Dataset Information

A randomized trial comparing the efficacy and safety of intravitreal triamcinolone with standard care to treat vision loss associated with macular Edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion: the Standard Care vs Corticosteroid for Retinal Vein Occlusion (SCORE) study report 6.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of 1-mg and 4-mg doses of preservative-free intravitreal triamcinolone with standard care (grid photocoagulation in eyes without dense macular hemorrhage and deferral of photocoagulation until hemorrhage clears in eyes with dense macular hemorrhage) for eyes with vision loss associated with macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).

Methods

Multicenter, randomized clinical trial of 411 participants. Main Outcome Measure Gain in visual acuity letter score of 15 or more from baseline to month 12.

Results

Twenty-nine percent, 26%, and 27% of participants achieved the primary outcome in the standard care, 1-mg, and 4-mg groups, respectively. None of the pairwise comparisons between the 3 groups was statistically significant at month 12. The rates of elevated intraocular pressure and cataract were similar for the standard care and 1-mg groups, but higher in the 4-mg group.

Conclusions

There was no difference identified in visual acuity at 12 months for the standard care group compared with the triamcinolone groups; however, rates of adverse events (particularly elevated intraocular pressure and cataract) were highest in the 4-mg group. Application to Clinical Practice Grid photocoagulation as applied in the SCORE Study remains the standard care for patients with vision loss associated with macular edema secondary to BRVO who have characteristics similar to participants in the SCORE-BRVO trial. Grid photocoagulation should remain the benchmark against which other treatments are compared in clinical trials for eyes with vision loss associated with macular edema secondary to BRVO. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00105027.

SUBMITTER: Scott IU

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2806600 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe comparative safety and efficacy of different doses of intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA) for diabetic macular edema (DME) and macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is unclear.ObjectivesThis meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of different doses of IVTA in this setting.MethodsA systematic literature search for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) was conducted on Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, and EMBASE from January 2005 to May 2022. Studies that reported on patients with DME or ME secondary to RVO that received treatment with different doses of IVTA were included. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Cochrane's Risk of Bias Tool 2 was used to assess the risk of bias, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines were used to assess certainty of evidence.ResultsFive RCTs reporting on 1,041 eyes at baseline were included in this meta-analysis. In eyes with ME secondary to RVO, high-dose (4 mg) IVTA achieved a significantly better change in best-corrected visual acuity (WMD = -4.75 ETDRS letters, 95% CI = [-7.73, -1.78], p = 0.002) and reduction in retinal thickness (WMD = -93.02 μm, 95% CI = [-153.23, -32.82], p = 0.002) at months 4-6 compared to low-dose (1-2 mg) IVTA. However, high-dose IVTA had a higher risk of intraocular pressure-related adverse events (RR = 2.99, 95% CI = [1.05, 8.50], p = 0.04) and cataract surgery (RR = 5.67, 95% CI = [3.09, 10.41], p < 0.00001) than low-dose IVTA in eyes with ME secondary to RVO. These efficacy and safety differences in high-dose and low-dose IVTA were not observed in DME eyes.ConclusionsThe RCT evidence in this setting is limited. High-dose IVTA achieved greater improvements in visual acuity and reductions in retinal thickness than low-dose IVTA at months 4-6. However, high-dose IVTA had a less favorable safety profile than low-dose IVTA. The significance of these outcomes was based on patients with ME secondary to RVO, but not DME.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Intravitreal agents have replaced observation in macular edema in central (CRVO) and grid laser photocoagulation in branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). We conducted a systematic review to evaluate efficacy and safety outcomes of intravitreal therapies for macular edema in CRVO and BRVO. METHODS AND FINDINGS:MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for RCTs with no limitations of language and year of publication. 11 RCTs investigating anti-VEGF agents (ranibizumab, bevacizumab, aflibercept) and steroids (triamcinolone, dexamethasone implant) with a minimum follow-up of 1 year were evaluated. EFFICACY CRVO:Greatest gain in visual acuity after 12 months was observed both under aflibercept 2 mg: +16.2 letters (8.5 injections), and under bevacizumab 1.25 mg: +16.1 letters (8 injections). Ranibizumab 0.5 mg improved vision by +13.9 letters (8.8 injections). Triamcinolone 1 mg and 4 mg stabilized visual acuity at a lower injection frequency (-1.2 letters, 2 injections). BRVO:Ranibizumab 0.5 mg resulted in a visual acuity gain of +18.3 letters (8.4 injections). The effect of dexamethasone implant was transient after 1.9 implants in both indications. SAFETY:Serious ocular adverse events were rare, e.g., endophthalmitis occurred in 0.0-0.9%. Major differences were found in an indirect comparison between steroids and anti-VEGF agents for cataract progression (19.8-35.0% vs. 0.9-7.0%) and in required treatment of increased intraocular pressure (7.0-41.0% vs. none). No major differences were identified in systemic adverse events. CONCLUSIONS:Anti-VEGF agents result in a promising gain of visual acuity, but require a high injection frequency. Dexamethasone implant might be an alternative, but comparison is impaired as the effect is temporary and it has not yet been tested in PRN regimen. The ocular risk profile seems to be favorable for anti-VEGF agents in comparison to steroids. Because comparative data from head-to-head trials are missing currently, clinicians and patients should carefully weigh the benefit-harm ratio.