Dataset Information

Drug treatment of macular oedema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion: a network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To indirectly compare aflibercept, bevacizumab, dexamethasone, ranibizumab and triamcinolone for treatment of macular oedema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion using a network meta-analysis (NMA).

Design nma data sources

The following databases were searched from January 2005 to March 2013: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-process, EMBASE; CDSR, DARE, HTA, NHSEED, CENTRAL; Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

Only randomised controlled trials assessing patients with macular oedema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion were included. Studies had to report either proportions of patients gaining ?3 lines, losing ?3 lines, or the mean change in best corrected visual acuity. Two authors screened titles and abstracts, extracted data and undertook risk of bias assessment. Bayesian NMA was used to compare the different interventions.

Results

Seven studies, assessing five drugs, were judged to be sufficiently comparable for inclusion in the NMA. For the proportions of patients gaining ?3 lines, triamcinolone 4?mg, ranibizumab 0.5?mg, bevacizumab 1.25?mg and aflibercept 2?mg had a higher probability of being more effective than sham and dexamethasone. A smaller proportion of patients treated with triamcinolone 4?mg, ranibizumab 0.5?mg or aflibercept 2?mg lost ?3 lines of vision compared to those treated with sham. Patients treated with triamcinolone 4?mg, ranibizumab 0.5?mg, bevacizumab 1.25?mg and aflibercept 2?mg had a higher probability of improvement in the mean best corrected visual acuity compared to those treated with sham injections.

Conclusions

We found no evidence of differences between ranibizumab, aflibercept, bevacizumab and triamcinolone for improving vision. The antivascular endothelial growth factors (VEGFs) are likely to be favoured because they are not associated with steroid-induced cataract formation. Aflibercept may be preferred by clinicians because it might require fewer injections.

Systematic review registration

Not registered.

SUBMITTER: Ford JA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4120318 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Drug treatment of macular oedema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion: a network meta-analysis.

Ford John A JA Shyangdan Deepson D Uthman Olalekan A OA Lois Noemi N Waugh Norman N

BMJ open 20140723 7

<h4>Objective</h4>To indirectly compare aflibercept, bevacizumab, dexamethasone, ranibizumab and triamcinolone for treatment of macular oedema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion using a network meta-analysis (NMA).<h4>Design nma data sources</h4>The following databases were searched from January 2005 to March 2013: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-process, EMBASE; CDSR, DARE, HTA, NHSEED, CENTRAL; Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science.<h4>Eligibility criteria for s ...[more]

PMID: 25056974

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo review systematically the randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence for treatment of macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO).Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, CDSR, DARE, HTA, NHSEED, CENTRAL and meeting abstracts (January 2005 to March 2013).Study eligibility criteria, participants and interventionsRCTs with at least 12 months of follow-up assessing pharmacological treatments for CRVO were included with no language restrictions.Study appraisal and synthesis methods2 authors screened titles and abstracts and conducted data extracted and Cochrane risk of bias assessment. Meta-analysis was not possible due to lack of comparable studies.Results8 studies (35 articles, 1714 eyes) were included, assessing aflibercept (n=2), triamcinolone (n=2), bevacizumab (n=1), pegaptanib (n=1), dexamethasone (n=1) and ranibizumab (n=1). In general, bevacizumab, ranibizumab, aflibercept and triamcinolone resulted in clinically significant increases in the proportion of participants with an improvement in visual acuity of ≥15 letters, with 40-60% gaining ≥15 letters on active drugs, compared to 12-28% with sham. Results for pegaptanib and dexamethasone were mixed. Steroids were associated with cataract formation and increased intraocular pressure. No overall increase in adverse events was found with bevacizumab, ranibizumab, aflibercept or pegaptanib compared with control. Quality of life was poorly reported. All studies had a low or unclear risk of bias.LimitationsAll studies evaluated a relatively short primary follow-up (1 year or less). Most had an unmasked extension phase. There was no head-to-head evidence. The majority of participants included had non-ischaemic CRVO.Conclusions and implications of key findingsBevacizumab, ranibizumab, aflibercept and triamcinolone appear to be effective in treating macular oedema secondary to CRVO. Long-term data on effectiveness and safety are needed. Head-to-head trials and research to identify 'responders' is needed to help clinicians make the right choices for their patients. Research aimed to improve sight in people with ischaemic CRVO is required.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To compare the efficacy and safety of approved treatments for macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). DESIGN:Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of approved treatments for macular oedema secondary to BRVO were identified from an updated systematic review. SETTING:A Bayesian network meta-analysis of RCTs of treatments for macular oedema secondary to BRVO. INTERVENTIONS:Ranibizumab 0.5 mg pro re nata, aflibercept 2 mg monthly (2q4), dexamethasone 0.7 mg implant, laser photocoagulation, ranibizumab+laser, or sham intervention. Bevacizumab and triamcinolone were excluded. OUTCOME MEASURES:Efficacy outcomes were mean change in best corrected visual acuity (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study scale) and the percentage of patients gaining ? 15 letters. Safety outcome was the percentage of patients with increased intraocular pressure (IOP)/ocular hypertension (OH). RESULTS:8 RCTs were identified for inclusion with 1743 adult patients. The probability of being the most efficacious treatment at month 6 or 12 based on letters gained was 54% for ranibizumab monotherapy, 30% for aflibercept, 16% for ranibizumab plus laser (adjunctive or prompt), and 0% for dexamethasone implant, laser or sham. The probability of being the most efficacious treatment for patients gaining ? 15 letters was 39% for aflibercept, 35% for ranibizumab monotherapy, 24% for ranibizumab plus laser, 2% for dexamethasone implant, and less than 1% for laser or sham. There was no statistical difference between ranibizumab monotherapy and aflibercept for letters gained (+1.4 letters for ranibizumab vs aflibercept with 95% credible interval (CrI) of -5.2 to +8.5 letters) or the OR for gaining ? 15 letters: 1.06 (95% CrI 0.16 to 8.94)). Dexamethasone implant was associated with significantly higher IOP/OH than antivascular endothelial growth factor agents (OR 13.1 (95% CrI 1.7 to 116.9)). CONCLUSIONS:There was no statistically significant difference between ranibizumab and aflibercept.

Project description:Purpose: This network meta-analysis was conducted to obtain the relative effectiveness of different pharmacotherapy of macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) by summarizing all available evidences. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for all relevant randomized controlled trials. The outcomes were estimated through a network meta-analysis, including the mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline, the proportion of patients who gained ≥15 letters in BCVA from baseline, the mean change in central retinal thickness (CRT). Results: We identified 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 3,431 patients with RVO in our study. Different therapeutic regimens were compared including three anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents (ranibizumab, bevacizumab, and aflibercept), ranibizumab with laser, dexamethasone intravitreal implant, and laser. For branch RVO, ranibizumab 0.5 mg monthly [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 11, 95% confidence intervals (CrI) 3.6 to 19], ranibizumab 0.5 mg 3 + pro re nata (WMD = 9.4, 95% CrI 0.43-18) is most effective in terms of changes of BCVA and 15 letters or more of BCVA improvement. For central RVO, three anti-VEGF regimens can improve visual acuity and there is no significant difference of efficacy among ranibizumab, bevacizumab and aflibercept (p > 0.05). Ranibizumab 0.5 mg monthly could achieve additional efficacy in CRT reduction in eyes with branch RVO or central RVO (WMD = -130, 95% CrI -400 to 140 or WMD = -280, 95% CrI -590 to 16)). Dexamethasone intravitreal implant (WMD = 1.7, 95% CrI -4.2 to 7.1 or WMD = 0.38, 95% CrI -9.8 to 8.8)) did not show a significant improvement in visual acuity at the end of 6 months follow-up in eyes with branch RVO or central RVO. Conclusion: In summary, this network meta-analysis demonstrated several anti-VEGF agents had equivalent effects on mean visual acuity changes and anatomical recovery in 6 months in eyes with branch or central RVO. Only one injection of dexamethasone intravitreal implant in 6 months could not maintain the visual benefit. Patients and clinicians could choose pharmacotherapies with further consideration toward personal factors.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents and corticosteroids for the treatment of macular oedema (ME) secondary to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO).DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.ParticipantsPatients from previously reported randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anti-VEGF and corticosteroids for the treatment of ME secondary to CRVO.MethodsLiterature searches were conducted using PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and clinicaltrials.gov until March 2017. Therapeutic effects were estimated using the proportions of patients gaining/losing ≥15 letters, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT). Treatment safety was estimated using the proportions of adverse events, namely increased intraocular pressure (IOP), cataracts, vitreous haemorrhage (VH) and retinal tear. The software ADDIS (V.1.16.8) was used for analysis. Treatment effect and safety of different drugs could be ranked based on simulation.ResultsEleven RCTs comprising 2060 patients were identified. Regarding patients gaining ≥15 letters, aflibercept and ranibizumab were significantly more effective than sham/placebo at 6 months. Regarding patients losing ≥15 letters at 6 months, ranibizumab showed significant improvement compared with dexamethasone. Aflibercept, bevacizumab or ranibizumab showed greater improvements in BCVA than sham/placebo at 6 months. Intravitreal ranibizumab injection demonstrated greater CRT reduction than both sham and dexamethasone did. Dexamethasone had a higher risk of increased IOP than aflibercept and ranibizumab. Ranibizumab demonstrated a greater risk of cataracts than dexamethasone. Aflibercept and ranibizumab demonstrated low incidence of VH and retinal tear, respectively. Aflibercept had a slight advantage over ranibizumab as assessed by benefit-risk analysis.ConclusionsAnti-VEGF agents have advantages in the treatment of ME secondary to CRVO. Aflibercept and ranibizumab showed marked BCVA improvement and CRT reduction. Aflibercept may have a slight advantage over ranibizumab. The results of this study can serve as a reference for clinicians to provide patient-tailored treatment.Prospero registration numberCRD42017064076.

Project description:BackgroundCentral retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) is a common retinal vascular disorder in which macular edema (ME) may develop, with a consequent reduction in visual acuity. The visual prognosis in CRVO-ME is poor in a substantial proportion of patients, especially those with the ischemic subtype, and until recently there has been no treatment of proven benefit. Macular grid laser treatment is ineffective, and whilst a few recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest short-term gains in visual acuity with intravitreal steroids for patients with non-ischemic CRVO-ME, there is no established treatment for ischemic CRVO-ME. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents have been used to treat ME resulting from a variety of causes and may represent a treatment option for CRVO-ME.ObjectivesTo investigate the effectiveness and safety of intravitreal anti-VEGF agents in the treatment of CRVO-ME.Search strategyWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 8), MEDLINE (January 1950 to August 2010), EMBASE (January 1980 to August 2010), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to August 2010), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (January 1937 to August 2010), OpenSIGLE (January 1950 to August 2010), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) and ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov). There were no language or date restrictions in the search for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 10 August 2010.Selection criteriaWe considered RCTs that compared intravitreal anti-VEGF agents of any dose or duration to sham injection or no treatment. We focused on studies that included individuals of any age or gender with unilateral or bilateral disease and a minimum of six months follow up. Secondarily, we considered non-randomized studies with the same criteria, but did not conduct a separate electronic search for these.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.Main resultsWe found two RCTs that met the inclusion criteria after independent and duplicate review of the search results. These RCTs utilized different anti-VEGF agents which cannot be assumed to be directly comparable. We, therefore, performed no meta-analysis. Evidence from these trials and from other non-randomized case series is summarized in this review.Authors' conclusionsRanibizumab and pegaptanib sodium have shown promise in the short-term treatment of non-ischemic CRVO-ME. However, effectiveness and safety data from larger RCTs with follow up beyond six months are not yet available. There are no RCT data on anti-VEGF agents in ischemic CRVO-ME. The use of anti-VEGF agents to treat this condition therefore remains experimental.

Project description:Macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) can cause vision loss due to blockage of the central retinal vein (CRVO) or a branch retinal vein (BRVO). This systematic review assessed the efficacies of widely used treatments for macular oedema secondary to RVO and the feasibility of conducting indirect comparisons between these therapies.A systematic review was undertaken in November 2010, including a literature search for trials in medical databases and relevant websites. Abstracts, conference presentations and unpublished studies were considered. Studies were data-extracted and quality assessed by two independent researchers. Outcome measures included the mean change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline in the study eye and/or number of patients gaining at least 10 letters from baseline to 6 months or the nearest equivalent time point.Fourteen unique randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified. Ranibizumab 0.5 mg produced greater improvements in BCVA at 6 months than sham in BRVO (mean difference 11.0 letters, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.83, 14.17) and CRVO (mean difference 14.10 letters, 95% CI 10.51, 17.69) in two double-blind sham-controlled RCTs. Pooled data from two double-blind, sham-controlled RCTs showed that improvements in BCVA were also significantly better for dexamethasone intravitreal (IVT) implant 0.7 mg compared with sham in patients with BRVO or CRVO (mean difference 2.5 letters, 95% CI 0.7, 4.3); the difference was significant for BRVO alone, but not CRVO alone. A significantly greater proportion of patients with BRVO gained ?15 letters with laser therapy vs. no treatment at 36 months in a large prospective RCT (odds ratio 3.16, 95% CI 1.25, 8.00), whereas no difference was observed at 9 months in a smaller study. Three studies reported no benefit for laser therapy in CRVO. No indirect comparisons with ranibizumab were feasible due to differences in study design and baseline characteristics.Data from RCTs for ranibizumab and dexamethasone IVT demonstrate that both new agents constitute significant improvements over the previously widely accepted standard of care (laser therapy) for the treatment of BRVO and CRVO. However, head-to-head studies are needed to assess the relative efficacies of licensed therapies for RVO.

Dataset Information

Drug treatment of macular oedema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion: a network meta-analysis.

Objective

Design nma data sources

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

Results

Conclusions

Systematic review registration

Publications

Drug treatment of macular oedema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion: a network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets