title: Comparison of subconjunctivally injected bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and pegaptanib for inhibition of corneal neovascularization in a rat model.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare the efficacies of subconjunctival bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and pegaptanib sodium injections for the inhibition of corneal neovascularization in an experimental rat model.
  
  
  METHODS
  Sixteen corneas of 16 rats were chemically cauterized and randomized into four groups: bevacizumab group that treated with 0.05mL/1.25mg bevacizumab, ranibizumab group that treated with 0.05mL/0.5mg ranibizumab, pegaptanib group that treated with 0.05mL/0.15mg pegaptanib sodium, and control group that treated with 0.05mL saline solution. Digital photographs of the corneas were taken and analyzed using an image analysis software program. All corneas were excised and examined histologically on the 15(th) day.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Each treatment group had significantly less neovascularized corneal areas and fewer blood vessels than the control group (all P<0.05). In addition, bevacizumab group had significantly less neovascularized corneal areas and fewer blood vessels than ranibizumab and pegaptanib groups (both P<0.05). However, there was no significant difference between the ranibizumab and pegaptanib groups regarding percentage of neovascularized corneal areas and number of blood vessels (both P>0.05).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Subconjunctival bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and pegaptanib sodium were effective with no corneal epitheliopathy for inhibiting corneal neovascularization after corneal burn in rats. Bevacizumab was more effective than ranibizumab and pegaptanib sodium.
authors: Department of Ophthalmology, Artvin State Hospital, Artvin, Turkey.
authors: Ebru Eren
authors: EE
authors: Akar
authors: Veysi
authors: V
authors: Oner
authors: Cem
authors: C
authors: Küçükerdönmez
authors: Yonca
authors: Y
authors: Aydın Akova
keywords: bevacizumab; corneal neovascularization; pegaptanib; ranibizumab; subconjunctival injection
references: Cornea. 2007 Jul;26(6):715-9
references: 17592323
references: Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2001 Aug;12(4):242-9
references: 11507336
references: Curr Eye Res. 1985 May;4(5):531-5
references: 2410194
references: Br J Ophthalmol. 2007 Jun;91(6):804-7
references: 17179168
references: Nat Rev Cancer. 2002 Oct;2(10):727-39
references: 12360276
references: Cornea. 2011 Aug;30(8):927-38
references: 21389854
references: Acta Ophthalmol. 2010 Dec;88(8):862-7
references: 19549103
references: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1998 Jan;39(1):18-22
references: 9430540
references: Br J Ophthalmol. 2006 Dec;90(12):1542-7
references: 17114590
references: Am J Ophthalmol. 2010 Oct;150(4):519-528.e1
references: 20591397
references: Surv Ophthalmol. 1998 Nov-Dec;43(3):245-69
references: 9862312
references: Curr Eye Res. 2011 Nov;36(11):1005-13
references: 21999227
references: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007 Jun;48(6):2545-52
references: 17525183
references: FASEB J. 1999 Jan;13(1):9-22
references: 9872925
references: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2009 Feb;247(2):171-7
references: 18781316
references: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1996 Nov;37(12):2485-94
references: 8933765
references: Curr Drug Targets. 2011 Feb;12(2):173-81
references: 20887245
references: Cornea. 2006 Aug;25(7):801-5
references: 17068457
references: Acta Ophthalmol. 2009 Sep;87(6):653-8
references: 19021596
references: Ophthalmic Res. 2012;48(3):118-23
references: 22538642
references: Int J Ophthalmol. 2012;5(4):448-51
references: 22937503
references: Ophthalmic Res. 2011;46(1):50-4
references: 21212709
references: In Vivo. 1994 Nov-Dec;8(6):961-5
references: 7539637
references: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1996 Jul;37(8):1625-32
references: 8675406