Dataset Information

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment for retinal conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of intravitreal bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept for patients with choroidal neovascular age-related macular degeneration (cn-AMD), diabetic macular oedema (DMO), macular oedema due to retinal vein occlusion (RVO-MO) and myopic choroidal neovascularisation (m-CNV).

Design

Systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis.

Methods

Multiple databases were searched from inception to 17 August 2017. Eligible head-to-head randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the (anti-VEGF) drugs in adult patients aged ?18 years with the retinal conditions of interest. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias.

Results

19 RCTs involving 7459 patients with cn-AMD (n=12), DMO (n=3), RVO-MO (n=2) and m-CNV (n=2) were included. Vision gain was not significantly different in patients with cn-AMD, DMO, RVO-MO and m-CNV treated with bevacizumab versus ranibizumab. Similarly, vision gain was not significantly different between cn-AMD patients treated with aflibercept versus ranibizumab. Patients with DMO treated with aflibercept experienced significantly higher vision gain at 12 months than patients receiving ranibizumab or bevacizumab; however, this difference was not significant at 24 months. Rates of systemic serious harms were similar across anti-VEGF agents. Posthoc analyses revealed that an as-needed treatment regimen (6-9 injections per year) was associated with a mortality increase of 1.8% (risk ratio: 2.0 [1.2 to 3.5], 2 RCTs, 1795 patients) compared with monthly treatment in cn-AMD patients.

Conclusions

Intravitreal bevacizumab was a reasonable alternative to ranibizumab and aflibercept in patients with cn-AMD, DMO, RVO-MO and m-CNV. The only exception was for patients with DME and low visual acuity (<69 early treatment diabetic retinopathy study [ETDRS] letters), where treatment with aflibercept was associated with significantly higher vision gain (?15 ETDRS letters) than bevacizumab or ranibizumab at 12 months; but the significant effects were not maintained at 24 months. The choice of anti-VEGF drugs may depend on the specific retinal condition, baseline visual acuity and treatment regimen.

Prospero registration number

CRD42015022041.

SUBMITTER: Pham B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6549720 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the cost-utility of treatment for macular edema in central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) using intravitreal injections of the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept.DesignDecision analysis model of cost-utility.ParticipantsData from study participants in the Lucentis, Eylea, Avastin in Vein Occlusion (LEAVO) study.MethodsA decision analysis of a disease simulation model was used to calculate comparative cost-utility of intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB), intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR), and intravitreal aflibercept (IVA) for the treatment of macular edema associated with CRVO based on data from the LEAVO study. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services data were used to calculate associated modeled costs in a hospital- or facility-based and nonfacility setting from a third-party payer perspective, and societal costs also were calculated. Cost utility was calculated based on the preserved visual utility during the 2 years of the study and also by estimating utility for the expected lifetime.Main outcome measuresCost of treatment, cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).ResultsFrom the third-party payer perspective, the estimated lifetime costs per QALY in the facility and nonfacility settings were $39 325 and $17 944, respectively, for IVB; $114 095 and $92 653, respectively, for IVR; and $78 935 and $63 270, respectively, for IVA. From the societal perspective, the estimated lifetime costs per QALY in the facility setting were $52 754 for IVB, $128 242 for IVR, and $86 262 for IVA. The ICER of IVA compared with that of IVB was $153 633/QALY from the third-party facility setting and $152 992/QALY from the societal perspective. The use of IVB compared with IVR and IVA compared with IVR were cost-saving interventions (ICER, <0) regardless of the perspective or setting.ConclusionsIn the treatment of macular edema in CRVO, IVB yields the best cost utility among the 3 anti-VEGF agents modeled. Intravitreal aflibercept maintains acceptable lifetime cost per QALY while having a favorable cost utility compared with IVR.

Project description:ImportanceThe association between residual subretinal fluid (SRF) and intraretinal fluid (IRF) and visual acuity following anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment is not well understood.ObjectiveTo examine the association of residual retinal fluid, SRF, and IRF with visual acuity following anti-VEGF treatment in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).Data sourcesA systematic literature search was performed from January 2005 to August 2021 using Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library.Study selectionPeer-reviewed articles reporting on visual acuity stratified by the presence or absence of any residual SRF, IRF, or any retinal fluid at last study observation after intravitreal bevacizumab, ranibizumab, aflibercept, or brolucizumab in patients with nAMD were included. Studies that were noncomparative, included fewer than 10 eyes, or reported on other anti-VEGF agents were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers conducted data extraction and synthesis. The Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 and ROBINS-I were used to assess risk of bias and GRADE evaluation was conducted to assess certainty of evidence.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were BCVA at last study observation, change in BCVA from baseline, and retinal thickness at last study observation.ResultsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, 11 studies (6 randomized clinical trials [RCTs]) comprising 3092 eyes were included in our analysis. Across all included studies, the BCVA of eyes with residual SRF was better than eyes without SRF (weighted mean difference [WMD], 3.1 letter score; 95% CI, 0.05 to 6.18; P = .05; GRADE, low certainty of evidence; 6 studies; 1931 eyes) but similar in RCTs (WMD, 2.7 letter score; 95% CI, -2.40 to 7.84; P = .30; GRADE, low certainty of evidence; 3 studies; 1406 eyes). The BCVA of eyes with residual IRF was worse than that of eyes without IRF (WMD, -8.2 letter score; 95% CI, -11.79 to -4.50; P < .001; GRADE, low; 7 studies; 2114 eyes).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings suggest that the presence of residual SRF was associated with slightly better BCVA at last study observation; however, baseline differences in BCVA existed and this conclusion was primarily driven by 1 study. The presence of residual IRF was associated with substantially worse BCVA at last study observation and less improvement of BCVA from baseline. The conclusions are limited by the inclusion of data from observational studies, heterogeneity, and a low certainty of evidence.

Project description:BackgroundCentral retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) associates with severe vision outcome and no proven beneficial treatment. Our meta-analysis intended to appraise the efficacy and safety of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents in macular edema (ME) following CRVO.MethodsData were collected and analyzed by Review Manager 5.2.1. We employed a random-effects model to eliminate between-study heterogeneity. Nfs (called fail-safe number) was calculated to evaluate the publication bias.ResultsWe included 5 trials consisting 323 cases and 281 controls. Primary outcomes showed that overall comparison of anti-VEGF agents with placebo control yielded a 374% and 136% increased tendency for a gain of 15 letters or more on Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 2.43-9.23; P<0.00001; I(2) = 59%, 95% CI: 1.60-3.49; P<0.0001; I(2) ?= 0%, respectively) at 6 and 12 months. Secondary outcomes showed that a 90% and 77% decreased risk at 6 and 12 months for a loss of 15 letters or more. The overall mean difference showed a statistically significance in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) on each time point. However, changes of central retinal thickness (CRT) lost significance at 12 months after 6-month as-needed treatment. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) had no statistical difference between anti-VEGF and placebo groups. Subgroup analyses indicated that patients receiving Aflibercept got the highest tendency to gain 15 letters or more (OR = 9.78; 95% CI: 4.43-21.56; P<0.00001). Age controlled analysis suggested a weaken tendency of BCVA improvement in age over 50 (MD = 12.26; 95% CI: 7.55-16.98; P<0.00001). Subgroup analysis by clinical classification showed a strengthen difference of BCVA changes at 6 months in ischemic type (MD = 19.65 letters, 95% CI: 13.15 to 26.14 letters, P<0.00001).ConclusionsOur results showed that anti-VEGF agents were superior to placebo in CRVO-ME treatment with no statistically significant AEs, especially in younger people and for ischemic type.

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.