0
selected
-
1.
Efficacy and Treatment Burden of Intravitreal Aflibercept Versus Intravitreal Ranibizumab Treat-and-Extend Regimens at 2 Years: Network Meta-Analysis Incorporating Individual Patient Data Meta-Regression and Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison.
Ohji, M, Lanzetta, P, Korobelnik, JF, Wojciechowski, P, Taieb, V, Deschaseaux, C, Janer, D, Tuckmantel, C
Advances in therapy. 2020;(5):2184-2198
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
PURPOSE To compare visual outcomes and treatment burden between intravitreally administered aflibercept (IVT-AFL) and ranibizumab (RBZ) treat-and-extend (T&E) regimens in patients with wet age-related macular degeneration (wAMD) at 2 years. METHODS A systematic literature review was carried out in Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL in October 2018. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) and/or individual patient data meta-regression was used to connect ALTAIR (assessing IVT-AFL T&E) with other studies, adjusting for between-trial differences in baseline visual acuity and age or baseline visual acuity, age, and polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV) status. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the results, including direct MAIC between IVT-AFL T&E (ALTAIR) and RBZ T&E (CANTREAT and TREX-AMD trials). RESULTS Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (ALTAIR, VIEW 1 and 2, CATT, CANTREAT, and TREX) were included in the analysis. IVT-AFL T&E was assessed in one study, ALTAIR (n = 255), while RBZ T&E was assessed in two trials (n = 327). At 2 years, the median difference (95% credibility interval) between IVT-AFL T&E and RBZ T&E regarding the numbers of Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters gained was not significant (M1: - 2.29 [- 8.10, 3.58]; M2: - 0.55 [- 6.34, 5.29]). IVT-AFL T&E was associated with significantly fewer injections than RBZ-T&E (M1: - 6.12 [- 7.60, - 4.65]; M2: - 5.93 [- 7.42, - 4.45]). Results of the sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main scenarios. CONCLUSION Patients with wAMD receiving an IVT-AFL T&E regimen achieved and maintained improvement in visual acuity with fewer injections over 2 years compared with RBZ T&E. IVT-AFL T&E may therefore serve as the optimal therapy for wAMD, as it was associated with clinical efficacy and minimized treatment burden.
-
2.
Impact of Intravitreal Ranibizumab Therapy on Vision Outcomes in Diabetic Macular Edema Patients: A Meta-Analysis.
Falcão, M
Ophthalmologica. Journal international d'ophtalmologie. International journal of ophthalmology. Zeitschrift fur Augenheilkunde. 2020;(4):243-254
Abstract
PURPOSE Evaluation of the impact of the injection frequency of ranibizumab on best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) outcomes in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). METHODS A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world studies was performed to quantify the effect of ranibizumab treatment on BCVA and central foveal thickness (CFT) in DME as well as the relationship between the number of injections and the change in BCVA/CFT. RESULTS All combined sources (29 RCTs and 11 real-life studies) showed a significant increase in BCVA from baseline following anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment (8.2, 9.4, and 10.3 ETDRS letters gained after 12, 24, and 36 months of ranibizumab treatment, respectively). The largest changes in BCVA were observed in RCTs and the smallest in real-life studies at 12 months. A significant relationship was found between the number of injections and change in BCVA at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS Inferior vision outcomes were observed in clinical practice compared with RCTs and might be partly attributable to administration of fewer anti-VEGF injections. Physicians should be aware that early and appropriate anti-VEGF treatment regimens are necessary to obtain the results reported in RCTs and help prevent irreversible vision loss in DME patients.
-
3.
Efficacy of ranibizumab for the treatment of diabetic retinopathy: A protocol for systematic review of randomized controlled trial.
Ren, YB, Su, XJ, Qi, YX, Luan, HQ, Sun, Q
Medicine. 2019;(17):e15409
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Previous clinical trials have reported that ranibizumab can be used to treat diabetic retinopathy (DR) effectively. However, no study has been conducted to evaluate its efficacy for patients with DR systematically. Thus, this study will specifically and systematically assess the efficacy and safety of ranibizumab for DR. METHODS Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PUBMED, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database will be searched from inceptions to the March 20, 2019 for studies related to the topic. This study will only consider publicly released randomized controlled trials for evaluating the effect and safety of ranibizumab for DR. No language restrictions will be imposed for all databases search. Methodological quality of each included trial will be assessed by Cochrane risk of bias tool. Statistical analysis will be performed by Stata 12.0 software. RESULTS This study will provide recent summary evidence of ranibizumab for DR. Primary outcomes include percentages with retinopathy improvement, and cumulative probabilities for retinopathy worsening. Secondary outcome consist of visual function, best-corrected visual acuities, central subfield thickness, total macular volume, peripheral visual field loss, retinal neovascularization, and adverse events. CONCLUSION The findings of this study may provide theoretical basis for clinical practice refer and may benefit more patients with DR.
-
4.
Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor combined with intravitreal steroids for diabetic macular oedema.
Mehta, H, Hennings, C, Gillies, MC, Nguyen, V, Campain, A, Fraser-Bell, S
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2018;(4):CD011599
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND The combination of steroid and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) intravitreal therapeutic agents could potentially have synergistic effects for treating diabetic macular oedema (DMO). On the one hand, if combined treatment is more effective than monotherapy, there would be significant implications for improving patient outcomes. Conversely, if there is no added benefit of combination therapy, then people could be potentially exposed to unnecessary local or systemic side effects. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of intravitreal agents that block vascular endothelial growth factor activity (anti-VEGF agents) plus intravitreal steroids versus monotherapy with macular laser, intravitreal steroids or intravitreal anti-VEGF agents for managing DMO. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2018, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the search was 21 February 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of intravitreal anti-VEGF combined with intravitreal steroids versus intravitreal anti-VEGF alone, intravitreal steroids alone or macular laser alone for managing DMO. We included people with DMO of all ages and both sexes. We also included trials where both eyes from one participant received different treatments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane.Two authors independently reviewed all the titles and abstracts identified from the electronic and manual searches against the inclusion criteria. Our primary outcome was change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between baseline and one year. Secondary outcomes included change in central macular thickness (CMT), economic data and quality of life. We considered adverse effects including intraocular inflammation, raised intraocular pressure (IOP) and development of cataract. MAIN RESULTS There were eight RCTs (703 participants, 817 eyes) that met our inclusion criteria with only three studies reporting outcomes at one year. The studies took place in Iran (3), USA (2), Brazil (1), Czech Republic (1) and South Korea (1). Seven studies used the unlicensed anti-VEGF agent bevacizumab and one study used licensed ranibizumab. The study that used licensed ranibizumab had a unique design compared with the other studies in that included eyes had persisting DMO after anti-VEGF monotherapy and received three monthly doses of ranibizumab prior to allocation. The anti-VEGF agent was combined with intravitreal triamcinolone in six studies and with an intravitreal dexamethasone implant in two studies. The comparator group was anti-VEGF alone in all studies; two studies had an additional steroid monotherapy arm, another study had an additional macular laser photocoagulation arm. Whilst we judged these studies to be at low risk of bias for most domains, at least one domain was at unclear risk in all studies.When comparing anti-VEGF/steroid with anti-VEGF monotherapy as primary therapy for DMO, we found no meaningful clinical difference in change in BCVA (mean difference (MD) -2.29 visual acuity (VA) letters, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.03 to 1.45; 3 RCTs; 188 eyes; low-certainty evidence) or change in CMT (MD 0.20 μm, 95% CI -37.14 to 37.53; 3 RCTs; 188 eyes; low-certainty evidence) at one year. There was very low-certainty evidence on intraocular inflammation from 8 studies, with one event in the anti-VEGF/steroid group (313 eyes) and two events in the anti-VEGF group (322 eyes). There was a greater risk of raised IOP (Peto odds ratio (OR) 8.13, 95% CI 4.67 to 14.16; 635 eyes; 8 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) and development of cataract (Peto OR 7.49, 95% CI 2.87 to 19.60; 635 eyes; 8 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) in eyes receiving anti-VEGF/steroid compared with anti-VEGF monotherapy. There was low-certainty evidence from one study of an increased risk of systemic adverse events in the anti-VEGF/steroid group compared with the anti-VEGF alone group (Peto OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.86; 103 eyes).One study compared anti-VEGF/steroid versus macular laser therapy. At one year investigators did not report a meaningful difference between the groups in change in BCVA (MD 4.00 VA letters 95% CI -2.70 to 10.70; 80 eyes; low-certainty evidence) or change in CMT (MD -16.00 μm, 95% CI -68.93 to 36.93; 80 eyes; low-certainty evidence). There was very low-certainty evidence suggesting an increased risk of cataract in the anti-VEGF/steroid group compared with the macular laser group (Peto OR 4.58, 95% 0.99 to 21.10, 100 eyes) and an increased risk of elevated IOP in the anti-VEGF/steroid group compared with the macular laser group (Peto OR 9.49, 95% CI 2.86 to 31.51; 100 eyes).One study provided very low-certainty evidence comparing anti-VEGF/steroid versus steroid monotherapy at one year. There was no evidence of a meaningful difference in BCVA between treatments at one year (MD 0 VA letters, 95% CI -6.1 to 6.1, low-certainty evidence). Likewise, there was no meaningful difference in the mean CMT at one year (MD - 9 μm, 95% CI -39.87μm to 21.87μm between the anti-VEGF/steroid group and the steroid group. There was very low-certainty evidence on raised IOP at one year comparing the anti-VEGF/steroid versus steroid groups (Peto OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.55).No included study reported impact of treatment on patients' quality of life or economic data. None of the studies reported any cases of endophthalmitis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Combination of intravitreal anti-VEGF plus intravitreal steroids does not appear to offer additional visual benefit compared with monotherapy for DMO; at present the evidence for this is of low-certainty. There was an increased rate of cataract development and raised intraocular pressure in eyes treated with anti-VEGF plus steroid versus anti-VEGF alone. Patients were exposed to potential side effects of both these agents without reported additional benefit. The majority of the evidence comes from studies of bevacizumab and triamcinolone used as primary therapy for DMO. There is limited evidence from studies using licensed intravitreal anti-VEGF agents plus licensed intravitreal steroid implants with at least one year follow-up. It is not known whether treatment response is different in eyes that are phakic and pseudophakic at baseline.
-
5.
Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses on Systemic Adverse Events Associated With Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Medication Use.
Thulliez, M, Angoulvant, D, Pisella, PJ, Bejan-Angoulvant, T
JAMA ophthalmology. 2018;(5):557-566
Abstract
IMPORTANCE The systemic safety of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) medications is still a matter of debate. OBJECTIVE This overview of systematic reviews evaluates systemic adverse events associated with intravitreal anti-VEGF treatments in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration, diabetic macular edema, or retinal vein occlusion. DESIGN, EVIDENCE, AND REPORTING This systematic search of PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database includes meta-analyses and systematic reviews. We describe the summary measures of association between anti-VEGF treatments and outcomes reported in each systematic review. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The quality of the systematic reviews was assessed with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist, version 1. FINDINGS We retrieved 21 systematic reviews published between January 1, 2011, and June 30, 2016. Of these, 11 analyzed systemic adverse events as the primary outcome. The median (interquartile range) PRISMA and AMSTAR scores were 23 of 27 (15-27) and 8 of 11 (5-11), respectively, but 5 reviews (25%) scored below 20 and 7, respectively. All reviews used an objective scale to assess methodological risk of bias in their included studies, the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool being the most commonly used (16 reviews [76%]). Anti-VEGF treatments did not increase the risk of systemic adverse events when compared with control regimens; similarly, there was no increase in systematic adverse events when treatment was given on a monthly schedule vs an as-needed regimen. Compared with ranibizumab, bevacizumab did not appear to be associated with an increase in the risk of systemic adverse events in the most recent and exhaustive reviews. Compared with control treatments, ranibizumab may be associated with an increase in the risk of nonocular hemorrhage in patients with age-related macular degeneration. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This overview of reviews and meta-analyses suggest that anti-VEGF treatments do not increase the risk of systemic adverse events, but that caution might be advisable in older patients with age-related macular degeneration who may be at higher risk of hemorrhagic events when receiving ranibizumab.