scholarly journals Comparative efficacy and safety of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor monotherapies for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Author(s):  
Yun Zhang ◽  
Zhaolun Cai ◽  
Xueting Liu ◽  
Tiancong Chang ◽  
Xun Li ◽  
...  
2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martina Barchitta ◽  
Andrea Maugeri

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the most common cause of blindness in elderly people worldwide and the major degenerative disease of the retina that leads to progressive impairment of central vision. Several polymorphisms in different genes have been proposed as factors that increase the disease susceptibility. The aim of the present study is to carry out a systematic review and an updated meta-analysis in order to summarize the current published studies and to evaluate the associations between four common vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) polymorphisms (rs833061, rs1413711, rs3025039, and rs2010963) and AMD risk, also stratifying for AMD subtypes and ethnicity. A systematic literature search in the Medline database, using PubMed, was carried out for epidemiological studies, published before June 2016. Associations ofVEGFpolymorphisms with AMD were estimated by calculating pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) based on different models. Twelve articles were included in the analysis. The present meta-analysis constitutes a useful guide for readers to study AMD and adds new evidence to the growing literature on the role ofVEGFpolymorphisms in the risk of AMD. Significant associations with AMD risk were showed for rs833061, rs1413711, and rs3025039 polymorphisms but not for rs2010963.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yun Zhang ◽  
Sheng Gao ◽  
Xun Li ◽  
Xi Huang ◽  
Yi Zhang ◽  
...  

Background: We aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of anti–vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) monotherapy to identify its utilization and prioritization in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).Methods: Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials comparing the recommended anti-VEGF agents (ranibizumab, bevacizumab, aflibercept, brolucizumab, and conbercept) under various therapeutic regimens. Outcomes of interest included the mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), serious adverse events, the proportion of patients who gained ≥15 letters or lost <15 letters in BCVA, the mean change in central retinal thickness, and the number of injections within 12 months.Results: Twenty-seven trials including 10,484 participants and eighteen treatments were identified in the network meta-analysis. The aflibercept 2 mg bimonthly, ranibizumab 0.5 mg T&E, and brolucizumab 6 mg q12w/q8w regimens had better visual efficacy. Brolucizumab had absolute superiority in anatomical outcomes and a relative advantage of safety, as well as good performance of aflibercept 2 mg T&E. The proactive regimens had slightly better efficacy but a slightly increased number of injections versus the reactive regimen. Bevacizumab had a statistically non-significant trend toward a lower degree of efficacy and safety.Conclusion: The visual efficacy of four individual anti-VEGF drugs is comparable. Several statistically significant differences were observed considering special anti-VEGF regimens, suggesting that brolucizumab 6 mg q12w/q8w, aflibercept 2 mg bimonthly or T&E, and ranibizumab 0.5 mg T&E are the ideal anti-VEGF regimens for nAMD patients. In the current landscape, based on the premise of equivalent efficacy and safety, the optimal choice of anti-VEGF monotherapies seems mandatory to obtain maximal benefit.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea C. Tricco ◽  
Sonia M. Thomas ◽  
Erin Lillie ◽  
Areti Angeliki Veroniki ◽  
Jemila S. Hamid ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The comparative safety and efficacy between anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents (anti-VEGFs) and between combined therapies for patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) is unclear. We conducted a systematic review to examine the comparative safety and efficacy anti-VEGFs for adults with nAMD. Methods Studies were identified through MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL (inception to June 3, 2019), grey literature, and scanning reference lists. Two reviewers independently screened citations and full-text articles to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs), extracted data, and appraised risk of bias. Pairwise random-effects meta-analysis and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted. The primary outcomes were the proportion of patients experiencing moderate vision gain (≥ 15 letters on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart) and the proportion of patients experiencing moderate vision loss (≤ 15 letters). Results After screening 3647 citations and 485 potentially relevant full-text articles, 92 RCTs with 24,717 patients were included. NMA (34 RCTs, 8809 patients, 12 treatments) showed small differences among anti-VEGFs in improving the proportion of patients with moderate vision gain, with the largest for conbercept versus broluczumab (OR 0.15, 95% CrI: 0.05–0.56), conbercept versus ranibizumab (OR 0.17, 95% CrI: 0.05–0.59), conbercept versus aflibercept (OR 0.19, 95% CrI: 0.06–0.65), and conbercept versus bevacizumab (OR 0.2, 95% CrI: 0.06–0.69). In NMA (36 RCTs, 9081 patients, 13 treatments) for the proportion of patients with moderate vision loss, small differences were observed among anti-VEGFs, with the largest being for conbercept versus aflibercept (OR 0.24, 95% CrI: 0–4.29), conbercept versus brolucizumab (OR 0.24, 95% CrI: 0–4.71), conbercept versus bevacizumab (OR 0.26, 95% CrI: 0–4.65), and conbercept versus ranibizumab (OR 0.27, 95% CrI: 0–4.67). Conclusion The only observed differences were that ranibizumab, bevacizumab, aflibercept, and brolucizumab were statistically superior to conbercept in terms of the proportion of patients with nAMD who experienced moderate vision gain. However, this finding is based on indirect evidence through one small trial comparing conbercept with placebo. This does not account for drug-specific differences when assessing anatomic and functional treatment efficacy in variable dosing regimens. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration number CRD42015022041.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document