Aims To report the rate of intraocular pressure (IOP) elevation associated with repeated intravitreal injections of antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents and to determine if a pre-existing diagnosis of glaucoma is a risk factor for this phenomenon.
Methods The charts of 215 eyes undergoing intravitreal injection with anti-VEGF agents for wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD) were retrospectively examined with respect to frequency of injections, number of injections and changes in IOP. Data were analysed independently for two groups (1) pre-existing glaucoma and (2) no history of glaucoma.
Results Of the 215 eyes receiving injections with bevacizumab and/or ranibizumab, 6% (n=13) had sustained IOP elevation requiring medical or laser interventions. Of the eyes receiving only bevacizumab, 9.9% (10/101) had sustained elevated IOP, while 3.1% (3/96) of eyes receiving only ranibizumab experienced increases (p=0.049). Patients with pre-existing glaucoma experienced higher rates of elevated IOP when compared with patients without pre-existing glaucoma (33% vs 3.1% respectively; p<0.001). The glaucoma subgroup had a lower median number of injections (6; interquartile range 5–10) compared with the non-glaucoma group (9.5; interquartile range 6–13.7; p=0.031).
Conclusions The incidence of sustained elevated IOP in patients receiving intravitreal anti-VEGF injections is significant. Additionally, these data suggest the possibility of a heightened risk for further elevation of IOP in patients with pre-existing glaucoma who receive either bevacizumab or ranibizumab. Prospective studies are needed to verify these results and better understand the implications of these findings.
- Age-related macular degeneration
- intraocular pressure
- treatment medical
- Accepted 27 May 2010
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Competing interests MYK, AEK and NM have received research support from Genentech in the past. Genentech had no involvement in this study nor with the preparation of this manuscript.
Ethics approval Ethics approval was provided by the Institutional Review Board in concordance with the applicable rules at the University of Colorado Denver Health Sciences Center.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.