Is Bevacizumab (bevacizumab) more effective than laser photocoagulation for treating diabetic retinopathy?

Medical Advisory BoardAll articles are reviewed for accuracy by our Medical Advisory Board
Educational purpose only • Exercise caution as content is pending human review
Article Review Status
Submitted
Under Review
Approved

Last updated: February 26, 2025View editorial policy

Personalize

Help us tailor your experience

Which best describes you? Your choice helps us use language that's most understandable for you.

From the Guidelines

Bevacizumab is more effective than laser photocoagulation for treating diabetic retinopathy, particularly for center-involved diabetic macular edema, as demonstrated by recent clinical trials 1. When considering treatment options for diabetic retinopathy, it's essential to weigh the benefits and risks of each approach.

  • Bevacizumab, an intravitreal anti-VEGF agent, has been shown to provide better visual outcomes and more effective reduction of macular edema compared to traditional laser photocoagulation 1.
  • The typical regimen involves near-monthly administration of intravitreal therapy with anti-VEGF agents during the first 12 months of treatment, with fewer injections needed in subsequent years to maintain remission from central-involved diabetic macular edema 1.
  • While bevacizumab often provides faster vision improvement, it requires repeated injections and carries risks including eye infection, inflammation, and increased intraocular pressure.
  • Laser therapy remains valuable for certain cases, such as eyes that have persistent diabetic macular edema despite anti-VEGF treatment, and may provide more durable results with fewer interventions over time 1.
  • A comparative effectiveness study demonstrated that aflibercept provides vision outcomes superior to those of bevacizumab when eyes have moderate visual impairment (vision of 20/50 or worse) from diabetic macular edema 1.
  • However, for eyes that have good vision (20/25 or better) despite diabetic macular edema, close monitoring with initiation of anti-VEGF therapy if vision worsens provides similar 2-year vision outcomes compared with immediate initiation of anti-VEGF therapy 1.

From the Research

Comparison of Bevacizumab and Laser Photocoagulation for Diabetic Retinopathy

  • Bevacizumab has been shown to be more effective than laser photocoagulation in treating diabetic macular edema (DME), a complication of diabetic retinopathy 2, 3, 4.
  • Studies have demonstrated that bevacizumab can improve visual acuity and reduce central macular thickness (CMT) in patients with DME, whereas laser photocoagulation alone may not be as effective 2, 3, 4.
  • A network meta-analysis found that bevacizumab, along with other anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) drugs, was more effective than laser photocoagulation in improving vision and reducing CMT in patients with DME 3.
  • Combination therapy using bevacizumab and navigated laser photocoagulation has also been shown to be effective in treating DME, with significant visual gain and CMT reduction observed at 12 months 5.

Efficacy of Bevacizumab

  • Bevacizumab has been found to be effective in reducing CMT and improving visual acuity in patients with DME, with significant improvements observed at 6 and 12 weeks 4.
  • The efficacy of bevacizumab in treating DME has been attributed to its ability to inhibit vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), a key factor in the pathogenesis of DME 6.
  • Bevacizumab has been shown to be a cost-effective treatment option for DME, with a good cost-effective profile compared to other anti-VEGF therapies 6.

Comparison with Other Treatments

  • Bevacizumab has been compared to other anti-VEGF drugs, such as ranibizumab and aflibercept, in the treatment of DME, with varying results 3.
  • The efficacy of bevacizumab in combination with other treatments, such as triamcinolone, has also been investigated, with some studies suggesting that combination therapy may not provide additional benefits 4.

Professional Medical Disclaimer

This information is intended for healthcare professionals. Any medical decision-making should rely on clinical judgment and independently verified information. The content provided herein does not replace professional discretion and should be considered supplementary to established clinical guidelines. Healthcare providers should verify all information against primary literature and current practice standards before application in patient care. Dr.Oracle assumes no liability for clinical decisions based on this content.

Have a follow-up question?

Our Medical A.I. is used by practicing medical doctors at top research institutions around the world. Ask any follow up question and get world-class guideline-backed answers instantly.