevacizumab use decreased from 2752 of 4488 pre-PSP injections (61.3%) to 1503 of 5253 post-PSP injections (28.6%), a change of −32.7% (95% CI, −34.6% to −30.8%; P < .001). Use of 0.5-mg ranibizumab injections increased from 1122 of 4488 pre-PSP injections (25.0%) to 1838 of 5253 post-PSP injections (35.0%), a change of 10.0% (95% CI, 8.2% to 11.8%; P < .001). Use of 0.3-mg ranibizumab injections increased from 0 of 4488 (before US Food and Drug Administration approval) to 429 of 5253 post-PSP injections (8.2%), a change of 8.2% (95% CI, 7.4% to 8.9%; P < .001). Use of aflibercept injections increased from 614 of 4488 pre-PSP injections (13.7%) to 1483 of 5253 post-PSP injections (28.2%), a change of 14.6% (95% CI, 13.0%-16.1%; P < .001). In the survey of the 9 physicians concerning their reasons for decreased use of bevacizumab, 7 (78%) strongly agreed and 1 (11%) agreed that the burden of PSPs changed their choice of drug used for injection. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Use of bevacizumab was reduced by 32.7% 1 year after the regulatory requirement for PSPs for compounded (repackaged) medications. This change seemed to have more association with the requirement for PSPs than with a known change in efficacy or safety concerns. Although this study was based on a single US practice, regulation of repackaged medication for safety concerns should also consider the evaluation of treatment burden, cost, and adherence.

Background The anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injection interval influences treatment burden and compliance in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). This real-world study investigates visual acuity (VA), injection-interval extension, central macular thickness (CMT) and safety in nAMD eyes switched to the anti-VEGF agent brolucizumab and followed for up to 18 months. Methods This retrospective study included patients with nAMD who were switched from other anti-VEGF agents to brolucizumab only. Patient eyes were grouped into three nested cohorts with the overall cohort receiving ≥ 1 brolucizumab injection, the second receiving ≥ 3 brolucizumab injections with a follow-up period of ≥ 12 months and the third cohort receiving ≥ 3 brolucizumab injections with a follow-up period of ≥ 18 months. Study endpoints included changes from baseline at 12 or 18 months in VA, injection intervals, and CMT. Sub-group analyses were conducted using baseline injection interval length or baseline VA as qualifiers. Results Overall, 482 eyes received ≥ 1 brolucizumab injection; 174 eyes received ≥ 3 brolucizumab injections with ≥ 12 months of follow-up, and 95 eyes received ≥ 3 brolucizumab injections with ≥ 18 months of follow-up. VA (mean [95% confidence intervals]) remained stable relative to baseline after 12 months (− 1.1 [− 3.7, 1.6] letters; p = 0.42) and 18 months (0.0 [− 3.1, 3.1] letters; p = 0.98) of brolucizumab treatment, respectively, and pre-switch injection intervals or baseline VA had no notable effect. Following the switch to brolucizumab, injection intervals were extended from baseline to month 12 by 26.9 (19.7, 34.0) days (p < 0.0001), and eyes with pre-switch injection intervals < 8 weeks were able to have their injection intervals extended by 23.6 days longer than eyes with pre-switch injection intervals ≥ 8 weeks. At 18 months, injection intervals were extended by 36.3 (25.6, 46.9) days (p < 0.0001) compared to baseline. Following switch to brolucizumab, CMT was reduced at both 12 and 18 months (12 months: − 35.2 (− 51.7, − 18.8) µm, p < 0.0001; 18 months: − 38.9 (− 54.3, − 22.0) µm, p < 0.0001). Intraocular inflammation-related adverse events were reported in 4.6% of brolucizumab-treated eyes. Conclusions This real-world study demonstrates that injection intervals may be significantly extended with maintained vision and reduced CMT in nAMD eyes switching to brolucizumab therapy from other anti-VEGFs.

exists about its metabolism and effects on development. 3 Given the rarity of its use in children, performing a randomised control trial is unrealistic, but an alternative method would be to establish a central database that allows clinicians who use anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy in children to report results and complications. Conflict of interestThe authors declare no conflict of interest. References

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.