Intravitreal steroids for macular edema in diabetes

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for diabetic macular oedema: a network meta-analysis

Background

Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a common complication of diabetic retinopathy. Antiangiogenic therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) can reduce oedema, improve vision, and prevent further visual loss. These drugs have replaced laser photocoagulation as the standard of care for people with DMO. In the previous update of this review, we found moderate-quality evidence that, at 12 months, aflibercept was slightly more effective than ranibizumab and bevacizumab for improving vision in people with DMO, although the difference may have been clinically insignificant (less than 0.1 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), or five Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters, or one ETDRS line).

Objectives

The objective of this updated review was to compare the effectiveness and safety of the different anti-VEGF drugs in RCTs at longer followup (24 months).

Search methods

We searched various electronic databases on 8 July 2022.

Selection criteria

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any anti-angiogenic drug with an anti-VEGF mechanism of action versus another anti-VEGF drug, another treatment, sham, or no treatment in people with DMO.

Data collection and analysis

We used standard Cochrane methods for pairwise meta-analysis and we augmented this evidence using network meta-analysis (NMA) methods. We used the Stata 'network' meta-analysis package for all analyses. We used the CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis) web application to grade the certainty of the evidence.

Main results

We included 23 studies (13 with industry funding) that enrolled 3513 people with DMO (median central retinal thickness (CRT) 460 microns, interquartile range (IQR) 424 to 482) and moderate vision loss (median best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) 0.48 logMAR, IQR 0.42 to 0.55. One study that investigated ranibizumab versus sham and one study that mainly enrolled people with subclinical DMO and normal BCVA were not suitable for inclusion in the efficacy NMA. Consistent with the previous update of this review, we used ranibizumab as the reference drug for efficacy, and control (including laser, observation, and sham) as the reference for systemic safety. Eight trials provided data on the primary outcome (change in BCVA at 24 months, in logMAR: lower is better). We found no evidence of a difference between the following interventions and ranibizumab alone: aflibercept (mean difference (MD) -0.05 logMAR, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.12 to 0.02; moderate certainty); bevacizumab (MD -0.01 logMAR, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.10; low certainty), brolucizumab (MD 0.00 logMAR, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.07; low certainty), ranibizumab plus deferred laser (MD 0.00 logMAR, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.10; low certainty), and ranibizumab plus prompt laser (MD 0.03 logMAR, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.09; very low certainty). We also analysed BCVA change at 12 months, finding moderate-certainty evidence of increased efficacy with brolucizumab (MD -0.07 logMAR, 95%CI -0.10 to -0.03 logMAR), faricimab (MD -0.08 logMAR, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.05), and aflibercept (MD -0.07 logMAR, 95 % CI -0.10 to -0.04) compared to ranibizumab alone, but the difference could be clinically insignificant. Compared to ranibizumab alone, NMA of six trials showed no evidence of a difference with aflibercept (moderate certainty), bevacizumab (low certainty), or ranibizumab with prompt (very low certainty) or deferred laser (low certainty) regarding improvement by three or more ETDRS lines at 24 months. There was moderate-certainty evidence of greater CRT reduction at 24 months with brolucizumab (MD -23 microns, 95% CI -65 to -1 9) and aflibercept (MD -26 microns, 95% CI -53 to 0.9) compared to ranibizumab. There was moderate-certainty evidence of lesser CRT reduction with bevacizumab (MD 28 microns, 95% CI 0 to 56), ranibizumab plus deferred laser (MD 63 microns, 95% CI 18 to 109), and ranibizumab plus prompt laser (MD 72 microns, 95% CI 25 to 119) compared with ranibizumab alone. Regarding all-cause mortality at the longest available follow-up (20 trials), we found no evidence of increased risk of death for any drug compared to control, although effects were in the direction of an increase, and clinically relevant increases could not be ruled out. The certainty of this evidence was low for bevacizumab (risk ratio (RR) 2.10, 95% CI 0.75 to 5.88), brolucizumab (RR 2.92, 95% CI 0.68 to 12.58), faricimab (RR 1.91, 95% CI 0.45 to 8.00), ranibizumab (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.34), and very low for conbercept (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.81) and aflibercept (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.77). Estimates for Antiplatelet Trialists Collaboration arterial thromboembolic events at 24 months did not suggest an increase with any drug compared to control, but the NMA was overall incoherent and the evidence was of low or very low certainty. Ocular adverse events were rare and poorly reported and could not be assessed in NMAs.

Authors' conclusions

There is limited evidence of the comparative efficacy and safety of anti-VEGF drugs beyond one year of follow-up. We found no clinically important differences in visual outcomes at 24 months in people with DMO, although there were differences in CRT change. We found no evidence that any drug increases all-cause mortality compared to control, but estimates were very imprecise. Evidence from RCTs may not apply to real-world practice, where people in need of antiangiogenic treatment are often under-treated, and the individuals exposed to these drugs may be less healthy than trial participants.

Global trends and performances in diabetic retinopathy studies: A bibliometric analysis

Objective

The objective of this study is to conduct a comprehensive bibliometric analysis to identify and evaluate global trends in diabetic retinopathy (DR) research and visualize the focus and frontiers of this field.

Methods

Diabetic retinopathy-related publications from the establishment of the Web of Science (WOS) through 1 November 2022 were retrieved for qualitative and quantitative analyses. This study analyzed annual publication counts, prolific countries, institutions, journals, and the top 10 most cited literature. The findings were presented through descriptive statistics. VOSviewer 1.6.17 was used to exhibit keywords with high frequency and national cooperation networks, while CiteSpace 5.5.R2 displayed the timeline and burst keywords for each term.

Results

A total of 10,709 references were analyzed, and the number of publications continuously increased over the investigated period. America had the highest h-index and citation frequency, contributing to the most influence. China was the most prolific country, producing 3,168 articles. The University of London had the highest productivity. The top three productive journals were from America, and Investigative Ophthalmology Visual Science had the highest number of publications. The article from Gulshan et al. (2016; co-citation counts, 2,897) served as the representative and symbolic reference. The main research topics in this area were incidence, pathogenesis, treatment, and artificial intelligence (AI). Deep learning, models, biomarkers, and optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) of DR were frontier hotspots.

Conclusion

Bibliometric analysis in this study provided valuable insights into global trends in DR research frontiers. Four key study directions and three research frontiers were extracted from the extensive DR-related literature. As the incidence of DR continues to increase, DR prevention and treatment have become a pressing public health concern and a significant area of research interest. In addition, the development of AI technologies and telemedicine has emerged as promising research frontiers for balancing the number of doctors and patients.

A Randomized Trial Comparing Suprachoroidal and Intravitreal Injection of Triamcinolone Acetonide in Refractory Diabetic Macular Edema due to Epiretinal Membrane

Purpose

To compare the efficacy and safety of suprachoroidal and intravitreal injection of triamcinolone acetonide in pseudophakic patients with refractory diabetic macular edema (DME) due to epiretinal membrane (ERM). Study Design. This study is a randomized clinical trial (RCT). Participants. Twenty-three nonvitrectomized pseudophakic eyes of 23 subjects (9 M and 14 F with mean age: 54.8 years) with refractory DME due to ERM.

Methods

The eyes were randomized to suprachoroidal triamcinolone acetonide injection 4 mg/0.1 ml (SCTA) (n = 13 eyes) or intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide 4 mg/0.1 ml (IVTA) (n = 10 eyes) and were evaluated at baseline and 1 and 3 months after injection to assess outcome measures. Main Outcome Measures. Changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) (primary outcome), central foveal thickness (CFT) by optical coherence tomography (OCT), and intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement (secondary).

Results

Baseline median BCVA (logMAR) was 1.0 (range 0.8–1.0) in both groups, improved within the SCTA group to 0.8 on the 1^st and 3^rd months, while in the IVTA group, median BCVA changed to 0.8 and 0.9 on the 1^st and 3^rd months, respectively. No significant differences were noted between groups regarding BCVA at baseline (P=0.927), and 1^st (P=0.605) and 3^rd months (P=0.313). Regarding mean CFT, no significant differences were observed at baseline (P=0.353) and at the first month (P=0.214) between both groups, while at the third month, CFT was significantly higher in the IVTA group (385 um) than in the SCTA group (323 um) (P=0.028). Mean IOP was significantly higher in the IVTA group (15 mmHg) on 1^st month than in the SCTA group (12 mmHg) (P=0.011); after 3^rd month, IOP was significantly higher within the IVTA group (18 mmHg) than SCTA (14 mmHg) (P=0.028). No significant difference was noted between both groups at baseline IOP (P=0.435).

Conclusions

Both SCTA and IVTA are effective in reduction of CFT and improvement of patients' visual acuity, but with a higher recurrence rate and rise in IOP after IVTA when compared to SCTA. Both treatments have temporary effects with the possibility of recurrence of DME and the need for retreatment.

Association Between the Severity of Diabetic Retinopathy and Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography Metrics

Diabetic retinopathy, the most serious ocular complication of diabetes, imposes a serious economic burden on society. Automatic and objective assessment of vessel changes can effectively manage diabetic retinopathy and prevent blindness. Optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) metrics have been confirmed to be used to assess vessel changes. The accuracy and reliability of OCTA metrics are restricted by vessel segmentation methods. In this study, a multi-branch retinal vessel segmentation method is proposed, which is comparable to the segmentation results obtained from the manual segmentation, effectively extracting vessels in low contrast areas and improving the integrity of the extracted vessels. OCTA metrics based on the proposed segmentation method were validated to be reliable for further analysis of the relationship between OCTA metrics and diabetes and the severity of diabetic retinopathy. Changes in vessel morphology are influenced by systemic risk factors. However, there is a lack of analysis of the relationship between OCTA metrics and systemic risk factors. We conducted a cross-sectional study that included 362 eyes of 221 diabetic patients and 1,151 eyes of 587 healthy people. Eight systemic risk factors were confirmed to be closely related to diabetes. After controlling these systemic risk factors, significant OCTA metrics (such as vessel complexity index, vessel diameter index, and mean thickness of retinal nerve fiber layer centered in the macular) were found to be related to diabetic retinopathy and severe diabetic retinopathy. This study provides evidence to support the potential value of OCTA metrics as biomarkers of diabetic retinopathy.

Updates on the Current Treatments for Diabetic Retinopathy and Possibility of Future Oral Therapy

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a complication of diabetes and one of the leading causes of vision loss worldwide. Despite extensive efforts to reduce visual impairment, the prevalence of DR is still increasing. The initial pathophysiology of DR includes damage to vascular endothelial cells and loss of pericytes. Ensuing hypoxic responses trigger the expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and other pro-angiogenic factors. At present, the most effective treatment for DR and diabetic macular edema (DME) is the control of blood glucose levels. More advanced cases require laser, anti-VEGF therapy, steroid, and vitrectomy. Pan-retinal photocoagulation for non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) is well established and has demonstrated promising outcomes for preventing the progressive stage of DR. Furthermore, the efficacy of laser therapies such as grid and subthreshold diode laser micropulse photocoagulation (SDM) for DME has been reported. Vitrectomy has been performed for vitreous hemorrhage and tractional retinal detachment for patients with PDR. In addition, anti-VEGF treatment has been widely used for DME, and recently its potential to prevent the progression of PDR has been remarked. Even with these treatments, many patients with DR lose their vision and suffer from potential side effects. Thus, we need alternative treatments to address these limitations. In recent years, the relationship between DR, lipid metabolism, and inflammation has been featured. Research in diabetic animal models points to peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPARα) activation in cellular metabolism and inflammation by oral fenofibrate and/or pemafibrate as a promising target for DR. In this paper, we review the status of existing therapies, summarize PPARα activation therapies for DR, and discuss their potentials as promising DR treatments.

Intravitreal corticosteroids for diabetic macular edema: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of different intravitreal corticosteroids for treating diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

Four databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials comparing different intravitreal corticosteroids for treating DME. The primary outcome was the change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) within 6 months after the first injection (short-term BCVA). Secondary outcomes were the change in BCVA over 1 year (long-term BCVA) and changes in central macular thickness (CMT) and intraocular pressure (IOP) within 6 months after the first injection. Network meta-analysis was performed to aggregate the results from the individual studies.

RESULTS

Nineteen trials involving 2839 eyes were included. Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (TA) injections (≥ 8 mg and 4-8 mg), fluocinolone acetonide (FA) implants (0.5 µg/day) and dexamethasone (DEX) implants (700 µg) improved short-term BCVA (mean changes in logMAR [95% confidence interval] - 0.27 [- 0.40, - 0.15]; - 0.12 [- 0.18, - 0.06]; - 0.10 [- 0.21, - 0.01]; and - 0.06 [- 0.11, - 0.01]). Intravitreal TA injections (4 mg, multiple times), FA implants (0.5 µg/day and 0.2 µg/day), and DEX implants (350 µg) improved long-term BCVA (mean changes in logMAR [95% confidence interval] - 0.11 [- 0.21, - 0.02]; - 0.09 [- 0.15, - 0.03]; - 0.09 [- 0.14, - 0.02]; and - 0.04 [- 0.07, - 0.01]). All intravitreal corticosteroids reduced CMT, and different dosages of TA did not show significant differences in increasing IOP.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravitreal corticosteroids effectively improved BCVA in DME patients, with higher dosages showing greater efficacies. TA was not inferior to FA or DEX and may be considered a low-cost alternative choice for DME patients. The long-term efficacy and safety of different corticosteroids deserve further investigation. Trial registration Prospectively registered: PROSPERO, CRD42020219870.

(-)-Loliolide Isolated from Sargassum horneri Suppressed Oxidative Stress and Inflammation by Activating Nrf2/HO-1 Signaling in IFN-γ/TNF-α-Stimulated HaCaT Keratinocytes

The present study evaluated the effects of (-)-loliolide isolated from Sargassum horneri (S. horneri) against oxidative stress and inflammation, and its biological mechanism in interferon (IFN)-γ/tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α-stimulated HaCaT keratinocytes. The results showed that (-)-loliolide improved the cell viability by reducing the production of intracellular reactive oxygen species (ROS) in IFN-γ/TNF-α-stimulated HaCaT keratinocytes. In addition, (-)-loliolide effectively decreased the expression of inflammatory cytokines (interleukin (IL)-4 IL-6, IL-13, IFN-γ and TNF-α) and chemokines (CCL11 (Eotaxin), macrophage-derived chemokine (MDC), regulated on activation, normal T cell expressed and secreted (RANTES), and thymus and activation-regulated chemokine (TARC)), by downregulating the expression of epidermal-derived initial cytokines (IL-25, IL-33 and thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP)). Furthermore, (-)-loliolide suppressed the activation of mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) and nuclear factor-κB (NF-κB) signaling, whereas it activated nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 (Nrf2)/heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1) signaling. Interestingly, the cytoprotective effects of (-)-loliolide against IFN-γ/TNF-α stimulation were significantly blocked upon inhibition of HO-1. Taken together, these results suggest that (-)-loliolide effectively suppressed the oxidative stress and inflammation by activating the Nrf2/HO-1 signaling in IFN-γ/TNF-α-stimulated HaCaT keratinocytes.

Effectiveness of interventions to increase uptake and completion of treatment for diabetic retinopathy in low- and middle-income countries: a rapid review protocol

BACKGROUND

Vision loss due to diabetic retinopathy can largely be prevented or delayed through treatment. Patients with vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy are typically offered laser or intravitreal injections which often require more than one treatment cycle. However, treatment is not always initiated, or it is not completed, resulting in poor visual outcomes. Interventions aimed at improving the uptake or completion of treatment for diabetic retinopathy can potentially help prevent or delay visual loss in people with diabetes.

METHODS

We will search MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health and Cochrane Register of Studies for studies reporting interventions to improve the uptake of treatment for diabetic retinopathy (DR) and/or diabetic macular oedema (DMO), compared with usual care, in adults with diabetes. The review will include studies published in the last 20 years in the English language. We will include any study design that measured any of the following outcomes in relation to treatment uptake and completion for DR and/or DMO: (1) proportion of patients initiating treatment for DR and/or DMO among those to whom it is recommended, (2) proportion of patients completing treatment for DR and/or DMO among those to whom it is recommended, (3) proportion of patients completing treatment for DR and/or DMO among those initiating treatment and (4) number and proportion of DR and/or DMO rounds of treatment completed per patient, as dictated by the treatment protocol. For included studies, we will also report any measures of cost-effectiveness when available. Two reviewers will screen search results independently. Risk of bias assessment will be done by two reviewers, and data extraction will be done by one reviewer with verification of 10% of the papers by a second reviewer. The results will be synthesised narratively.

DISCUSSION

This rapid review aims to identify and synthesise the peer-reviewed literature on the effectiveness of interventions to increase uptake and completion of treatment for DR and/or DMO in LMICs. The rapid review methodology was chosen in order to rapidly synthesise the available evidence to support programme implementers and policy-makers in designing evidence-based health programmes and public health policy and inform the allocation of resources.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

OSF osf.io/h5wgr.

Intravitreal steroids for macular edema in diabetes

BACKGROUND

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is secondary to leakage from diseased retinal capillaries with thickening of central retina, and is an important cause of poor central visual acuity in people with diabetic retinopathy. Intravitreal steroids have been used to reduce retinal thickness and improve vision in people with DME.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of intravitreal steroid therapy compared with other treatments for DME.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase on 15 May, 2019. We also searched reference lists, Science Citation Index, conference proceedings, and relevant trial registers. We conducted a top up search on 21 October, 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that evaluated any type of intravitreal steroids as monotherapy against any other intervention (e.g. observation, laser photocoagulation, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (antiVEGF) for DME.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 trials (4348 participants, 4505 eyes). These trials compared intravitreal steroid therapies versus other treatments, including intravitreal antiVEGF therapy, laser photocoagulation, and sham injection. Most trials had an overall unclear or high risk of bias. One trial (701 eyes ) compared intravitreal dexamethasone implant 0.7mg with sham. We found moderate-certainty evidence that dexamethasone leads to slightly more improvement of visual acuity than sham at 12 months (mean difference [MD] -0.08 logMAR, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.12 to -0.05 logMAR). Regarding improvement of three or more lines of visual acuity, there was moderate-certainty evidence in favor of dexamethasone at 12 months, but the CI covered the null value (risk ratio (RR) 1.39, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.12). Regarding adverse events, dexamethasone increased by about four times the risk of cataract progression and the risk of using intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering medications compared to sham (RR 3.89, 95% CI 2.75 to 5.50 and RR 4.54, 95% CI 3.19 to 6.46, respectively; moderate-certainty evidence); about 4 in 10 participants treated with dexamethasone needed IOP-lowering medications. Two trials (451 eyes) compared intravitreal dexamethasone implant 0.7mg with intravitreal antiVEGF (bevacizumab and ranibizumab). There was moderate-certainty evidence that visual acuity improved slightly less with dexamethasone compared with antiVEGF at 12 months (MD 0.07 logMAR, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.09 logMAR; 2 trials; 451 participants/eyes; I² = 0%). The RR of gain of three or more lines of visual acuity was inconsistent between trials, with one trial finding no evidence of a difference between dexamethasone and bevacizumab at 12 months (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.40; 1 trial; 88 eyes), and the other, larger trial finding the chances of vision gain were half with dexamethasone compared with ranibizumab (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.79; 1 trial; 432 participants). The certainty of evidence was low. Cataract progression and the need for IOP-lowering medications increased more than 4 times with dexamethasone implant compared to antiVEGF (moderate-certainty evidence). One trial (560 eyes) compared intravitreal fluocinolone implant 0.19mg with sham. There was moderate-certainty evidence that visual acuity improved slightly more with fluocinolone at 12 months (MD -0.04 logMAR, 95% CI -0.06 to -0.01 logMAR). There was moderate-certainty evidence that an improvement in visual acuity of three or more lines was more common with fluocinolone than with sham at 12 months (RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.78). Fluocinolone also increased the risk of cataract progression (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.35 to 1.97; participants = 335; moderate-certainty evidence), which occurred in about 8 in 10 participants, and the use of IOP-lowering medications (RR 2.72, 95% CI 1.87 to 3.98; participants = 558; moderate-certainty evidence), which were needed in 2 to 3 out of 10 participants. One small trial with 43 participants (69 eyes) compared intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection 4 mg with sham. There may be a benefit in visual acuity at 24 months (MD -0.11 logMAR, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.03 logMAR), but the certainty of evidence is low. Differences in adverse effects were poorly reported in this trial. Two trials (615 eyes) compared intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection 4mg with laser photocoagulation and reached discordant results. The smaller trial (31 eyes followed up to 9 months) found more visual acuity improvement with triamcinolone (MD -0.18 logMAR, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07 logMAR), but a larger, multicenter trial (584 eyes, 12-month follow-up) found no evidence of a difference regarding change in visual acuity (MD 0.02 logMAR, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.07 logMAR) or gain of three or more lines of visual acuity (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.30) (overall low-certainty evidence). Cataract progression was about three times more likely (RR 2.68, 95% CI 2.21 to 3.24; moderate-certainty evidence) and the use of IOP-lowering medications was about four times more likely (RR 3.92, 95% CI 2.59 to 5.96; participants = 627; studies = 2; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) with triamcinolone. About 1 in 3 participants needed IOP-lowering medication. One small trial (30 eyes) compared intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection 4mg with intravitreal antiVEGF (bevacizumab or ranibizumab). Visual acuity may be worse with triamcinolone at 12 months (MD 0.18 logMAR, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.26 logMAR); the certainty of evidence is low. Adverse effects were poorly reported in this trial. Four trials reported data on pseudophakic participants, for whom cataract is not a concern. These trials found no decrease in visual acuity in the second treatment year due to cataract progression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Intravitreal steroids may improve vision in people with DME compared to sham or control. Effects were small, about one line of vision or less in most comparisons. More evidence is available for dexamethasone or fluocinolone implants when compared to sham, and the evidence is limited and inconsistent for the comparison of dexamethasone with antiVEGF treatment. Any benefits should be weighed against IOP elevation, the use of IOP-lowering medication and, in phakic patients, the progression of cataract. The need for glaucoma surgery is also increased, but remains rare.

Efficiency analysis by mfERG and OCT of intravitreal injection with ranibizumab on diabetic macular edema

AIM

To analyze the clinical efficacy of intravitreal injection of ranibizumab (IVR) on diabetic macular edema (DME) with multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) and optical coherence tomography (OCT).

METHODS

A total of 41 patients (41 eyes) with DME were treated with IVR. The best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), mfERG results, and OCT were analyzed to compare to the baselines at 1wk, 1, and 3mo after operation.

RESULTS

The BCVA was significantly improved in all eyes at each time point (P<0.001). The macular area leakage and edema were reduced 1wk and 1mo after IVR, and the central fovea thickness (CFT) was significantly reduced compared to baseline (P<0.001). The mfERG, two-dimensional and three-dimensional images all showed that the macular fovea (1 ring) response density decreased, and the fovea and macular area spikes significantly decreased or disappeared. The amplitude density of the P1 wave was increased, and the latency of the P1 wave was shortened than preoperation (P<0.001). At 1wk and 1mo after the operation, there was a negative correlation between the amplitude density of P1 waves and CFT.

CONCLUSION

OCT and mfERG fully demonstrate the importance of IVR for DME patients from the macular morphology and function, especially the significance of mfERG in this disease.

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

OBJECTIVE

To 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).

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov registry were searched from inception to 10 December 2019, without language restrictions.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised 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 SYNTHESIS

Two 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.

RESULTS

Four 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 (MD_{6 months}=-12.68; 95% CI -21.98 to -3.37 letters; MD_{12 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.

CONCLUSION

Compared 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.

Corticosteroids for Diabetic Macular Edema

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a chronic condition with a multifactorial pathogenesis. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and several inflammatory mediators are upregulated in eyes with DME. VEGF inhibitors and corticosteroids have all been used successfully in the management of DME. Currently available corticosteroids include triamcinolone acetonide (TA), the dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implant, and the fluocinolone acetonide (FA) intravitreal implant. The response to treatment can vary substantially with each treatment modality. Some cases of DME are VEGF driven, and in others, inflammation plays a key role. Chronicity appears to favor corticosteroid treatment. There are no clear guidelines to guide switching from an anti-VEGF to a corticosteroid. Combination therapy of an anti-VEGF drug and a corticosteroid does not appear to provide additional benefit over monotherapy with either drug. The main advantage of corticosteroids over VEGF inhibitors is their longer duration of action. Vitrectomy does not affect the pharmacokinetics of the corticosteroid implants. Common adverse events of corticosteroids include cataract formation, cataract progression, and ocular hypertension. TA may cause a sterile endophthalmitis and pseudoendophthalmitis. Migration of the intravitreal DEX and FA implants into the anterior chamber can be problematic. Because of their less favorable safety profile, corticosteroids are generally used as a second-line treatment for DME. Advantages of using an intravitreal corticosteroid implant include the reduction of treatment burden and predictable pharmacokinetics even in vitrectomized eyes. Pseudophakic eyes, previously vitrectomized eyes and eyes with long-standing DME, particularly of patients who have difficulty in maintaining a monthly appointment, may benefit from primary treatment with a corticosteroid intravitreal implant.

A Comparison Study of Ranibizumab and Aflibercept in Patients with Naive Diabetic Macular Edema in Presence of Serous Retinal Detachment

Aim of the study: The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of intravitreal injection of Aflibercept and Ranibizumab in the treatment of naive diabetic macular edema (DME) with serous retinal detachment (SRD). Materials and methods: In this prospective, non-randomized-cohort study, 60 eyes with DME with SRD were divided into 2 groups: group 1 consisted of 30 eyes treated with intravitreal injection of 0.5 mg/0.1 mL Ranibizumab (IVR) and group 2 consisted of 30 eyes treated with intravitreal injection of 2 mg/0.05 mL Aflibercept (IVA). After three sequential injections with 30-40-day interval as a loading dose, all patients were followed up for 12 months. The best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), SRD's height (SRDH) and the number of reinjections of the drugs were compared. Results: The groups were similar in terms of age and sex (p > 0.05). There was no difference between groups in terms of the baseline BCVA, CMT and SRDH (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference between groups with regard to BCVA and CMT values for 12 months (p > 0.05). SRDH decreased significantly in both groups; however, the reduction of SRDH was considerably higher in group 2 for 12 months (p < 0.05). The mean number of reinjection was 4.40 ± 0.85 in group 1 and 3.16 ± 0.75 in group 2 and it was noticeably lower in group 2 (p < 0.001). The number of cases with persistent SRD at the end of the study was 14 (46.6%) in group 1 and 5 (16.6%) in group 2 (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Aflibercept may treat SRD more efficiently in patients with DME compared to Ranibizumab with fewer injections.

Ozurdex for refractory macular edema secondary to diabetes, vein occlusion, uveitis and pseudophakia

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the functional and morphological effects of the intravitreal dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex, Allergan) on patients with macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO), diabetic retinopathy (DME), posterior noninfectious uveitis (NIU), or pseudophakic Irvine-Gass syndrome (IGS).

METHODS

144 charts were retrospectively reviewed; 100 eyes met inclusion criteria for analysis: at least one intravitreal dexamethasone implant injection, refractory to antivascular endothelial growth factor, and had ≥6 months of follow-up postinsertion. The primary outcome was the efficacy of the dexamethasone implant in reducing macular edema as measured by reduction in central retinal thickness (CRT). Secondary outcomes included visual acuity (VA), duration of treatment efficacy (measured by time to next treatment), and safety. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare values from baseline, and Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to analyze time to retreatment.

RESULTS

There were 28 patients with RVO, 30 with DME, 24 with posterior NIU, and 18 with IGS. VA improved from baseline to month 6 in all groups, but was not statistically significant. CRT improved in all 4 groups, and was statistically significant for DME (p = 0.008) and NIU (p = 0.05). At 3 months, 34 patients (41.5%) required retreatment; by month 6, 46 patients (56.1%) required retreatment. There was a large variation between the groups in number of patients requiring intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering medications. Two patients needed IOP-lowering surgery. One patient developed endophthalmitis.

CONCLUSION

The use of intravitreal dexamethasone implants in patients with refractory retinal diseases is well tolerated and results in consistently improved anatomic outcomes, but the positive anatomic outcomes are not necessarily correlated to improvements in visual function. Patients who are treated earlier in the disease process will had better outcomes. This patient population were refractory to treatment and, therefore, have less-predictable functional outcomes.

Statins and/or fibrates for diabetic retinopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Evidence from observational studies have found a relationship between serum cholesterol and diabetic retinopathy (DR). Apart of the assumption that cholesterolemic control has benefits for patients with diabetes with or without retinopathy, the effects of lipid-lowering drugs have not been properly mapped and critically assessed so far. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of statins and/or fibrates on prevention and progression of DR. We conducted a Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and reported in accordance to PRISMA Statement. GRADE approach was used to summarize the certainty of the evidence. Eight RCTs that fulfilled our eligibility criteria were included, assessing the effects of fibrates (n = 4), statins (n = 3) and fibrate plus statins (n = 1) for therapy (n = 8) or prevention (n = 4) of DR. Overall, the main concern regarding risk of bias assessment was due to incomplete outcome data because high rate of losses in five RCTs. Furthermore, the risk of reporting bias was rated unclear due the lack of previously published protocol in seven RCTs. Fibrates seemed to be associated with a 45% risk reduction of macular edema incidence (Relative Risk 0.55, 95% confidence interval of 0.38 to 0.81, 1309 participants, 2 RCTs, I² = 0%, low certainty of the evidence). The certainty of evidence for other outcomes was also very low or low, and we are uncertain regarding the effects of fibrates for DR. Overall, adverse events seemed to be similar between fibrate and placebo, but again based on the width of the confidence intervals, an important increase of adverse events cannot be rule out. The combination statin/fibrate did not seem to have benefit for visual acuity but is likely that further studies can modify this estimate since the current evidence is limited. Adverse events and quality of life were not measured or reported. Concluding, this study found eight RCTs, with limited methodological quality, that assessed the effects of fibrates and/or statins for DR. Based on these findings, we are uncertain about the effects of statins for DR. Fibrates seemed to reduce the incidence of macular edema (low certainty evidence) without increase adverse events (low to very low certainty evidence). Number of Protocol registration PROSPERO CRD42016029746.

Dexamethasone implant as an adjuvant therapy to ranibizumab loading dose in persistent diabetic macular edema

PURPOSE

This study evaluates the effectiveness of a single-dose dexamethasone implant (DI) as an auxiliary therapy to continued intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) treatment in patients with persistent diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

Twenty-five pseudophakic eyes of 25 patients with DME who underwent a single injection of DI as an adjuvant therapy following an IVR loading dose were examined retrospectively. All patients were treatment naive and had a poor response to a loading dose of three consecutive monthly IVR injections. IVR treatments were continued pro re nata after the DI. The main outcome measures were changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) at 1, 3, 6 and 8 months post-DI treatment.

RESULTS

After the IVR loading dose, the mean BCVA and CMT were 0.9 ± 0.6 LogMAR and 478.2 ± 107.8 µm, respectively. One month after the DI, the mean BCVA and CMT had improved to 0.6 ± 0.4 LogMAR (p = 0.005) and 313.8 ± 62.7 µm (p < 0.001), respectively. This improvement was maintained with mean 0.8 ± 0.8 IVR injections throughout the follow-up period. The final mean BCVA and CMT were 0.5 ± 0.5 LogMAR and 298.4 ± 71.5 µm. Subgroup analyses revealed that different DME types did not have any effect on CMT or BCVA improvement (p = 0.188, p = 0.136; respectively).

CONCLUSION

Adding DI results in rapid anatomical and visual improvement in patients who respond poorly to an IVR loading dose. Improvements may be maintained with additional IVR in follow-up.

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for diabetic macular oedema: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a common complication of diabetic retinopathy. Antiangiogenic therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) can reduce oedema, improve vision and prevent further visual loss. These drugs have replaced laser photocoagulation as the standard of care for people with DMO.

OBJECTIVES

The 2014 update of this review found high-quality evidence of benefit with anti-VEGF modalities, compared to laser photocoagulation, for the treatment of DMO. The objective of this updated review is to compare the effectiveness and safety of the different anti-VEGF drugs using network meta-analysis methods.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched various electronic databases on 26 April 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any anti-angiogenic drug with an anti-VEGF mechanism of action versus another anti-VEGF drug, another treatment, sham or no treatment in people with DMO.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods for pair-wise meta-analysis and we augmented this evidence using network meta-analysis methods. We focused on the relative efficacy and safety of the three most commonly used drugs as interventions of direct interest for practice: aflibercept and ranibizumab, used on-label; and off-label bevacizumab.We collected data on three efficacy outcomes (gain of 15 or more Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters; mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA); mean change in central retinal thickness (CRT)), three safety outcomes (all severe systemic adverse events (SSAEs); all-cause death; arterial thromboembolic events) and quality of life.We used Stata 'network' meta-analysis package for all analyses. We investigated the risk of bias of mixed comparisons based on the variance contribution of each study, having assigned an overall risk of bias to each study.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-four studies included 6007 participants with DMO and moderate vision loss, of which two studies randomised 265 eyes of 230 participants and one was a cross-over study on 56 participants (62 eyes) that was treated as a parallel-arm trial. Data were collected on drugs of direct interest from three studies on aflibercept (975 eyes), eight studies on bevacizumab (515 eyes), and 14 studies on ranibizumab (1518 eyes). As treatments of indirect interest or legacy treatment we included three studies on pegaptanib (541 eyes), five studies on ranibizumab plus prompt laser (557 eyes), one study on ranibizumab plus deferred laser (188 eyes), 13 studies on laser photocoagulation (936 eyes) and six studies on sham treatment (793 eyes).Aflibercept, bevacizumab and ranibizumab were all more effective than laser for improving vision by 3 or more lines after one year (high-certainty evidence). Approximately one in 10 people improve vision with laser, and about three in 10 people improve with anti-VEGF treatment: risk ratio (RR) versus laser 3.66 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.79 to 4.79) for aflibercept; RR 2.47 (95% CI 1.81 to 3.37) for bevacizumab; RR 2.76 (95% CI 2.12 to 3.59) for ranibizumab. On average there was no change in visual acuity (VA) with laser after one year, compared with a gain of 1 or 2 lines with anti-VEGF treatment: laser versus aflibercept mean difference (MD) -0.20 (95% CI -0.22 to -0.17) logMAR; versus bevacizumab MD -0.12 (95% CI -0.15 to -0.09) logMAR; versus ranibizumab MD -0.12 (95% CI -0.14 to -0.10) logMAR. The certainty of the evidence was high for the comparison of aflibercept and ranibizumab with laser and moderate for bevacizumab comparison with laser due to inconsistency between the indirect and direct evidence.People receiving ranibizumab were less likely to gain 3 or more lines of VA at one year compared with aflibercept: RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.94), moderate-certainty evidence. For every 1000 people treated with aflibercept, 92 fewer would gain 3 or more lines of VA at one year if treated with ranibizumab (22 to 148 fewer). On average people receiving ranibizumab had worse VA at one year (MD 0.08 logMAR units, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.11), moderate-certainty evidence; and higher CRT (MD 39 µm, 95% CI 2 µm to 76 µm; low-certainty evidence). Ranibizumab and bevacizumab were comparable with respect to aflibercept and did not differ in terms of VA: RR of gain of 3 or more lines of VA at one year 1.11 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.43), moderate-certainty evidence, and difference in change in VA was 0.00 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.03) logMAR, moderate-certainty evidence. CRT reduction favoured ranibizumab by -29 µm (95% CI -58 µm to -1 µm, low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of overall statistical inconsistency in our analyses.The previous version of this review found moderate-certainty evidence of good safety of antiangiogenic drugs versus control. This update used data at the longest available follow-up (one or two years) and found that aflibercept, ranibizumab and bevacizumab do not differ regarding systemic serious adverse events (SSAEs) (moderate- or high-certainty evidence). However, risk of bias was variable, loop inconsistency could be found and estimates were not precise enough on relative safety regarding less frequent events such as arterial thromboembolic events or death (low- or very low-certainty evidence).Two-year data were available and reported in only four RCTs in this review. Most industry-sponsored studies were open-label after one year. One large publicly-funded study compared the three drugs at two years and found no difference.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Anti-VEGF drugs are effective at improving vision in people with DMO with three to four in every 10 people likely to experience an improvement of 3 or more lines VA at one year. Aflibercept may confer some advantage over ranibizumab and bevacizumab in people with DMO at one year in visual and anatomic terms but it is unclear whether this applies to the long-term. There is a need for more evidence on the long-term (greater than two years) comparative effects of these anti-VEGF agents. Evidence from RCTs may not apply to real-world practice, where people in need of antiangiogenic treatment are often under-treated and under-monitored.We found no signals of differences in overall safety between the three antiangiogenic drugs that are currently available to treat DMO, but our estimates are imprecise for cardiovascular events and death.

Monotherapy laser photocoagulation for diabetic macular oedema

BACKGROUND

Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a complication of diabetic retinopathy and one of the most common causes of visual impairment in people with diabetes. Clinically significant macular oedema (CSMO) is the most severe form of DMO. Intravitreal antiangiogenic therapy is now the standard treatment for DMO involving the centre of the macula, but laser photocoagulation is still used in milder or non-central DMO.

OBJECTIVES

To access the efficacy and safety of laser photocoagulation as monotherapy in the treatment of diabetic macular oedema.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; MEDLINE; Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the search was 24 July 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any type of focal/grid macular laser photocoagulation versus another type or technique of laser treatment and no intervention. We did not compare laser versus other interventions as these are covered by other Cochrane Reviews.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were gain or loss of 3 lines (0.3 logMAR or 15 ETDRS letters) of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at one year of follow-up (plus or minus six months) after treatment initiation. Secondary outcomes included final or mean change in BCVA, resolution of macular oedema, central retinal thickness, quality of life and adverse events, all at one year. We graded the certainty of the evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 24 studies (4422 eyes). The trials were conducted in Europe (nine studies), USA (seven), Asia (four) and, Africa (one), Latin America (one), Europe-Asian (one) and Oceania (one). The methodological quality of the studies was difficult to assess as they were poorly reported, so the predominant classification of bias was unclear.At one year, people with DMO receiving laser were less likely to lose BCVA compared with no intervention (risk ratio (RR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.90; 3703 eyes; 4 studies; I² = 71%; moderate-certainty evidence). There were also favourable effects observed at two and three years. One study (350 eyes) reported on partial or complete resolution of clinically significant DMO and found moderate-certainty evidence of a benefit at three years with photocoagulation (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.86). Data on visual improvement, final BCVA, central macular thickness and quality of life were not available. One study related minor adverse effects on the central visual field and another reported one case of iatrogenic premacular fibrosis.Nine studies compared subthreshold versus standard macular photocoagulation (517 eyes). Subthreshold treatment was achieved with different methods of photocoagulation: non-visible conventional (two studies), micropulse (four) or nanopulse (one).Only one small study (29 eyes) reported on improvement or worsening of BCVA and estimates were very imprecise (improvement: RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.09; worsening: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.15 to 5.76; very low-certainty evidence). All studies reported on continuous BCVA at one year; there was low-certainty evidence of no important difference between subthreshold and standard photocoagulation (mean difference (MD) in logMAR BCVA -0.02, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.03; 385 eyes; 7 studies; I² = 42%), and were possibly different for different techniques (P = 0.07 and I² = 61.5% for subgroup heterogeneity), with better results achieved with micropulse photocoagulation (MD -0.08 logMAR, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.0) as compared to the results achieved with nanopulse (MD 0.0 logMAR, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.06) and non-visible conventional (MD 0.04 logMAR, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.11), all of them compared to the standard lasers. One study reported partial to complete resolution of macular oedema at one year. There was low-certainty evidence of some benefit with standard photocoagulation, but estimates of effect were imprecise (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.03; 29 eyes; 1 study). Studies also reported on the change in central macular thickness at one year and found moderate-certainty evidence of no important difference between subthreshold and standard photocoagulation (MD -9.1 μm, 95% CI -26.2 to 8.0; 385 eyes; 7 studies; I² = 0%). There were no important adverse effects recorded in the studies.Nine studies compared argon laser versus another type of laser (997 eyes). There was moderate-certainty evidence of a small reduction or no difference between the interventions, with respect to improvement (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.22; 773 eyes; 6 studies) and worsening of BCVA (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.21; 773 eyes; 6 studies). Three studies reported few cases of subretinal fibrosis and neovascularization with argon laser and one study found subretinal fibrosis in the krypton group.One study (323 eyes) compared the modified ETDRS (mETDRS) grid technique with the mild macular grid (MMG), which uses mild, widely spaced burns throughout the macula. There was low-certainty evidence of an increased chance of visual improvement with MMG, but the estimate was imprecisely measured and the CIs include an increased risk or decreased risk of visual improvement at one year (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.56 to 3.65; visual worsening: RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.05; change of logMAR visual acuity: MD -0.04 logMAR, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.09). There was a more significant reduction of central macular thickness with the mETDRS compared to the MMG technique (MD -34.0 µm, -59.8 to -8.3) in the MMG group. The study did not record important adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Laser photocoagulation reduces the chances of visual loss and increases those of partial to complete resolution of DMO compared to no intervention at one to three years. Subthreshold photocoagulation, particularly the micropulse technique, may be as effective as standard photocoagulation and RCTs are ongoing to assess whether this minimally invasive technique is preferable to treat milder or non-central cases of DMO.

Evaluation of Vitrectomy with Planned Foveal Detachment as Surgical Treatment for Refractory Diabetic Macular Edema with or without Vitreomacular Interface Abnormality

Purpose

To evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of subretinal BSS injections done during vitrectomy for refractory diabetic macular edema (DME) resistant to other modes of treatment including previous vitrectomy.

Materials and Methods

A prospective, interventional noncomparative case series in which cases had refractory DME with a central macular thickness (CMT) ≥ 300 μm, despite previous anti-VEGF therapy (ranibizumab or bevacizumab with shifting to aflibercept). Some cases even received intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection, before attempting this solution. The study included group 1, surgically naïve eyes, and group 2, cases with persistent edema despite a previous vitrectomy (7 eyes (25%)). The cases were also divided into group a, eyes with normal vitreomacular interface, and group b, with abnormal vitreomacular attachment (VMA) (6 (21.4%)). The 1ry endpoint for this study was the change in CMT after 9–12 months from surgery. The 2ry endpoints were change in BCVA, recurrence of DME, and surgical complications.

Results

The study included 28 eyes, 6 (21.4%) of which suffered from edema recurrence. The mean recorded CMT was 496 ± 88.7 μm and 274.1 ± 31.6 μm preoperatively and postoperatively, respectively. In all eyes, the preoperative mean BCVA in decimal form was 0.2 ± 0.11, which improved significantly to 0.45 ± 0.2. In the end, the CMT of groups 1 and 2 measured 239 μm and 170.8 μm, respectively (p = 0.019). The preoperative BCVA in groups 1 and 2 was 0.16 ± 0.07 and 0.37 ± 0.14, respectively, which improved to a mean of 0.34 ± 0.09 and 0.7 ± 0.16 postoperatively, respectively (p = 0.185).

Conclusion

Vitrectomy with a planned foveal detachment technique was shown to be a promising solution for refractory DME cases with rapid edema resolution. CMT was shown to improve more in eyes where conventional vitrectomy was not attempted. Moreover, cases with VMA resistant to pharmacotherapy was shown to respond well to this technique. The study has been registered in Contact ClinicalTrials.gov PRS Identifier: NCT03345056.

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor combined with intravitreal steroids for diabetic macular oedema

BACKGROUND

The combination of steroid and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) intravitreal therapeutic agents could potentially have synergistic effects for treating diabetic macular oedema (DMO). On the one hand, if combined treatment is more effective than monotherapy, there would be significant implications for improving patient outcomes. Conversely, if there is no added benefit of combination therapy, then people could be potentially exposed to unnecessary local or systemic side effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of intravitreal agents that block vascular endothelial growth factor activity (anti-VEGF agents) plus intravitreal steroids versus monotherapy with macular laser, intravitreal steroids or intravitreal anti-VEGF agents for managing DMO.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2018, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the search was 21 February 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of intravitreal anti-VEGF combined with intravitreal steroids versus intravitreal anti-VEGF alone, intravitreal steroids alone or macular laser alone for managing DMO. We included people with DMO of all ages and both sexes. We also included trials where both eyes from one participant received different treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane.Two authors independently reviewed all the titles and abstracts identified from the electronic and manual searches against the inclusion criteria. Our primary outcome was change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between baseline and one year. Secondary outcomes included change in central macular thickness (CMT), economic data and quality of life. We considered adverse effects including intraocular inflammation, raised intraocular pressure (IOP) and development of cataract.

MAIN RESULTS

There were eight RCTs (703 participants, 817 eyes) that met our inclusion criteria with only three studies reporting outcomes at one year. The studies took place in Iran (3), USA (2), Brazil (1), Czech Republic (1) and South Korea (1). Seven studies used the unlicensed anti-VEGF agent bevacizumab and one study used licensed ranibizumab. The study that used licensed ranibizumab had a unique design compared with the other studies in that included eyes had persisting DMO after anti-VEGF monotherapy and received three monthly doses of ranibizumab prior to allocation. The anti-VEGF agent was combined with intravitreal triamcinolone in six studies and with an intravitreal dexamethasone implant in two studies. The comparator group was anti-VEGF alone in all studies; two studies had an additional steroid monotherapy arm, another study had an additional macular laser photocoagulation arm. Whilst we judged these studies to be at low risk of bias for most domains, at least one domain was at unclear risk in all studies.When comparing anti-VEGF/steroid with anti-VEGF monotherapy as primary therapy for DMO, we found no meaningful clinical difference in change in BCVA (mean difference (MD) -2.29 visual acuity (VA) letters, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.03 to 1.45; 3 RCTs; 188 eyes; low-certainty evidence) or change in CMT (MD 0.20 μm, 95% CI -37.14 to 37.53; 3 RCTs; 188 eyes; low-certainty evidence) at one year. There was very low-certainty evidence on intraocular inflammation from 8 studies, with one event in the anti-VEGF/steroid group (313 eyes) and two events in the anti-VEGF group (322 eyes). There was a greater risk of raised IOP (Peto odds ratio (OR) 8.13, 95% CI 4.67 to 14.16; 635 eyes; 8 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) and development of cataract (Peto OR 7.49, 95% CI 2.87 to 19.60; 635 eyes; 8 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) in eyes receiving anti-VEGF/steroid compared with anti-VEGF monotherapy. There was low-certainty evidence from one study of an increased risk of systemic adverse events in the anti-VEGF/steroid group compared with the anti-VEGF alone group (Peto OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.86; 103 eyes).One study compared anti-VEGF/steroid versus macular laser therapy. At one year investigators did not report a meaningful difference between the groups in change in BCVA (MD 4.00 VA letters 95% CI -2.70 to 10.70; 80 eyes; low-certainty evidence) or change in CMT (MD -16.00 μm, 95% CI -68.93 to 36.93; 80 eyes; low-certainty evidence). There was very low-certainty evidence suggesting an increased risk of cataract in the anti-VEGF/steroid group compared with the macular laser group (Peto OR 4.58, 95% 0.99 to 21.10, 100 eyes) and an increased risk of elevated IOP in the anti-VEGF/steroid group compared with the macular laser group (Peto OR 9.49, 95% CI 2.86 to 31.51; 100 eyes).One study provided very low-certainty evidence comparing anti-VEGF/steroid versus steroid monotherapy at one year. There was no evidence of a meaningful difference in BCVA between treatments at one year (MD 0 VA letters, 95% CI -6.1 to 6.1, low-certainty evidence). Likewise, there was no meaningful difference in the mean CMT at one year (MD - 9 μm, 95% CI -39.87μm to 21.87μm between the anti-VEGF/steroid group and the steroid group. There was very low-certainty evidence on raised IOP at one year comparing the anti-VEGF/steroid versus steroid groups (Peto OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.55).No included study reported impact of treatment on patients' quality of life or economic data. None of the studies reported any cases of endophthalmitis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Combination of intravitreal anti-VEGF plus intravitreal steroids does not appear to offer additional visual benefit compared with monotherapy for DMO; at present the evidence for this is of low-certainty. There was an increased rate of cataract development and raised intraocular pressure in eyes treated with anti-VEGF plus steroid versus anti-VEGF alone. Patients were exposed to potential side effects of both these agents without reported additional benefit. The majority of the evidence comes from studies of bevacizumab and triamcinolone used as primary therapy for DMO. There is limited evidence from studies using licensed intravitreal anti-VEGF agents plus licensed intravitreal steroid implants with at least one year follow-up. It is not known whether treatment response is different in eyes that are phakic and pseudophakic at baseline.

Clinical Decision-Making when Treating Diabetic Macular Edema Patients with Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implants

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a metabolic disease frequently associated with comorbidities that include diabetic macular edema (DME). The current medical approach to treating DME involves intravitreal injections with either anti-vascular endothelial growth factors or steroids. However, the burden associated with intravitreal injections and DM-derived complications is high, underlining the need to find optimal treatment regimens. In this article we describe the considerations we apply when treating DME patients with dexamethasone intravitreal implants (Ozurdex®), particularly those that influence the clinical decision-making process during the follow-up period. These considerations are based both on the available medical literature and on our clinical experience following the use of these implants in this type of patient, the goal being to optimize the number of injections and the clinical outcome of this therapy. We also provide a general overview of the pathophysiology of DME, highlighting the inflammatory component as a rationale to use steroids in these patients.

EFFICACY AND SAFETY OUTCOMES OF INTRAVITREAL AFLIBERCEPT FOCUSING ON PATIENTS WITH DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA FROM JAPAN

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravitreal aflibercept injection (IAI) in Japanese patients with diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

VIVID-DME was a Phase 3 study comprising patients with DME randomized 1:1:1 to IAI 2 mg every 4 weeks (2q4), IAI 2 mg every 4 weeks until Week 16 then 8-week dosing (2q8), and laser. A total of 403 patients (76 Japanese) were included in this study. VIVID-Japan (72; all Japanese patients) was a nonrandomized, open-label study comprising Japanese patients with DME receiving IAI 2q4 until Week 16, then 2q8. Primary efficacy endpoint (Week 52) of VIVID-DME was mean change from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity; VIVID-Japan evaluated safety and tolerability.

RESULTS

Mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (letters) for 2q4, 2q8, and laser groups was +10.6, +10.9, and +1.2 and +9.8, +9.5, and +1.1 in the non-Japanese and Japanese populations of VIVID-DME, respectively. In VIVID-Japan, it was +9.3 for IAI 2q8. Intravitreal aflibercept injection also provided consistently greater benefits for anatomical outcomes versus laser. Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of IAI.

CONCLUSION

In Japanese patients with DME, IAI treatment was superior to laser for visual and anatomical outcomes and resulted in efficacy and safety outcomes similar to those in a non-Japanese patient population.

Aldo-Keto Reductases: Multifunctional Proteins as Therapeutic Targets in Diabetes and Inflammatory Disease

Aldose reductase (AR) is an NADPH-dependent aldo-keto reductase that has been shown to be involved in the pathogenesis of several blinding diseases such as uveitis, diabetic retinopathy (DR) and cataract. However, possible mechanisms linking the action of AR to these diseases are not well understood. As DR and cataract are among the leading causes of blindness in the world, there is an urgent need to explore therapeutic strategies to prevent or delay their onset. Studies with AR inhibitors and gene-targeted mice have demonstrated that the action of AR is also linked to cancer onset and progression. In this review we examine possible mechanisms that relate AR to molecular signaling cascades and thus explain why AR inhibition is an effective strategy against colon cancer as well as diseases of the eye such as uveitis, cataract, and retinopathy.

Predictors of uptake of eye examination in people living with diabetes mellitus in three counties of Kenya

BACKGROUND

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a significant public health concern that is potentially blinding. Clinical practice guidelines recommend annual eye examination of patients with diabetes for early detection of DR. Our aim was to identify the demand-side factors that influence uptake of eye examination among patients already utilizing diabetes services in three counties of Kenya.

METHODS

We designed a clinic based cross-sectional study and used three-stage sampling to select three counties, nine diabetes clinics in these counties and 270 patients with diabetes attending these clinics. We interviewed the participants using a structured questionnaire. The two outcomes of interest were 'eye examination in the last 12 months' and 'eye examination ever'. The exposure variables were the characteristics of participants living with diabetes.

RESULTS

The participants had a mean age of 53.3 years (SD 14.1) and an average interval of 4 months between visits to the diabetes clinic. Only 25.6% of participants had ever had an eye examination in their lifetime, while 13.3% had it in the preceding year. The independent predictors of uptake were referral by diabetes services, patient knowledge of diabetes eye complications, comorbid hypertension and urban or semi-urban residence.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that access to retinal examination for DR is low in all three counties. An intervention that increases the knowledge of patients with diabetes about eye complications and promotes referral of patients with diabetes for eye examination may improve access to annual eye examination for DR.

Multifocal electroretinography changes at the 1-year follow-up in a cohort of diabetic macular edema patients treated with ranibizumab

PURPOSE

To determine the changes in the multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) at 1 year in a clinical series of diabetic macular edema (DME) patients treated with ranibizumab (RNBZ) using a pro re nata protocol.

METHODS

We analyzed a clinical series of 35 eyes of 35 patients with DME at baseline and after treating them with RNBZ over 1 year, in order to determine the change in the macular function, which was assessed by means of the response density and the implicit time of the first-order kernel (FOK) P1 wave of the mfERG at the foveola (R1), fovea (R2) and parafovea (R3). These electrophysiological parameters were studied taking into account different independent variables, such as DME type, degree of diabetic retinopathy (DR), level of preservation of both the ellipsoid zone (IS/OS) and the external limiting membrane (ELM) and changes in central retinal thickness (CRT) and total macular volume (TMV). We also studied the relationship between the response density and the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA).

RESULTS

Eyes with cystic and spongiform DME showed better response density with respect to the serous type (p < 0.001) at baseline. Similarly, eyes with high IS/OS and ELM preservation rates showed higher initial response density compared to the others (p < 0.001). Eyes with moderate DR had better response density compared to those with severe and proliferative DR (p = 0.001). At the beginning of the study, those eyes with proliferative and severe DR showed longer implicit times with respect to those with moderate DR (p = 0.04). The response density significantly increased in eyes that anatomically restored the IS/OS and the ELM after being treated with RNBZ (both p < 0.001). Similarly, eyes with spongiform DME further improved the response density with respect to those with cystic and serous DME (p < 0.001). On the contrary, eyes with hard exudates showed less improvement in their response density at the end of the study (p < 0.001). We observed a significant relationship between BCVA and the response density achieved at the end of the study (p = 0.012). Eyes with severe and proliferative DR significantly shortened implicit time compared to those with moderate DR (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The multifocal electroretinogram allowed us to differentiate groups of eyes with DME according to their electrophysiological profile, both initially and after being treated with RNBZ. Ranibizumab increased the response density in all DME types included in the study, with a maximum response in those eyes with spongiform type. Once treated with RNBZ, the macular electrophysiological activity improved in eyes that had a well-preserved ellipsoid zone and ELM. The presence of hard exudates was a limitation to the response density achieved at the foveola.

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for diabetic macular oedema: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a common complication of diabetic retinopathy. Antiangiogenic therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) modalities can reduce oedema and thereby improve vision and prevent further visual loss. These drugs have replaced laser photocoagulation as the standard of care for people with DMO.

OBJECTIVES

The 2014 update of this review found high-quality evidence of benefit with antiangiogenic therapy with anti-VEGF modalities, compared to laser photocoagulation, for the treatment of DMO.The objective of this updated review is to compare the effectiveness and safety of the different anti-VEGF drugs in preserving and improving vision and quality of life using network meta-analysis methods.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched various electronic databases on 26 April 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any anti-angiogenic drug with an anti-VEGF mechanism of action versus another anti-VEGF drug, another treatment, sham or no treatment in people with DMO.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods for pair-wise meta-analysis and we augmented this evidence using network meta-analysis methods. We focused on the relative efficacy and safety of the three most commonly used drugs as interventions of direct interest for practice: aflibercept and ranibizumab, used on-label; and off-label bevacizumab.We collected data on three efficacy outcomes (gain of 15 or more Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters; mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA); mean change in central retinal thickness (CRT)), three safety outcomes (all severe systemic adverse events (SSAEs); all-cause death; arterial thromboembolic events) and quality of life.We used Stata 'network' meta-analysis package for all analyses. We investigated the risk of bias of mixed comparisons based on the variance contribution of each study, having assigned an overall risk of bias to each study.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-four studies included 6007 participants with DMO and moderate vision loss, of which two studies randomised 265 eyes of 230 participants and one was a cross-over study on 56 participants (62 eyes) that was treated as a parallel-arm trial. Data were collected on drugs of direct interest from three studies on aflibercept (975 eyes), eight studies on bevacizumab (515 eyes), and 14 studies on ranibizumab (1518 eyes). As treatments of indirect interest or legacy treatment we included three studies on pegaptanib (541 eyes), five studies on ranibizumab plus prompt laser (557 eyes), one study on ranibizumab plus deferred laser (188 eyes), 13 studies on laser photocoagulation (936 eyes) and six studies on sham treatment (793 eyes).Aflibercept, bevacizumab and ranibizumab were all more effective than laser for improving vision by 3 or more lines after one year (high-certainty evidence). Approximately one in 10 people improve vision with laser, and about three in 10 people improve with anti-VEGF treatment: risk ratio (RR) versus laser 3.66 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.79 to 4.79) for aflibercept; RR 2.47 (95% CI 1.81 to 3.37) for bevacizumab; RR 2.76 (95% CI 2.12 to 3.59) for ranibizumab. On average there was no change in visual acuity (VA) with laser after one year, compared with a gain of 1 or 2 lines with anti-VEGF treatment: laser versus aflibercept mean difference (MD) -0.20 (95% CI -0.22 to -0.17) logMAR; versus bevacizumab MD -0.12 (95% CI -0.15 to -0.09) logMAR; versus ranibizumab MD -0.12 (95% CI -0.14 to -0.10) logMAR. The certainty of the evidence was high for the comparison of aflibercept and ranibizumab with laser and moderate for bevacizumab comparison with laser due to inconsistency between the indirect and direct evidence.People receiving ranibizumab were less likely to gain 3 or more lines of VA at one year compared with aflibercept: RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.94), moderate-certainty evidence. For every 1000 people treated with aflibercept, 92 fewer would gain 3 or more lines of VA at one year if treated with ranibizumab (22 to 148 fewer). On average people receiving ranibizumab had worse VA at one year (MD 0.08 logMAR units, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.11), moderate-certainty evidence; and higher CRT (MD 39 µm, 95% CI 2 µm to 76 µm; low-certainty evidence). Ranibizumab and bevacizumab were comparable with respect to aflibercept and did not differ in terms of VA: RR of gain of 3 or more lines of VA at one year 1.11 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.43), moderate-certainty evidence, and difference in change in VA was 0.00 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.03) logMAR, moderate-certainty evidence. CRT reduction favoured ranibizumab by -29 µm (95% CI -58 µm to -1 µm, low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of overall statistical inconsistency in our analyses.The previous version of this review found moderate-certainty evidence of good safety of antiangiogenic drugs versus control. This update used data at the longest available follow-up (one or two years) and found that aflibercept, ranibizumab and bevacizumab do not differ regarding systemic serious adverse events (SSAEs) (moderate- or high-certainty evidence). However, risk of bias was variable, loop inconsistency could be found and estimates were not precise enough on relative safety regarding less frequent events such as arterial thromboembolic events or death (low- or very low-certainty evidence).Two-year data were available and reported in only four RCTs in this review. Most industry-sponsored studies were open-label after one year. One large publicly-funded study compared the three drugs at two years and found no difference.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Anti-VEGF drugs are effective at improving vision in people with DMO with three to four in every 10 people likely to experience an improvement of 3 or more lines VA at one year. There is moderate-certainty evidence that aflibercept confers some advantage over ranibizumab and bevacizumab in people with DMO at one year in visual and anatomic terms. Relative effects among anti-VEGF drugs at two years are less well known, since most studies were short term. Evidence from RCTs may not apply to real-world practice, where people in need of antiangiogenic treatment are often under-treated and under-monitored.We found no signals of differences in overall safety between the three antiangiogenic drugs that are currently available to treat DMO, but our estimates are imprecise for cardiovascular events and death.

Therapeutic Options in Refractory Diabetic Macular Oedema

Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) results from alterations of several biochemical pathways in diabetic eyes. Centre-involving DMO is an important cause of visual loss in diabetes. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents are now the mainstay of centre-involving DMO treatment. Oedema that does not achieve optimal response to these agents occurs in a sizeable proportion of eyes and is called refractory or persistent DMO. Management of refractory DMO is challenging. In this paper, the pathophysiology of DMO, and the definitions used in various studies are summarised. Therapeutic options for refractory DMO management including corticosteroids, laser, combination therapies, and surgery are explored. Novel agents on the horizon for DMO control that are being investigated at present are discussed as well. A literature review was performed and a summary of the research studies for each of the agents is provided in order to guide the reader regarding the existing evidence for their application in DMO. Importance of early recognition of disease and prompt treatment to achieve best visual outcome is discussed. Utility of optical coherence tomography to guide disease diagnosis and monitoring is highlighted. An algorithmic approach for DMO management is described. Finally, the impact that personalized medicine and genetics might have on DMO management is assessed.

The treatment methods for post-stroke visual impairment: A systematic review

AIM

To provide a systematic overview of interventions for stroke related visual impairments.

METHOD

A systematic review of the literature was conducted including randomized controlled trials, controlled trials, cohort studies, observational studies, systematic reviews, and retrospective medical note reviews. All languages were included and translation obtained. This review covers adult participants (aged 18 years or over) diagnosed with a visual impairment as a direct cause of a stroke. Studies which included mixed populations were included if over 50% of the participants had a diagnosis of stroke and were discussed separately. We searched scholarly online resources and hand searched articles and registers of published, unpublished, and ongoing trials. Search terms included a variety of MESH terms and alternatives in relation to stroke and visual conditions. Article selection was performed by two authors independently. Data were extracted by one author and verified by a second. The quality of the evidence and risk of bias was assessed using appropriate tools dependant on the type of article.

RESULTS

Forty-nine articles (4142 subjects) were included in the review, including an overview of four Cochrane systematic reviews. Interventions appraised included those for visual field loss, ocular motility deficits, reduced central vision, and visual perceptual deficits.

CONCLUSION

Further high quality randomized controlled trials are required to determine the effectiveness of interventions for treating post-stroke visual impairments. For interventions which are used in practice but do not yet have an evidence base in the literature, it is imperative that these treatments be addressed and evaluated in future studies.

Setting Priorities for Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research and Identifying Evidence Gaps

PURPOSE

Prioritizing comparative effectiveness research may contribute to obtaining answers that clinicians perceive they need and may minimize research that could be considered wasteful. Our objective was to identify evidence gaps and set priorities for new systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials for managing diabetic retinopathy (DR), including diabetic macular edema (DME).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

PARTICIPANTS

Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network (DRCR.net) investigators.

METHODS

We provided recommendations from the American Academy of Ophthalmology's 2012 Preferred Practice Patterns for Diabetic Retinopathy as 91 answerable clinical research questions about intervention effectiveness to 410 DRCR.net investigators to rate each question's importance from 0 (not important) to 10 (very important) using a 2-round Delphi survey and to suggest additional questions. We considered questions as high priority if at least 75% of respondents to both rounds assigned an importance rating of 5 or more in round 2. We also extracted outcome measures relevant to DR and asked respondents to identify those that must be measured in all studies. We mapped Cochrane reviews published up to March 2016 to high-priority clinical research questions.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Ranking of importance of each clinical question.

RESULTS

Thirty-two individuals completed rounds 1 and 2 and suggested 15 questions. Among the final list of 106 clinical research questions, 22 questions met our definition of high priority: 9 of 22 concerned the effectiveness of anti-VEGF therapy, and 13 of 22 focused on how often patients should be followed up (re-examination) and treatment effectiveness in patients with specific characteristics (e.g., DME). Outcomes that 75% or more of respondents marked as "must be measured in all studies" included visual acuity and visual loss, death of participants, and intraocular pressure. Only 1 prioritized question was associated with conclusive evidence from a Cochrane systematic review.

CONCLUSIONS

A limited response rate among DRCR.net members identified 22 comparative effectiveness research questions as high priority for the management of DR, including DME, but few were associated with Cochrane reviews. These results support the need of systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials to address evidence gaps.

Gene therapy for diabetic retinopathy: Are we ready to make the leap from bench to bedside?

Diabetic retinopathy (DR), a chronic and progressive complication of diabetes mellitus, is a sight-threatening disease characterized in the early stages by neuronal and vascular dysfunction in the retina, and later by neovascularization that further damages vision. A major contributor to the pathology is excess production of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), a growth factor that induces formation of new blood vessels and increases permeability of existing vessels. Despite the recent availability of effective treatments for the disease, including laser photocoagulation and therapeutic VEGF antibodies, DR remains a significant cause of vision loss worldwide. Existing anti-VEGF agents, though generally effective, are limited by their short therapeutic half-lives, necessitating frequent intravitreal injections and the risk of attendant adverse events. Management of DR with gene therapies has been proposed for several years, and pre-clinical studies have yielded enticing findings. Gene therapy holds several advantages over conventional treatments for DR, such as a longer duration of therapeutic effect, simpler administration, the ability to intervene at an earlier stage of the disease, and potentially fewer side-effects. In this review, we summarize the current understanding of the pathophysiology of DR and provide an overview of research into DR gene therapies. We also examine current barriers to the clinical application of gene therapy for DR and evaluate future prospects for this approach.

Comorbidity and health care visit burden in working-age commercially insured patients with diabetic macular edema

PURPOSE

To examine the comorbidity profile and update estimates of health care resource utilization for commercially insured, working-age adults with diabetic macular edema (DME) relative to a matched comparison group of diabetic adults without DME. Additional comparisons were made in the subgroup of pseudophakic patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective matched-cohort study of commercially insured diabetic adults aged 18-63 years was conducted using medical and outpatient pharmacy claims (July 1, 2008-June 30, 2013). Outcomes included diabetes-related and ocular comorbidities and health care resource utilization (any health care visit days, outpatient visit days, inpatient visit days, emergency room visits, eye care-related visit days, unique medications) in the 12-month post-index period.

RESULTS

All diabetes-related and ocular comorbidities were significantly more prevalent in DME cases versus non-DME controls (P<0.05). A significantly greater proportion of DME cases utilized eye care-related visits compared with non-DME controls (P<0.001). DME cases had almost twice the mean number of total health care visit days compared to non-DME controls (28.6 vs 16.9 days, P<0.001), with a minority of visit days being eye care-related (mean 5.1 vs 1.5 days, P<0.001). Similar trends were observed in pseudophakic cohorts.

CONCLUSION

This working-age DME population experienced a mean of 29 health care visit days per year. Eye care-related visit days were a minority of the overall visit burden (mean 5 days) emphasizing the trade-offs DME patients face between managing DME and their overall diabetic disease. Insights into the complex comorbidity profile and health care needs of diabetic patients with DME will better inform treatment decisions and help optimize disease management.

Mechanistic Insights into Pathological Changes in the Diabetic Retina: Implications for Targeting Diabetic Retinopathy

Increasing evidence points to inflammation as one of the key players in diabetes-mediating adverse effects to the neuronal and vascular components of the retina. Sustained inflammation induces biochemical and molecular changes, ultimately contributing to retinal complications and vision loss in diabetic retinopathy. In this review, we describe changes involving metabolic abnormalities secondary to hyperglycemia, oxidative stress, and activation of transcription factors, together with neuroglial alterations in the diabetic retina. Changes in biochemical pathways and how they promote pathophysiologic developments involving proinflammatory cytokines, chemokines, and adhesion molecules are discussed. Inflammation-mediated leukostasis, retinal ischemia, and neovascularization and their contribution to pathological and clinical stages leading to vision loss in diabetic retinopathy (DR) are highlighted. In addition, potential treatment strategies involving fibrates, connexins, neuroprotectants, photobiomodulation, and anti-inflammatory agents against the development and progression of DR lesions are reviewed. The importance of appropriate animal models for testing novel strategies against DR lesions is discussed; in particular, a novel nonhuman primate model of DR and the suitability of rodent models are weighed. The purpose of this review is to highlight our current understanding of the pathogenesis of DR and to summarize recent advances using novel approaches or targets to investigate and inhibit the retinopathy.

Advances in the management of diabetic macular oedema based on evidence from the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network

The Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network (DRCR.net) performs studies on new treatments for diabetic retinopathy. This review aims to summarise recent findings from DRCR.net studies on the treatment of diabetic macular oedema. We performed a PubMed search of articles from the DRCR.net, which included all studies pertaining to the treatment of diabetic maculopathy. The main outcome measures were retinal thickening as assessed by central subfield thickness on optical coherence tomography and improvement of visual acuity on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart. Findings from each study were divided into modalities of treatment, namely photocoagulation, bevacizumab, triamcinolone, ranibizumab and vitrectomy. While modified ETDRS focal/grid laser remains the standard of care, intravitreal corticosteroids or anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents have also proven to be effective, although they come with associated side effects. The choice of treatment modality for diabetic macular oedema is a clinical judgement call, and depends on the patient's clinical history and assessment.

Clinical biomarkers and molecular basis for optimized treatment of diabetic retinopathy: current status and future prospects

Diabetic retinopathy is a highly specific microvascular complication of diabetes and a leading cause of blindness worldwide. It is triggered by hyperglycemia which causes increased oxidative stress leading to an adaptive inflammatory assault to the neuroretinal tissue and microvasculature. Prolonged hyperglycemia causes increased polyol pathway flux, increased formation of advanced glycation end-products, abnormal activation of signaling cascades such as activation of protein kinase C (PKC) pathway, increased hexosamine pathway flux, and peripheral nerve damage. All these changes lead to increased oxidative stress and inflammatory assault to the retina resulting in structural and functional changes. In addition, neuroretinal alterations affect diabetes progression. The most effective way to manage diabetic retinopathy is by primary prevention such as hyperglycemia control. While the current mainstay for the management of severe and proliferative diabetic retinopathy is laser photocoagulation, its role is diminishing with the development of newer drugs including corticosteroids, antioxidants, and antiangiogenic and anti-VEGF agents which work as an adjunct to laser therapy or independently. The current pharmacotherapy of diabetic retinopathy is incomplete as a sole treatment option in view of limited efficacy and short-term effect. There is a definite clinical need to develop new pharmacological therapies for diabetic retinopathy, particularly ones which would be effective through the oral route and help recover lost vision. The increasing understanding of the mechanisms of diabetic retinopathy and its biomarkers is likely to help generate better and more effective medications.

Diabetic Macular Edema Pathophysiology: Vasogenic versus Inflammatory

Diabetic macular edema (DME) can cause blindness in diabetic patients suffering from diabetic retinopathy (DR). DM parameters controls (glycemia, arterial tension, and lipids) are the gold standard for preventing DR and DME. Although the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is known to play a role in the development of DME, the pathological processes leading to the onset of this disease are highly complex and the exact sequence in which they occur is still not completely understood. Angiogenesis and inflammation have been shown to be involved in the pathogenesis of this disease. However, it still remains to be clarified whether angiogenesis following VEGF overexpression is a cause or a consequence of inflammation. This paper provides a review of the data currently available, focusing on VEGF, angiogenesis, and inflammation. Our analysis suggests that angiogenesis and inflammation act interdependently during the development of DME. Knowledge of DME etiology seems to be important in treatments with anti-VEGF or anti-inflammatory drugs. Current diagnostic techniques do not permit us to differentiate between both etiologies. In the future, diagnosing the physiopathology of each patient with DME will help us to select the most effective drug.

New treatments for diabetic macular edema

This work comprehensively reviews the latest treatment options for diabetic macular edema (DME) used in its management and presents further work on the topic. Diabetic retinopathy is an important and increasingly prevalent cause of preventable blindness worldwide. To meet this increasing burden there has recently been a proliferation of pharmacological therapies being used in clinical practice. A variety of medical treatment options now exist for DME. These include non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as nepafenac, as well as intravitreal steroids like triamcinolone (kenalog). Long-term results up to 7 years after commencing treatment are presented for triamcinolone. Studies are reviewed on the use of dexamethasone (ozurdex) and fluocinolone (Retisert and Iluvien implants) including the FAME studies. A variety of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents used in DME are considered in detail including ranibizumab (lucentis) and the RESTORE, RIDE, RISE and Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network (DRCR.net) studies. Bevacizumab (avastin) and pegaptinib (macugen) are also considered. The use of aflibercept (eylea) is reviewed including the significance of the DA VINCI, VISTA-DME, VIVID-DME and the DRCR.net studies which have recently suggested potentially greater efficacy when treating DME for aflibercept in patients with more severely reduced visual acuity at baseline. Evidence for the anti-VEGF agent bevasiranib is also considered. Studies of anti-tumour necrosis factor agents like infliximab are reviewed. So are studies of other agents targeting inflammation including minocycline, rapamycin (sirolimus) and protein kinase C inhibitors such as midostaurin and ruboxistaurin. The protein kinase C β inhibitor Diabetic Macular Edema Study is considered. Other agents which have been suggested for DME are discussed including cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors like celecoxib, phospholipase A2 inhibitors, recombinant erythropoietin, and monoclonal anti-interleukin antibodies such as canakinumab. The management of DME in a variety of clinical scenarios is also discussed - in newly diagnosed DME, refractory DME including after macular laser, and postoperatively after intraocular surgery. Results of long-term intravitreal triamcinolone for DME administered up to seven years after commencing treatment are considered in the context of the niche roles available for such agents in modern management of DME. This is alongside more widely used treatments available to the practitioner such as anti-VEGF agents like aflibercept (Eylea) and ranibizumab (Lucentis) which at present are the mainstay of pharmacological treatment of DME.

Topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents for diabetic cystoid macular oedema

BACKGROUND

Diabetic cystoid macular oedema (CMO) is a condition which involves fluid accumulation in the inner portion of the retina. It often follows changes in retinal blood vessels which enhance the fluid to come out of vessels. Although it may be asymptomatic, symptoms are primarily painless loss of central vision, often with the complaint of seeing black spots in front of the eye.It is reported that CMO may resolve spontaneously, or fluctuate for months, before causing loss of vision. If left untreated or undiagnosed, progression of CMO may lead to permanent visual loss.It has been noted that patients with diabetic retinopathy have elevated inflammatory markers, and therefore it is likely that inflammation aids in the progression of vascular disease in these patients. Several topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as ketorolac 0.5%, bromfenac 0.09%, and nepafenac 0.1%, have therefore also been used topically to treat chronic diabetic CMO. Hence this review was conducted to find out the effects of topical NSAIDs in diabetic CMO.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for diabetic cystoid macular oedema (CMO).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2014, Issue 12), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to January 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to January 2015), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 12 January 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs investigating the effects of topically applied NSAIDs in the treatment of people with diabetic CMO aged 18 years of age or over.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and screened all available titles and abstracts for inclusion. There were no discrepancies and we did not have to contact trial investigators for missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any RCTs matching the inclusion criteria for this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review did not identify any RCTs investigating the effects of topical NSAIDs in the treatment of diabetic CMO. Most of the studies identified through the electronic searches had been conducted to analyse the effect of topical NSAIDs for pseudophakic CMO.In the absence of high quality evidence, clinicians need to use their clinical judgement and other low level evidence, such as observational non-randomised trials, to decide whether to use topical NSAIDs in cases of diabetic CMO.More research is needed to better understand the cause of this condition and its pathophysiology. This systematic review has identified the need for well designed, adequately powered RCTs to assess possible beneficial and adverse effects of topical NSAIDs in people with diabetic CMO. Future trials should aim to include a large sample size with an adequate follow-up period of up to one year.

Dexamethasone Implants in Patients with Naïve or Refractory Diffuse Diabetic Macular Edema

PURPOSE

To assess the effect of dexamethasone (DEX) 0.7 mg (Ozurdex™) on refractory and treatment-naïve diffuse diabetic macular edema.

METHODS

A prospective study was conducted in 76 patients (40 refractory and 36 naïve) with visual acuities (VA) of 15-72 ETDRS letters, central macular thickness (CMT) >300 µm and intraocular pressure (IOP) <25 mm Hg. After the DEX implant (±photocoagulation), VA, CMT and total macular volume (TMV) were assessed monthly for 6 months.

RESULTS

At every visit, VA improved significantly from baseline (p < 0.001) in both groups, but values were significantly better in the naïve group, while CMT and TMV decreased significantly (p < 0.001) and similarly in both groups. The naïve group received more photocoagulations (p = 0.001). There were 7.9% transient IOP increases >10 mm Hg.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial improvements in VA and CMT were achieved in both groups, and a gain of 1 ETDRS line was observed in the treatment-naïve group as compared to the refractory group, with a good safety profile in both.

Surgical results of Ahmed valve implantation combined with intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection for preventing choroidal detachment

Background

To investigate the surgical results of Ahmed valve implantation with intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection (IVTA) in patients with aphakic or pseudophakic glaucoma.

Methods

Fifty-nine patients who underwent Ahmed valve implantation were consecutively recruited from November 2005 to August 2011 at the Beijing Tongren Hospital. In the IVTA group (29 eyes), 4 mg of TA was injected into the vitreous cavity during Ahmed valve implantation was performed. In the control group (30 eyes), only Ahmed valve implantation was performed. The primary outcome was intraocular pressure (IOP). The visual acuity (VA), supplemental medical therapy and complications were evaluated as secondary outcomes.

Results

The IVTA and control groups were followed up for a mean of 22.7 and 31.4 months, respectively. IOP decreased in both groups at 1 day, 1 week, 1 month and the final follow-up points after the surgery. However, there was no significant difference between 2 groups at all intervals (P > 0.05). The rate of shallow anterior chamber and choroidal detachment in IVTA group was significantly lower than control group (6.9% vs. 40%, P = 0.007; 0% vs. 26.7%, P = 0.009).

Conclusions

Ahmed valve implantation combined IVTA seems to be effective to reduce the incidence of complications for treatment of aphakic or pseudophakic glaucoma.

Optical coherence tomography (OCT) for detection of macular oedema in patients with diabetic retinopathy

BACKGROUND

Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a thickening of the central retina, or the macula, and is associated with long-term visual loss in people with diabetic retinopathy (DR). Clinically significant macular oedema (CSMO) is the most severe form of DMO. Almost 30 years ago, the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) found that CSMO, diagnosed by means of stereoscopic fundus photography, leads to moderate visual loss in one of four people within three years. It also showed that grid or focal laser photocoagulation to the macula halves this risk. Recently, intravitreal injection of antiangiogenic drugs has also been used to try to improve vision in people with macular oedema due to DR.Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is based on optical reflectivity and is able to image retinal thickness and structure producing cross-sectional and three-dimensional images of the central retina. It is widely used because it provides objective and quantitative assessment of macular oedema, unlike the subjectivity of fundus biomicroscopic assessment which is routinely used by ophthalmologists instead of photography. Optical coherence tomography is also used for quantitative follow-up of the effects of treatment of CSMO.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of OCT for detecting DMO and CSMO, defined according to ETDRS in 1985, in patients referred to ophthalmologists after DR is detected. In the update of this review we also aimed to assess whether OCT might be considered the new reference standard for detecting DMO.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), the Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA) and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHSEED) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to June 2013), EMBASE (January 1950 to June 2013), Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (CPCI-S) (January 1990 to June 2013), BIOSIS Previews (January 1969 to June 2013), MEDION and the Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility database (ARIF). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 25 June 2013. We checked bibliographies of relevant studies for additional references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of any OCT model for detecting DMO or CSMO in patients with DR who were referred to eye clinics. Diabetic macular oedema and CSMO were diagnosed by means of fundus biomicroscopy by ophthalmologists or stereophotography by ophthalmologists or other trained personnel.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently extracted data on study characteristics and measures of accuracy. We assessed data using random-effects hierarchical sROC meta-analysis models.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 studies (830 participants, 1387 eyes), published between 1998 and 2012. Prevalence of CSMO was 19% to 65% (median 50%) in nine studies with CSMO as the target condition. Study quality was often unclear or at high risk of bias for QUADAS 2 items, specifically regarding study population selection and the exclusion of participants with poor quality images. Applicablity was unclear in all studies since professionals referring patients and results of prior testing were not reported. There was a specific 'unit of analysis' issue because both eyes of the majority of participants were included in the analyses as if they were independent.In nine studies providing data on CSMO (759 participants, 1303 eyes), pooled sensitivity was 0.78 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.83) and specificity was 0.86 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.93). The median central retinal thickness cut-off we selected for data extraction was 250 µm (range 230 µm to 300 µm). Central CSMO was the target condition in all but two studies and thus our results cannot be applied to non-central CSMO.Data from three studies reporting accuracy for detection of DMO (180 participants, 343 eyes) were not pooled. Sensitivities and specificities were about 0.80 in two studies and were both 1.00 in the third study.Since this review was conceived, the role of OCT has changed and has become a key ingredient of decision-making at all levels of ophthalmic care in this field. Moreover, disagreements between OCT and fundus examination are informative, especially false positives which are referred to as subclinical DMO and are at higher risk of developing clinical CSMO.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Using retinal thickness thresholds lower than 300 µm and ophthalmologist's fundus assessment as reference standard, central retinal thickness measured with OCT was not sufficiently accurate to diagnose the central type of CSMO in patients with DR referred to retina clinics. However, at least OCT false positives are generally cases of subclinical DMO that cannot be detected clinically but still suffer from increased risk of disease progression. Therefore, the increasing availability of OCT devices, together with their precision and the ability to inform on retinal layer structure, now make OCT widely recognised as the new reference standard for assessment of DMO, even in some screening settings. Thus, this review will not be updated further.

Laser photocoagulation for proliferative diabetic retinopathy

BACKGROUND

Diabetic retinopathy is a complication of diabetes in which high blood sugar levels damage the blood vessels in the retina. Sometimes new blood vessels grow in the retina, and these can have harmful effects; this is known as proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Laser photocoagulation is an intervention that is commonly used to treat diabetic retinopathy, in which light energy is applied to the retina with the aim of stopping the growth and development of new blood vessels, and thereby preserving vision.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of laser photocoagulation for diabetic retinopathy compared to no treatment or deferred treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2014, Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to June 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to June 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 3 June 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where people (or eyes) with diabetic retinopathy were randomly allocated to laser photocoagulation or no treatment or deferred treatment. We excluded trials of lasers that are no longer in routine use. Our primary outcome was the proportion of people who lost 15 or more letters (3 lines) of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) as measured on a logMAR chart at 12 months. We also looked at longer-term follow-up of the primary outcome at two to five years. Secondary outcomes included mean best corrected distance visual acuity, severe visual loss, mean near visual acuity, progression of diabetic retinopathy, quality of life, pain, loss of driving licence, vitreous haemorrhage and retinal detachment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methods as expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. Two review authors selected studies and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified a large number of trials of laser photocoagulation of diabetic retinopathy (n = 83) but only five of these studies were eligible for inclusion in the review, i.e. they compared laser photocoagulation with currently available lasers to no (or deferred) treatment. Three studies were conducted in the USA, one study in the UK and one study in Japan. A total of 4786 people (9503 eyes) were included in these studies. The majority of participants in four of these trials were people with proliferative diabetic retinopathy; one trial recruited mainly people with non-proliferative retinopathy. Four of the studies evaluated panretinal photocoagulation with argon laser and one study investigated selective photocoagulation of non-perfusion areas. Three studies compared laser treatment to no treatment and two studies compared laser treatment to deferred laser treatment. All studies were at risk of performance bias because the treatment and control were different and no study attempted to produce a sham treatment. Three studies were considered to be at risk of attrition bias.At 12 months there was little difference between eyes that received laser photocoagulation and those allocated to no treatment (or deferred treatment), in terms of loss of 15 or more letters of visual acuity (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.11; 8926 eyes; 2 RCTs, low quality evidence). Longer term follow-up did not show a consistent pattern, but one study found a 20% reduction in risk of loss of 15 or more letters of visual acuity at five years with laser treatment. Treatment with laser reduced the risk of severe visual loss by over 50% at 12 months (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.86; 9276 eyes; 4 RCTs, moderate quality evidence). There was a beneficial effect on progression of diabetic retinopathy with treated eyes experiencing a 50% reduction in risk of progression of diabetic retinopathy (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.64; 8331 eyes; 4 RCTs, low quality evidence) and a similar reduction in risk of vitreous haemorrhage (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.85; 224 eyes; 2 RCTs, low quality evidence).None of the studies reported near visual acuity or patient-relevant outcomes such as quality of life, pain, loss of driving licence or adverse effects such as retinal detachment.We did not plan any subgroup analyses, but there was a difference in baseline risk in participants with non-proliferative retinopathy compared to those with proliferative retinopathy. With the small number of included studies we could not do a formal subgroup analysis comparing effect in proliferative and non-proliferative retinopathy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides evidence that laser photocoagulation is beneficial in treating proliferative diabetic retinopathy. We judged the evidence to be moderate or low, depending on the outcome. This is partly related to reporting of trials conducted many years ago, after which panretinal photocoagulation has become the mainstay of treatment of proliferative diabetic retinopathy.Future Cochrane Reviews on variations in the laser treatment protocol are planned. Future research on laser photocoagulation should investigate the combination of laser photocoagulation with newer treatments such as anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (anti-VEGFs).

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for diabetic macular oedema

BACKGROUND

Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a common complication of diabetic retinopathy. Although grid or focal laser photocoagulation has been shown to reduce the risk of visual loss in DMO, or clinically significant macular oedema (CSMO), vision is rarely improved. Antiangiogenic therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) modalities is used to try to improve vision in people with DMO.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effects in preserving and improving vision and acceptability, including the safety, compliance with therapy and quality of life, of antiangiogenic therapy with anti-VEGF modalities for the treatment of DMO.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2014, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to April 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to April 2014), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to April 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 28 April 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any antiangiogenic drugs with an anti-VEGF mechanism of action versus another treatment, sham treatment or no treatment in people with DMO.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. The risk ratios (RR) for visual loss and visual gain of three or more lines of logMAR visual acuity were estimated at one year of follow-up (plus or minus six months) after treatment initiation.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen studies provided data on four comparisons of interest in this review. Participants in the trials had central DMO and moderate vision loss.Compared with grid laser photocoagulation, people treated with antiangiogenic therapy were more likely to gain 3 or more lines of vision at one year (RR 3.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.7 to 4.8, 10 studies, 1333 cases, high quality evidence) and less likely to lose 3 or more lines of vision (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.24, 7 studies, 1086 cases, high quality evidence). In meta-analyses, no significant subgroup difference was demonstrated between bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept for the two primary outcomes, but there was little power to detect a difference. The quality of the evidence was judged to be high, because the effect was large, precisely measured and did not vary across studies, although some studies were at high or unclear risk of bias for one or more domains. Regarding absolute benefit, we estimated that 8 out of 100 participants with DMO may gain 3 or more lines of visual acuity using photocoagulation whereas 28 would do so with antiangiogenic therapy, meaning that 100 participants need to be treated with antiangiogenic therapy to allow 20 more people (95% CI 13 to 29) to markedly improve their vision after one year. People treated with anti-VEGF on average had 1.6 lines better vision (95% CI 1.4 to 1.8) after one year compared to laser photocoagulation (9 studies, 1292 cases, high quality evidence). To achieve this result, seven to nine injections were delivered in the first year and three or four in the second, in larger studies adopting either as needed regimens with monthly monitoring or fixed regimens.In other analyses antiangiogenic therapy was more effective than sham (3 studies on 497 analysed participants, high quality evidence) and ranibizumab associated with laser was more effective than laser alone (4 studies on 919 participants, high quality evidence).Ocular severe adverse events, such as endophthalmitis, were rare in the included studies. Meta-analyses conducted for all antiangiogenic drugs compared with either sham or photocoagulation did not show a significant difference regarding serious systemic adverse events (15 studies, 441 events in 2985 participants, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.17), arterial thromboembolic events (14 studies, 129 events in 3034 participants, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.25) and overall mortality (63 events in 3562 participants, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.47). We judged the quality of the evidence on adverse effects as moderate due to partial reporting of safety data and the exclusion of participants with previous cardiovascular events in some studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high quality evidence that antiangiogenic drugs provide a benefit compared to current therapeutic options for DMO, that is grid laser photocoagulation, in clinical trial populations at one or two years. Future research should investigate differences between drugs, effectiveness under real-world monitoring and treatment conditions, and safety in high-risk populations, particularly regarding cardiovascular risk.