23 ± 0.02 BIBW2992 molecular weight logMAR: ∼2.5 ETDRS lines) in

the IV bevacizumab group and at week 48 (−0.29 ± 0.04 logMAR: ∼3 ETDRS lines) in the IV ranibizumab group. There was a significantly greater mean improvement in BCVA in the IV ranibizumab group compared with the IV bevacizumab group at weeks 8 (P = .0318) and 32 (P = .0415), with a trend towards significance at weeks 28, 36, and 40 (P < .10) ( Table 2, and Figure 1, Top). With respect to the proportion of eyes losing or gaining ≥10 or ≥15 ETDRS letters, no significant difference between IV bevacizumab and IV ranibizumab groups was observed (P > .05). In the IV bevacizumab group, the proportion of eyes losing ≥10 ETDRS letters was 6% at week 16 and from weeks 28-40, and 3% at weeks 12, 20, and 24. The proportion of eyes in the IV bevacizumab group that lost ≥15 letters was 3% at weeks 32 and 36. In the IV ranibizumab group, a loss of ≥10 ETDRS letters was not observed at any follow-up visit. A gain

of ≥10 ETDRS letters was observed in 45% and 44% of eyes in the IV bevacizumab and IV ranibizumab groups, respectively, at week 16, and in 61% and 68% in the 2 groups, respectively, at week 48. A gain of ≥15 letters was observed in 15% and 16% of eyes in the IV bevacizumab Epacadostat order and IV ranibizumab groups, respectively, at week 16, and in 39% and 48% in the 2 groups, respectively, at week 48 (Figure 1, Bottom). At baseline, mean ± SE central subfield thickness was 451 ± 22 μm and 421 ± 23 μm at baseline in the IV bevacizumab and IV ranibizumab groups, Modulators respectively (P = .4062) ( Figure 2, Top). Intragroup significant reduction in central subfield thickness too compared with baseline was observed at all study follow-up visits (P < .05). Maximum mean central subfield thickness reduction occurred at week 44 (−136 ± 23 μm) in the IV ranibizumab group and at week 48 (−126 ± 25 μm) in the IV bevacizumab group ( Table 2, and Figure 2, Bottom). There was no difference in mean central subfield thickness reduction between

the IV bevacizumab and IV ranibizumab groups at any of the study follow-up visits. However, there was a significantly higher proportion of eyes with a central subfield thickness ≤275 μm in the IV ranibizumab group compared with the IV bevacizumab group at weeks 4 (P = .0029; likelihood ratio), 28 (P = .0077), 36 (P = .0028), and 44 (P = .0292) ( Figure 3). The mean (± standard error of the mean; SEM) number of injections in the IV bevacizumab group was 9.84 ± 0.55, which was significantly (P = .005; Wilcoxon) higher than the mean (± SEM) number of injections in the IV ranibizumab group (7.67 ± 0.60 injections). In the IV bevacizumab group, 16 eyes received 12 injections, while only 4 eyes from the IV ranibizumab group were treated with 12 injections ( Figure 4). Two eyes from 2 different patients received rescue laser therapy: 1 from the IV ranibizumab group at week 32 and the other from the IV bevacizumab group at week 36.