Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Shalchi Z
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7388176 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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.
| S-EPMC4302326 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This review assessed the real-world evidence of the management of macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). A meta-analysis of 2530 eyes from 48 real-world studies of therapies for macular oedema secondary to BRVO was conducted. Baseline characteristics, visual, anatomical and safety outcomes were recorded. The weighted mean and weighted estimates from random-effects models were calculated for visual acuity (VA) and central subfield thickness (CST) changes at 6, 12 and 24 months. Primary outcome was change in VA (logMAR letters) at 12 months. Study quality was assessed using the quality appraisal checklist for case series developed by Institute of Health Economics. The mean baseline VA for the pooled data was 54.0 (51.5, 56.5) letters and the mean baseline CST was 501.3 (483.5, 519.1) µm. The random-effects estimate for mean (95% CI) change in VA was 14.6 (12.5, 16.7) letters at 12 months (n = 1727). The random-effects estimate for mean (95% CI) change in CST was -181.7 (-230.7, -132.7) µm at 12 months (n = 1325). The quality of studies varied considerably. Ocular and systemic adverse events were discussed in 79% and 42% of treatment arms respectively, with possible under-reporting. Visual and anatomical gains achieved in the real-world for anti-VEGF therapy were not as impressive as seminal RCTs, possibly due to reduced injection frequency in the real world and differences in baseline characteristics. There is an urgent need for consensus on the minimum efficacy, treatment burden and safety data to collect to strengthen the real-world evidence base.
| S-EPMC7608462 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo study the relationship between macular ischaemia on fluorescein angiography (FA) and pathomorphology at the foveal centre delineated by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (OCT) in macular oedema (MO) associated with branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).MethodsOne hundred and five consecutive eyes of 105 patients with MO (centre point thickness (CPT) ≥ 300 μm) associated with BRVO in which FA using Heidelberg Retinal Angiography 2 and Spectralis OCT were performed on the same day were retrospectively reviewed. We evaluated the foveal pathomorphology using OCT images and the association with macular ischaemia.ResultsWithin 1 year from symptom onset, 94 eyes were classified with perfused macula (34 eyes) or non-perfused macula (60 eyes). Eyes with perfused macula had better visual acuity and less CPT than those with non-perfused macula (P=0.024 and P<0.001, respectively). Fourteen eyes with perfused macula had serous retinal detachment (SRD) alone at the presumed foveal centre (SRD type); seven, a sponge-like swelling at that area (retinal swelling type); 11, foveal cystoid spaces alone (cystoid MO (CMO) type), and 2, with both SRD and foveal cystoid spaces (SRD+CMO type). However, 58 eyes with non-perfused macula had foveal cystoid spaces (42 of CMO type and 16 of SRD+CMO type), with a significant association between them (P<0.001). Among 11 eyes with symptoms exceeding 1 year, 6 eyes had perfused macula, and none had the SRD type.ConclusionMost eyes without foveal cystoid spaces have perfused macula in MO associated with BRVO.
| S-EPMC3376306 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8004537 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC3871640 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC4458587 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveTo 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 sourcesThe 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 studiesOnly 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.ResultsSeven 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.ConclusionsWe 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 registrationNot registered.
| S-EPMC4120318 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/objectivesThis meta-analysis investigates the efficacy and safety of intravitreal anti-VEGF injections (IVI) compared to combination laser photocoagulation and IVI (LPC-IVI) in treating macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO).Subjects/methodsA literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL was conducted from inception until March 2021. Randomized controlled trials that reported relevant efficacy and/or safety parameters following LPC-IVI relative to IVI were included. Meta-analysis was conducted with a random effects model. The primary outcome was best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), while secondary outcomes were central macular thickness (CMT), central retinal thickness (CRT), central subfield thickness (CST), number of IVIs received, and incidence of adverse events.ResultsA total of 10 studies were included, for which 362 eyes were randomized to LPC-IVI and 365 to IVI. In comparing macular laser photocoagulation with IVI (MLP-IVI) in BRVO patients, no significant differences were seen in final BCVA (p = 0.78) or change in BCVA (p = 0.09) after treatment. Similarly, no significant differences were seen in final CMT (p = 0.54), change in CMT (p = 0.33), final CRT (p = 0.90), change in CRT (p = 0.97), or number of injections required (p = 0.78). The same results were seen in subgroup analyses for macular laser without peripheral laser in BRVO and CRVO patients. Consistent results were observed when considering peripheral LPC-IVI to IVI in BRVO and CRVO.ConclusionsNo significant differences were seen between combination MLP-IVI or peripheral LPC-IVI relative to IVI monotherapy for final BCVA or OCT parameters in macular oedema secondary to RVO.
| S-EPMC9674600 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo evaluate whether baseline demographic, clinical, and OCT characteristics predict visual acuity (VA) outcomes in patients receiving anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy for macular edema (ME) due to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO).DesignPost hoc analysis of the randomized noninferiority trial (Lucentis, Eylea, Avastin in CRVO) LEAVO Study from December 12, 2014, to December 16, 2016, carried out across 44 UK National Health Service ophthalmology departments.ParticipantsData on 267 participants with a baseline best-corrected mean visual acuity (BCVA) range of 19 to 78 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letter score (approximate Snellen equivalent, 20/32 to 20/320) who had central subfield thickness (CST) ≥ 320 μm on Spectralis OCT (Heidelberg Engineering) were analyzed.MethodsStudy participants were randomized to receive repeated intravitreal injections of ranibizumab (0.5 mg/50 μl), aflibercept (2.0 mg/50 μl), or bevacizumab (1.25 mg/50 μl), and a protocol-driven pro re nata re-treatment regimen at 4 to 8 weekly visits was followed up to week 100 after 4 mandated 4-weekly loading injections.Main outcome measuresChange in BCVA and percentage of patients gaining ≥ 10 letters and achieving BCVA letter score > 70 letters at 52 and 100 weeks.ResultsThe analysis was adjusted for treatment effects and confirmed by sensitivity analysis. Age ≥ 75 years is a poor predictor for all 3 visual outcomes. Lower baseline BCVA predicted 10-letter gainers and higher gains in BCVA, although it is a poor predictor of achieving > 70 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters. None of the baseline OCT morphologic characteristics except ellipsoid zone (EZ) integrity influenced any visual outcomes. Both baseline CST and total macular volume showed a nonlinear relation to 10-letter gainers, with CST > 900 μm being a poor prognostic indicator. Baseline CST and macular volume did not predict mean change in BCVA or BCVA > 70 letters at 52 and 100 weeks. The sensitivity analysis conclusions after removing iCRVO were similar.ConclusionsAt presentation, younger age, higher baseline BCVA, and a definitely intact subfoveal EZ are predictors of BCVA score > 70 letters at 100 weeks.
| S-EPMC8565966 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC3927713 | biostudies-literature