scholarly journals Comparison of intravitreal dexamethasone implant and anti-VEGF drugs in the treatment of retinal vein occlusion-induced oedema: a meta-analysis and systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e032128
Author(s):  
Shuai Ming ◽  
Kunpeng Xie ◽  
Mingzhu Yang ◽  
Huijuan He ◽  
Ya Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Retinal Vein Occlusion ◽  
Real World ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Vein Occlusion ◽  
Anti Vegf ◽  
Intravitreal Dexamethasone

ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents in the treatment of macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).Data sourcesPubMed, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov registry were searched from inception to 10 December 2019, without language restrictions.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world observation studies comparing the efficacy of DEX implant and anti-VEGF agents for the treatment of patients with RVO, naïve or almost naïve to both arms, were included.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently extracted data for mean changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central subfield thickness (CST) and product safety. Review Manager V.5.3 and GRADE were used to synthesise the data and validate the evidence, respectively.ResultsFour RCTs and 12 real-world studies were included. An average lower letter gain in BCVA was determined for the DEX implant (mean difference (MD) = −6.59; 95% CI −8.87 to −4.22 letters) administered at a retreatment interval of 5–6 months. Results were similar (MD6 months=−12.68; 95% CI −21.98 to −3.37 letters; MD12 months=−9.69; 95% CI −12.01 to −7.37 letters) at 6 and 12 months. The DEX implant resulted in comparable or marginally less CST reduction at months 6 and 12 but introduced relatively higher risks of elevated intraocular pressure (RR=3.89; 95% CI 2.16 to 7.03) and cataract induction (RR=5.22; 95% CI 1.67 to 16.29). Most real-life studies reported an insignificant numerical gain in letters for anti-VEGF drugs relative to that for DEX implant. However, the latter achieved comparable efficacy with a 4-month dosage interval.ConclusionCompared with anti-VEGF agents, DEX implant required fewer injections but had inferior functional efficacy and safety. Real-life trials supplemented the efficacy data for DEX implant.

scholarly journals Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implants versus Intravitreal Anti-VEGF Treatment in Treating Patients with Retinal Vein Occlusion: A Meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qian Shi ◽  
Lixiong Gao ◽  
Lijun Zhou ◽  
Chunyu Tian ◽  
Na Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Retinal Vein Occlusion ◽  
Macular Oedema ◽  
Vision Loss ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Vein Occlusion ◽  
Anti Vegf ◽  
First Choice ◽  
Intravitreal Dexamethasone

Abstract Background: Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is a common retinal venous disorder that causes vision loss. No specific therapy has been developed. Controversy exists regarding two treatments: intravitreal dexamethasone implants and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). The goal of this study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of dexamethasone implants and anti-VEGF treatment for RVO. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies comparing dexamethasone implants with anti-VEGF in patients with RVO. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central subfield thickness (CST), intraocular pressure changes, conjunctival haemorrhage, reduced VA, and macular oedema were extracted from the final included studies. RevMan 5.3 was used to conduct the quantitative analysis and bias assessment. Results: Four articles assessing 969 eyes were included. The anti-VEGF treatment showed better BCVA improvement (mean difference [MD] = -10.59, P < 0.00001) and more CST decrease (MD = -86.71 μm, P = 0.02) than the dexamethasone implants. However, the dexamethasone implants required fewer injections. As for adverse effects, the dexamethasone implants showed significantly higher intraocular pressure (IOP) and more cataracts than the anti-VEGF treatment. No significant differences were found in conjunctival haemorrhage, reduced VA, and macular oedema. Conclusions: Anti-VEGF treatment showed better functional and anatomical improvement with less risk of IOP elevation and cataract formation compared to dexamethasone implants. Thus, anti-VEGF treatment is the first choice for treating RVO patients. Keywords: dexamethasone intravitreal implant, anti-VEGF treatment, retinal vein occlusion, meta-analysis

scholarly journals Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implants versus Intravitreal Anti-VEGF Treatment in Treating Patients with Retinal Vein Occlusion: A Meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qian Shi ◽  
Lixiong Gao ◽  
Lijun Zhou ◽  
Chunyu Tian ◽  
Na Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Retinal Vein Occlusion ◽  
Macular Oedema ◽  
Vision Loss ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Vein Occlusion ◽  
Anti Vegf ◽  
First Choice ◽  
Intravitreal Dexamethasone

Abstract Background: Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is a common retinal venous disorder that causes vision loss. No specific therapy has been developed. Controversy exists regarding two treatments: intravitreal dexamethasone implants and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). The goal of this study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of dexamethasone implants and anti-VEGF treatment for RVO. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies comparing dexamethasone implants with anti-VEGF in patients with RVO. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central subfield thickness (CST), intraocular pressure changes, conjunctival haemorrhage, reduced VA, and macular oedema were extracted from the final included studies. RevMan 5.3 was used to conduct the quantitative analysis and bias assessment. Results: Four articles assessing 969 eyes were included. The anti-VEGF treatment showed better BCVA improvement (mean difference [MD] = -10.59, P < 0.00001) and more CST decrease (MD = -86.71 μm, P = 0.02) than the dexamethasone implants. However, the dexamethasone implants required fewer injections. As for adverse effects, the dexamethasone implants showed significantly higher intraocular pressure (IOP) and more cataracts than the anti-VEGF treatment. No significant differences were found in conjunctival haemorrhage, reduced VA, and macular oedema. Conclusions: Anti-VEGF treatment showed better functional and anatomical improvement with less risk of IOP elevation and cataract formation compared to dexamethasone implants. Thus, anti-VEGF treatment is the first choice for treating RVO patients. Keywords: dexamethasone intravitreal implant, anti-VEGF treatment, retinal vein occlusion, meta-analysis

scholarly journals Ozurdex Treatment for Retinal Conditions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hui-xin Tang ◽  
Yu-qin Yang ◽  
Ying Yuan ◽  
Jing-jing Li ◽  
Zubing Mei ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Macular Edema ◽  
Retinal Vein Occlusion ◽  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Vein Occlusion ◽  
Anti Vegf ◽  
Elevated Intraocular Pressure

Abstract Objectives To evaluate the clinical efficacy of Ozurdex, a dexamethasone (DEX) implant, for the treatment of macular edema (ME) caused by retinal vein occlusion (RVO) and diabetic retinopathy (DR) through a systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were comprehensively searched from inception to July 11, 2021 for studies evaluating the clinical efficacy of Ozurdex for patients with retinal vein occlusion macular edema (RVO-ME) or diabetic macular edema (DME). Eligible studies were published in English and were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool was applied to assess the risk of bias in each study. Effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using the random effects model. We also conducted subgroup analyses to explore sources of heterogeneity and the stability of the results.Results This meta-analysis included 7 RCTs (RVO-ME [n=2] and DME [n=5]) assessing a total of 251 eyes. Compared with anti-VEGF therapy, Ozurdex treatment achieved superior outcomes in terms of best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) (mean difference [MD] =-2.83 ([95% CI, -5.60 to -0.05], P=0.05), while no heterogeneity was found (P=0.49, I2=0%). Ozurdex treatment also significantly reduced central macular thickness (CMT) compared with anti-VEGF treatment (MD =-31.32 [95% CI, -57.92 to -4.72], P=0.02) and showed high between-trial heterogeneity (P=0.04, I2=54%). In terms of severe adverse events, Ozurdex treatment had a higher risk of elevated intraocular pressure than anti-VEGF therapy (RR=5.14; 95% CI: 1.42 to 18.66; P＜0.05), and there was no significant difference in cataract progression between the two groups (RR=1.83; 95% CI: 0.63 to 5.27, P=0.31).Conclusions Compared with anti-VEGF therapy, Ozurdex treatment is more effective in improving BCVA and reducing ME. Additionally, Ozurdex treatment has a higher risk of elevated intraocular pressure. Due to the small number of studies and the short follow-up period, the results should be interpreted with caution. The long-term effects of the two treatments need to be further determined.

scholarly journals Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implants versus Intravitreal Anti-VEGF Treatment in Treating Patients with Retinal Vein Occlusion: A Meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qian Shi ◽  
Lixiong Gao ◽  
Lijun Zhou ◽  
Chunyu Tian ◽  
Na Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Retinal Vein Occlusion ◽  
Macular Oedema ◽  
Vision Loss ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Vein Occlusion ◽  
Anti Vegf ◽  
First Choice ◽  
Intravitreal Dexamethasone

Abstract Background: Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is a common retinal venous disorder that causes vision loss. No specific therapy has been developed. Controversy exists regarding two treatments: intravitreal dexamethasone implants and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). The goal of this study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of dexamethasone implants and anti-VEGF treatment for RVO. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies comparing dexamethasone implants with anti-VEGF in patients with RVO. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central subfield thickness (CST), intraocular pressure changes, conjunctival haemorrhage, reduced VA, and macular oedema were extracted from the final included studies. RevMan 5.3 was used to conduct the quantitative analysis and bias assessment. Results: Four articles assessing 969 eyes were included. The anti-VEGF treatment showed better BCVA improvement (mean difference [MD] = -10.59, P < 0.00001) and more CST decrease (MD = -86.71 μm, P = 0.02) than the dexamethasone implants. However, the dexamethasone implants required fewer injections. As for adverse effects, the dexamethasone implants showed significantly higher intraocular pressure (IOP) and more cataracts than the anti-VEGF treatment. No significant differences were found in conjunctival haemorrhage, reduced VA, and macular oedema. Conclusions: Anti-VEGF treatment showed better functional and anatomical improvement with less risk of IOP elevation and cataract formation compared to dexamethasone implants. Thus, anti-VEGF treatment is the first choice for treating RVO patients. Keywords: dexamethasone intravitreal implant, anti-VEGF treatment, retinal vein occlusion, meta-analysis

scholarly journals Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implants versus Intravitreal Anti-VEGF Treatment in Treating Patients with Retinal Vein Occlusion: A Meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qian Shi ◽  
Lixiong Gao ◽  
Lijun Zhou ◽  
Chunyu Tian ◽  
Na Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Retinal Vein Occlusion ◽  
Macular Oedema ◽  
Vision Loss ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Vein Occlusion ◽  
Anti Vegf ◽  
First Choice ◽  
Intravitreal Dexamethasone

Abstract Background: Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is a common retinal venous disorder that causes vision loss. No specific therapy has been developed. Controversy exists regarding two treatments: intravitreal dexamethasone implants and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). The goal of this study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of dexamethasone implants and anti-VEGF treatment for RVO. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies comparing dexamethasone implants with anti-VEGF in patients with RVO. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central subfield thickness (CST), intraocular pressure changes, conjunctival haemorrhage, reduced VA, and macular oedema were extracted from the final included studies. RevMan 5.3 was used to conduct the quantitative analysis and bias assessment. Results: Four articles assessing 969 eyes were included. The anti-VEGF treatment showed better BCVA improvement (mean difference [MD] = -10.59, P < 0.00001) and more CST decrease (MD = -86.71 μm, P = 0.02) than the dexamethasone implants. However, the dexamethasone implants required fewer injections. As for adverse effects, the dexamethasone implants showed significantly higher intraocular pressure (IOP) and more cataracts than the anti-VEGF treatment. No significant differences were found in conjunctival haemorrhage, reduced VA, and macular oedema. Conclusions: Anti-VEGF treatment showed better functional and anatomical improvement with less risk of IOP elevation and cataract formation compared to dexamethasone implants. Thus, anti-VEGF treatment is the first choice for treating RVO patients. Keywords: dexamethasone intravitreal implant, anti-VEGF treatment, retinal vein occlusion, meta-analysis

scholarly journals Comparison of the efficacy and safety of drug therapies for macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. e022700 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tianwei Qian ◽  
Mengya Zhao ◽  
Yongjing Wan ◽  
MengXiao Li ◽  
Xun Xu
Keyword(s):  
Retinal Vein Occlusion ◽  
Central Retinal Vein Occlusion ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Therapeutic Effects ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Retinal Tear ◽  
Vein Occlusion ◽  
Anti Vegf ◽  
Central Retinal Vein ◽  
Slight Advantage

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.

Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes for Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion: An 8-Year Experience at a Tertiary Eye Center

2021 ◽  
pp. 247412642097887
Author(s):  
Terry Lee ◽  
Cason B. Robbins ◽  
Akshay S. Thomas ◽  
Sharon Fekrat
Keyword(s):  
Visual Acuity ◽  
Diabetic Retinopathy ◽  
Retinal Vein Occlusion ◽  
Real World ◽  
Early Treatment ◽  
Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion ◽  
Treatment Patterns ◽  
Vein Occlusion ◽  
Anti Vegf ◽  
Treatment Naïve

Purpose: This work aims to investigate real-world treatment patterns and outcomes in eyes with branch retinal vein occlusion in the antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) era. Methods: A retrospective, nonrandomized, comparative study was conducted on eyes diagnosed with branch retinal vein occlusion at a single tertiary center between 2009 and 2017. Medical history, treatment patterns, and visual acuity outcomes were examined. Subanalysis was performed for eyes that met the eligibility criteria for the BRAVO (Ranibizumab for the Treatment of Macular Edema Following Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion) trial. Results: A total of 315 eyes were included, of which 244 were treatment naive. In all eyes, the most common first treatment was the following: intravitreal bevacizumab (38.4%), aflibercept (15.1%), ranibizumab (8.1%), sectoral scatter laser (6.2%), and triamcinolone (3.1%). At 1 year, treatment-naive eyes had received an average of 2.43 anti-VEGF injections. During follow-up, treatment-naive eyes gained an average of 0.21 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study lines. Forty eyes that met BRAVO trial criteria received an average of 5.05 anti-VEGF injections in the first year and gained an average of 1.83 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study lines. Conclusions: This real-world cohort received fewer anti-VEGF injections at year 1 and experienced less improvement in visual acuity during the course of treatment than clinical trial participants. Trial-eligible patients received more injections and had greater visual gains than those who would not have been eligible for the trial.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents for the treatment of oesophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e046352
Author(s):  
Lijuan Zhang ◽  
Yanli Song ◽  
Nan Jiang ◽  
Yaqi Huang ◽  
Bo Dong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Growth Factor ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Oesophageal Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Growth Factor Receptor ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Positive Effects

ObjectivesDespite remarkable advances in the treatment of oesophageal cancer (OC), the role of antiepidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) agents in treating OC remains controversial. Herein, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to elucidate the efficacy and safety of anti-EGFR agents in patients with OC.DesignMeta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) identified by searching the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, Chinese Biology Medicine, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform databases from inception to December 2019. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.SettingRCTs from any country and healthcare setting.ParticipantsPatients with OC.InterventionsCombination therapy with anti-EGFR agents and conventional treatments versus conventional treatments alone in patients with OC.Primary and secondary outcome measuresOverall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were primary outcome measures, and objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) and treatment toxicities were secondary outcome measures.ResultsIn total, 25 RCTs comprising 3406 patients with OC were included. Overall, anti-EGFR treatment significantly improved the OS (HR: 0.81, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.89, p<0.00001), ORR (relative risk (RR): 1.33, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.52, p<0.0001) and DCR (RR: 1.22, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.34, p<0.0001) but not PFS (HR: 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.08, p=0.26). Anti-EGFR treatment was significantly associated with higher incidences of myelosuppression, diarrhoea, acne-like rash and hypomagnesaemia.ConclusionsOverall, anti-EGFR agents have positive effects on OS, the ORR and DCR in OC. However, considering the high incidence of adverse effects, such as myelosuppression, diarrhoea, acne-like rashes and hypomagnesaemia, careful monitoring of patients with OC is recommended during anti-EGFR treatment.Trial registration numberCRD42020169230.

Prevalence of Retinal Vein Occlusion in Europe: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 241 (4) ◽  
pp. 183-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeany Q. Li ◽  
Jan Henrik Terheyden ◽  
Thomas Welchowski ◽  
Matthias Schmid ◽  
Julia Letow ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Retinal Vein Occlusion ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vein Occlusion
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document