Purpose To assess the efficacy and safety of intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) compared with ranibizumab (IVR) in the treatment of macular oedema due to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).

Methods In this prospective, randomised, non-inferiority trial, 75 participants with macular oedema due to BRVO received intravitreal injections of ranibizumab or bevacizumab after 1:1 block randomisation. The primary outcome measure was the difference in mean changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 6 months. Secondary outcome measures included mean change in central retinal thickness (CRT), the proportion of patients improving by >15 letters and the proportion of patients developing neovascularisation.

Results Participants received either IVR (n=37) or IVB (n=38). The mean BCVA at baseline was 52.8±14.4 letters (20/80) and 56.1±10.0 letters (20/80) (p=0.24) in the ranibizumab and bevacizumab groups, respectively. At 6 months, the mean gains in BCVA were +18.1 letters (p<0.0001; 95% CI, +12.8 to +22.6) in the ranibizumab group and +15.6 letters (p<0.0001; 95% CI +12.0 to +20.5) in the bevacizumab group. The difference between the mean visual gains of the treated groups (bevacizumab–ranibizumab) was −2.5 letters (95% CI −8.0 to +5.0; p=0.74). Mean reductions in CRT at 6 months were 177.1±122.3 µm in the ranibizumab group (p<0.0001) and 201.7±166.2 µm in the bevacizumab group (p<0.0001), with no significant difference between the two groups (p=0.48). The mean numbers of ranibizumab and bevacizumab injections were 3.2±1.5 and 3.0±1.4, respectively (p=0.55). Two serious adverse events occurred in the ranibizumab group and one in the bevacizumab group but both were unrelated to intravitreal injections.

Conclusions This study demonstrated significant gain in visual acuity in eyes with BRVO treated with either bevacizumab or ranibizumab. Pro-re-nata strategy was effective in maintaining the visual gain.

Trial registration number http://www.ctri.nic.in/ CTRI/2012/01/003120.