Elsevier

Ophthalmology

Volume 123, Issue 9, September 2016, Pages 1845-1855
Ophthalmology

Original article
Clinical Management of Recurrent Retinopathy of Prematurity after Intravitreal Bevacizumab Monotherapy

Presented at: Third Congress of the World Society of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus, September 2015, Barcelona, Spain.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.04.028Get rights and content

Purpose

To determine incidence, risk factors, risk period, and characteristics of recurrent retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) treated by intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) monotherapy.

Design

Retrospective case series.

Participants

Premature infants with type 1 ROP (subdivided into stage 3+ ROP and aggressive posterior ROP [APROP]) in zone I or zone II posterior who received IVB monotherapy and were followed up for at least 65 weeks adjusted age (AA).

Methods

Retrospective review of infants who demonstrated recurrence of type 1 ROP after IVB monotherapy, including examination of RetCam fundus photographs and fluorescein angiograms.

Main Outcomes Measures

Incidence, risk factors, risk period, and characteristics of recurrent ROP.

Results

Intravitreal bevacizumab monotherapy in 241 infants (471 eyes) was reviewed. Recurrence incidence was 8.3% (20/241) for infants and 7.2% (34/471) for eyes. Recurrence risk factors of greatest significance were appearance of neovascularization as APROP (P = 0.006), extended duration of hospitalization (P = 0.01), and lower birth weight (P = 0.024). Recurrence risk period was between approximately 45 and 55 weeks AA (90.0% [18/20] for infants and 94.1% [32/34] for eyes), with mean recurrence of 51.2 weeks AA (±4.6 weeks; range, 45.7–64.9 weeks) and mean interval of 16.2 weeks (±4.4 weeks) between treatments. Recurrence characteristics included plus disease (20/20 infants [100%]) and neovascularization, which appeared at the following sites: stage 3+ ROP with confluent neovascularization recurred both at the advancing edge and at the initial ridge and extraretinal fibrovascular proliferative complex (12/14 infants [85.7%]). However, APROP (6/6 infants [100%]) and stage 3+ ROP with nonconfluent neovascularization (2/14 infants [14.3%]) recurred only at the advancing edge. Also, the anterior extent of retinal vascularization was decreased (mean, 1.76 disc diameters [DD] vs. 4.48 DD), and the rate of retinal vascularization was delayed (mean, 0.11 DD/week vs. 0.23 DD/week) in those with versus without recurrence, respectively. After retreatment with IVB, retinal vascularization proceeded minimally and slowly.

Conclusions

Premature children with severe ROP are being treated successfully with IVB monotherapy. However, recurrence is not uncommon, so vigilant follow-up is necessary to ensure timely re-treatment. Knowledge of recurrence incidence, risk factors, risk period, and characteristics allows for tailored clinical management.

Section snippets

Methods

Two cohorts were reviewed in this large retrospective case series: 75 infants treated with IVB in the BEAT-ROP clinical trial (Clinicaltrials.gov trial identifier, NCT00622726) from March 13, 2008, through August 4, 2010,12 and 218 infants treated consecutively with IVB (by H.M.H.) after the BEAT-ROP clinical trial who were treated and followed up at the Memorial Hermann Hospital System, Houston, Texas, and at the hospitals in Webster, Corpus Christi, and El Paso, Texas, from August 5, 2010,

Results

A total of 241 infants (471 eyes, i.e., 11 unilateral cases) treated with IVB monotherapy for ROP in zones I or II posterior were eligible for review in this study (55 infants from the BEAT-ROP clinical trial and 186 infants treated after the BEAT-ROP clinical trial). Thirty-one infants without follow-up examinations extending to 65 weeks were excluded from analysis, as well as 21 infants who had died before 65 weeks.

The demographics, infant characteristics, and initial treatment information

Discussion

There have been several case reports of late recurrence after treatment of stage 3+ ROP or APROP with IVB monotherapy27, 28 and after combined treatment using laser therapy with intravitreal ranibizumab29 or with IVB.27, 30, 31, 32 In each of these reports, close follow-up (every 1 or 3 weeks) was not performed beyond 55 weeks AA; however, standard follow-up recommendations have not been established by ophthalmologic studies reviewing prospective data. Also, not surprisingly, there are reports

References (39)

  • H. Blencowe et al.

    Preterm-associated visual impairment and estimates of retinopathy of prematurity at regional and global levels for 2010

    Pediatr Res

    (2013)
  • Multicenter trial of cryotherapy for retinopathy of prematurity: preliminary results

    Arch Ophthalmol

    (1988)
  • Revised indications for the treatment of retinopathy of prematurity

    Arch Ophthalmol

    (2003)
  • P. Henkind

    Ocular neovascularization. The Krill Memorial Lecture

    Am J Ophthalmol

    (1978)
  • B.M. Glaser et al.

    The demonstration of angiogenic activity from ocular tissues. Preliminary report

    Ophthalmology

    (1980)
  • F.L. Kretzer et al.

    Vitamin E protects against retinopathy of prematurity through action on spindle cells

    Nature

    (1984)
  • D.W. Leung et al.

    Vascular endothelial growth factor is a secreted angiogenic mitogen

    Science

    (1989)
  • L.P. Aiello et al.

    Vascular endothelial growth factor in ocular fluid of patients with diabetic retinopathy and other retinal disorders

    N Engl J Med

    (1994)
  • P. Geisen et al.

    Neutralizing antibody to VEGF reduces intravitreous neovascularization and may not interfere with ongoing intraretinal vascularization in a rat model of retinopathy of prematurity

    Mol Vis

    (2008)
  • H. Wang et al.

    Quantitative analyses of retinal vascular area and density after different methods to reduce VEGF in a rat model of retinopathy of prematurity

    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci

    (2014)
  • P.K. Shah et al.

    Intravitreal bevacizumab (Avastin) for post laser anterior segment ischemia in aggressive posterior retinopathy of prematurity

    Indian J Ophthalmol

    (2007)
  • H.A. Mintz-Hittner et al.

    Efficacy of intravitreal bevacizumab for stage 3+ retinopathy of prematurity: preliminary results of the BEAT-ROP clinical trial

    N Engl J Med

    (2011)
  • Early Treatment for Retinopathy of Prematurity Cooperative Group et al.

    Visual field extent at 6 years of age in children who had high-risk prethreshold retinopathy of prematurity

    Arch Ophthalmol

    (2011)
  • Early Treatment for Retinopathy of Prematurity Cooperative Group et al.

    Progression of myopia and high myopia in the early treatment for retinopathy of prematurity study: findings at 4 to 6 years of age

    J AAPOS

    (2013)
  • H.M. Hittner et al.

    Anterior segment abnormalities in cicatricial retinopathy of prematurity

    Ophthalmology

    (1979)
  • L. Trigler et al.

    Case series of angle-closure glaucoma after laser treatment for retinopathy of prematurity

    J AAPOS

    (2005)
  • B.C. Harder et al.

    Intravitreal bevacizumab for retinopathy of prematurity: refractive error results

    Am J Ophthalmol

    (2013)
  • M.M. Geloneck et al.

    Refractive outcomes following bevacizumab monotherapy compared with conventional laser treatment: a randomized clinical trial

    JAMA Ophthalmol

    (2014)
  • Y.-H. Chen et al.

    Refractive errors after the use of bevacizumab for the treatment of retinopathy of prematurity: 2-year outcomes

    Eye

    (2014)
  • Cited by (138)

    • Retinopathy of prematurity: A review of pathophysiology and signaling pathways

      2023, Survey of Ophthalmology
      Citation Excerpt :

      It was approved for cancer therapy but is used off-label for eye diseases.403 Although it has shown an advantage over laser therapy for ROP stage 3 with plus disease in zone I but not in zone II, recurrence of ROP is not uncommon.167,255,256 In addition, bevacizumab has been associated with several serious adverse outcomes in clinical studies.15,96

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    See Editorial on page 1843.

    Financial Disclosure(s): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

    Supported by the National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland (grant no.: P30EY010608; Research to Prevent Blindness, Inc, New York, New York (Challenge Grant to The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston McGovern Medical School); the National Center for Research Resources, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland (grant no.: UL1 RR024148); Alfred W. Lasher III Research Funds to The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston McGovern Medical School, Houston, Texas; and the Hermann Eye Fund, Houston, Texas. The funding organizations had no role in the design or conduct of this research.

    Author Contributions:

    Conception and design: Mintz-Hittner, Chuang

    Analysis and interpretation: Mintz-Hittner, Geloneck

    Data collection: Mintz-Hittner, Geloneck

    Obtained funding: none

    Overall responsibility: Mintz-Hittner, Geloneck, Chuang

    View full text