Macular degeneration treatment linked to blindness, FDA advisory says

Share this article:

Injections of the cancer drug Avastin, which is also a treatment for the wet form of age-related macular degeneration, has been linked to reports of blindness.

Twelve patients in at least three separate clinics developed the serious bacterial infection Streptococcus endophthalmitis after undergoing injections of Avastin, which is administered in tiny doses to the eye, according to a Food and Drug Administration advisory issued Aug. 30. At least five of these patients have lost all remaining vision in the eyes that were treated with Avastin.

The infections have been traced back to a compounding pharmacy in Hollywood, FL, which repackaged intravitreal injections of Avastin from injectable 100-mg/4- mL, single-use vials into individual 1-mL single-use syringes. Officials say the repackaging process can open the door for bacterial contamination.

This is another blow to Avastin as an eye treatment. Recent studies have found Avastin to be as effective as its competitor Lucentis in treating macular degeneration in seniors, for a fraction of the price. Lucentis costs $2,000 per injection while Avastin costs just $50 per dose. Genentech manufactures both drugs.

Share this article:

More in News

$1.3 million settlement marks second recent deal over SNF supervision of therapy providers

$1.3 million settlement marks second recent deal over ...

A Maryland nursing home company has agreed to a $1.3 million settlement over charges that it did not prevent overbilling by its contracted therapy provider, federal authorities announced Monday. This ...

MedPAC chairman: Three-day stay requirement is 'archaic'

The government should pay for skilled nursing care without a preliminary three-day hospital stay, and the recovery auditor program should be reformed, Medicare Payment Advisory Commission members said at a meeting Friday.

Nursing homes can't carve out billing, collections in arbitration agreements, AR Supreme ...

A nursing home arbitration agreement largely reserved the provider's rights to sue residents while limiting residents' legal options, causing it to fail a "mutual obligation" requirement, the Arkansas Supreme Court recently ruled .