Dataset Information

Interventions for Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Are Practice Guidelines Based on Systematic Reviews?

ABSTRACT: Are existing systematic reviews of interventions for age-related macular degeneration incorporated into clinical practice guidelines?High-quality systematic reviews should be used to underpin evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and clinical care. We examined the reliability of systematic reviews of interventions for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and described the main findings of reliable reviews in relation to clinical practice guidelines.Eligible publications were systematic reviews of the effectiveness of treatment interventions for AMD. We searched a database of systematic reviews in eyes and vision without language or date restrictions; the database was up to date as of May 6, 2014. Two authors independently screened records for eligibility and abstracted and assessed the characteristics and methods of each review. We classified reviews as reliable when they reported eligibility criteria, comprehensive searches, methodologic quality of included studies, appropriate statistical methods for meta-analysis, and conclusions based on results. We mapped treatment recommendations from the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Preferred Practice Patterns (PPPs) for AMD to systematic reviews and citations of reliable systematic reviews to support each treatment recommendation.Of 1570 systematic reviews in our database, 47 met inclusion criteria; most targeted neovascular AMD and investigated anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) interventions, dietary supplements, or photodynamic therapy. We classified 33 (70%) reviews as reliable. The quality of reporting varied, with criteria for reliable reporting met more often by Cochrane reviews and reviews whose authors disclosed conflicts of interest. Anti-VEGF agents and photodynamic therapy were the only interventions identified as effective by reliable reviews. Of 35 treatment recommendations extracted from the PPPs, 15 could have been supported with reliable systematic reviews; however, only 1 recommendation cited a reliable intervention systematic review. No reliable systematic review was identified for 20 treatment recommendations, highlighting areas of evidence gaps.For AMD, reliable systematic reviews exist for many treatment recommendations in the AAO PPPs and should be cited to support these recommendations. We also identified areas where no high-level evidence exists. Mapping clinical practice guidelines to existing systematic reviews is one way to highlight areas where evidence generation or evidence synthesis is either available or needed.

SUBMITTER: Lindsley K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4808456 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMyopic macular degeneration (MMD) is a primary cause of blindness and visual impairment in many parts of the world. A review of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for intervention selection are required with the increasing demand for MMD management in clinical practice as well as in national health services. Therefore, we aim to systematically review CPGs for MMD and assist the recommendations development of the Package of Eye Care Interventions (PECI) program of the World Health Organization.MethodsA systematic review of CPGs published on MMD between 2010 and April 2020 was conducted. Guidelines were evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. Cochrane systematic reviews were also included when the evidence from included CPGs were inadequate or contradict.ResultsAfter applying exclusion criteria and conducting the quality appraisal, two CPGs were finally included. The average of the AGREE II ratings for the identified Guidelines were 56 and 63 respectively (7 for each item). To provide further information on interventions for MMD, one Cochrane review on MMD was additionally identified and included in the study. Intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) drugs were recommended for patients with myopic choroidal neovascularization (mCNV) as first-line therapy to improve vision and reduce central macular thickness, and ranibizumab showed significant effectiveness compared to photodynamic therapy (PDT). PDT was recommended to be performed in those resistant to the treatment by one CPG but lacked of adequate description and support. Data extracted from the Cochrane systematic reviews indicated that anti-VEGF therapy for mCNV had significant effectiveness in improving visual acuity and reducing CMT compared to PDT with moderate to low certainty of evidence. Ranibizumab and bevacizumab were considered as equally effective with moderate certainty.ConclusionsThe outcomes of this review suggest that high quality clinical practice guidelines for MMD management are limited. Intravitreal injection of anti-VEGF agents was recommended as an effective intervention to treat myopic CNV as the first-line treatment, while there was inadequate guidance for the application of PDT in myopic CNV management. The use of other interventions for MMD were not recommended at this time and additional evidence is called for.

Project description:PurposeTo elucidate the incidence and treatment pattern of active exudative age-related macular degeneration (AMD).DesignA population-based cohort study conducted using the National Database of Health Insurance Claims and Specific Health Checkups of Japan (NDB), a national claims database managed by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare (MHLW).ParticipantsThe entire Japanese population aged 40 years or older (76 million people).MethodsWith the permission of the MHLW, we accessed the complete NDB dataset and identified patients with newly diagnosed active exudative AMD between 2011 and 2018. The incidence of active exudative AMD was categorized by age and sex per year between 2011 and 2018; moreover, details regarding first-line therapy and number of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections per elapsed year since initial treatment were obtained and changes in treatment pattern were investigated.Main outcome measuresIncidence rate of active exudative AMD.ResultsDuring the specified 8-year period, 246 064 incident cases of active exudative AMD were identified; 61.4% of these patients were men. The overall incidence rate was 40.66 per 100 000 person-years (95% confidence interval [CI], 40.49-40.82) in the general population aged 40 years or older, 53.22 (95% CI, 52.95-53.49) in men, and 29.78 (95% CI, 29.60-29.98) in women. Mean age of onset was lower in men than in women (72.51 ± 10.50 years vs. 73.90 ± 10.46 years). Among patients with newly diagnosed active exudative AMD, 92.9% received anti-VEGF injections for initial treatments, whereas 1.8% underwent combination therapy with photodynamic therapy. The number of anti-VEGF injections in the first year (0-12 months), second year (13-24 months), and third year (25-36 months) after the initial injection was 3.66 ± 2.30, 1.39 ± 2.20, and 1.23 ± 2.19, respectively. Patients who received fewer injections in the first year received fewer injections in subsequent years and vice versa.ConclusionsThis is a relatively large population-based study on the detailed epidemiology and actual treatment patterns of active exudative AMD in clinical practice. Our results can be a fundamental information source to ensure healthy eyes and promote well-being for all at all ages.

Dataset Information

Interventions for Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Are Practice Guidelines Based on Systematic Reviews?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets