Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy and safety of approved treatments for macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion: a network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Regnier SA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4458587 | biostudies-other | 2015 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative efficacy and safety of approved treatments for macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion: a network meta-analysis.

Regnier Stephane A SA Larsen Michael M Bezlyak Vladimir V Allen Felicity F

BMJ open 20150605 6

<h4>Objective</h4>To compare the efficacy and safety of approved treatments for macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).<h4>Design</h4>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.<h4>Setting</h4>A Bayesian network meta-analysis of RCTs of treatments for macular oedema secondary to BRVO.<h4>Interventions</h4>Ranibizumab 0.5 mg pro re nat ...[more]

PMID: 26048209

Similar Datasets

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.

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: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.

Project description:IntroductionRanibizumab and aflibercept are anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents licensed for the treatment of visual impairment due to macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). The aim of this study was to estimate, from a UK healthcare payer's perspective, the cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab versus aflibercept in this indication.MethodsA Markov model was used to simulate the outcomes and costs of treating BRVO. Patient baseline characteristics and efficacy data for ranibizumab were obtained from the BRAVO trial. The relative efficacy of aflibercept was derived from a published network meta-analysis. Injection frequencies were derived from ranibizumab and aflibercept studies included in the network meta-analysis. Health states were defined by increments of 10 letters in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA). Patients could gain or lose a maximum of two health states between cycles. The first cycle was 6 months, followed by monthly cycles. Different utility values were assigned to the better-seeing and worse-seeing eyes based on BCVA. A 2-year treatment time frame and a lifetime time horizon were used. Future costs and health outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Sensitivity analyses were used to test the robustness of the model.ResultsThe lifetime cost per patient treated was £15,273 with ranibizumab and £17,347 with aflibercept. Ranibizumab was dominant over aflibercept, producing incremental health gains of 0.0120 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost savings of £2074. Net monetary benefit for ranibizumab at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY was £2314. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust to variations in model parameters.ConclusionsRanibizumab provides greater health gains at a lower overall cost than aflibercept in the treatment of visual impairment due to macular edema secondary to BRVO. Ranibizumab is therefore cost-effective from a UK healthcare payer's perspective.FundingNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.

Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy and safety of approved treatments for macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion: a network meta-analysis.

Publications

Comparative efficacy and safety of approved treatments for macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion: a network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets