Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
We congratulate Ingrid Torjesen (1) for her very informative and comprehensive article on the results of The IVAN trial 2. The study showed that the Off-label use of AVASTIN has been found to be as effective as the much more expensive and specially formulated treatment(Lucentis) that is licensed and recommended for wet age related macular degeneration.
We believe that the positive results of these studies are very encouraging and will ease the use of Avastin among ophthalmologists . This is very important and will finally provide an effective treatment to people who, due to the economic crisis, could not afford the expensive treatment of Lucentis, either because they are uninsured or because their disease (such as choroidal neovascularization secondary to myopia which is not included in the indications of Lucentis in Greece) and subsequently cannot acquire the necessary treatment to prevent the progress of their disease.
However, we believe that although mentioned in the methods of the article of Prof Chakravarthy et al (2)- it should be emphasized to the readers of the article by Ingrid Torjesen (1) that special techniques and precautions should be taken in the process of dividing and preserving the Avastin for intraocular use. There are many ways to do that, and ophthalmologists should be aware that just having a vial of Avastin in their office and simply withdraw from the vial and inject into the eye may not be a safe way to do it.
In IVAN 2 study the “The pharmacy followed strict standard operating procedures and guidelines for manufacture (of the bevacizumab for intraocular use) that were submitted to and approved by the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.
We believe that this information is important and it should be emphasized; since misconceptions about Avastin use or misuse could lead to serious complications such as endophthalmitis, and permanently affect patients vision on the one hand but also unfairly discourage ophthalmologists from using avastin and /or authorities to approve the off label of this very useful drug.
1. Ingrid Torjesen. Avastin is as effective as Lucentis in treating wet age
related macular degeneration, study finds. BMJ 2013; 347 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f4678
2. Chakravarthy U, Harding SP, Rogers CA, Downes SM, Lotery AJ, Culliford LA, Reeves BC. Alternative treatments to inhibit VEGF in age-related choroidal neovascularisation: 2-year findings of the IVAN randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2013, doi:10.1016/S0140- 6736(13)61501-9.
Re: Avastin is as effective as Lucentis in treating wet age related macular degeneration, study finds
We congratulate Ingrid Torjesen (1) for her very informative and comprehensive article on the results of The IVAN trial 2. The study showed that the Off-label use of AVASTIN has been found to be as effective as the much more expensive and specially formulated treatment(Lucentis) that is licensed and recommended for wet age related macular degeneration.
We believe that the positive results of these studies are very encouraging and will ease the use of Avastin among ophthalmologists . This is very important and will finally provide an effective treatment to people who, due to the economic crisis, could not afford the expensive treatment of Lucentis, either because they are uninsured or because their disease (such as choroidal neovascularization secondary to myopia which is not included in the indications of Lucentis in Greece) and subsequently cannot acquire the necessary treatment to prevent the progress of their disease.
However, we believe that although mentioned in the methods of the article of Prof Chakravarthy et al (2)- it should be emphasized to the readers of the article by Ingrid Torjesen (1) that special techniques and precautions should be taken in the process of dividing and preserving the Avastin for intraocular use. There are many ways to do that, and ophthalmologists should be aware that just having a vial of Avastin in their office and simply withdraw from the vial and inject into the eye may not be a safe way to do it.
In IVAN 2 study the “The pharmacy followed strict standard operating procedures and guidelines for manufacture (of the bevacizumab for intraocular use) that were submitted to and approved by the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.
We believe that this information is important and it should be emphasized; since misconceptions about Avastin use or misuse could lead to serious complications such as endophthalmitis, and permanently affect patients vision on the one hand but also unfairly discourage ophthalmologists from using avastin and /or authorities to approve the off label of this very useful drug.
1. Ingrid Torjesen. Avastin is as effective as Lucentis in treating wet age
related macular degeneration, study finds. BMJ 2013; 347 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f4678
2. Chakravarthy U, Harding SP, Rogers CA, Downes SM, Lotery AJ, Culliford LA, Reeves BC. Alternative treatments to inhibit VEGF in age-related choroidal neovascularisation: 2-year findings of the IVAN randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2013, doi:10.1016/S0140- 6736(13)61501-9.
Competing interests: No competing interests