Macular grid laser photocoagulation for branch retinal vein occlusion

Combination intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors and macular laser photocoagulation relative to intravitreal injection monotherapy in macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

This meta-analysis investigates the efficacy and safety of intravitreal anti-VEGF injections (IVI) compared to combination laser photocoagulation and IVI (LPC-IVI) in treating macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO).

SUBJECTS/METHODS

A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL was conducted from inception until March 2021. Randomized controlled trials that reported relevant efficacy and/or safety parameters following LPC-IVI relative to IVI were included. Meta-analysis was conducted with a random effects model. The primary outcome was best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), while secondary outcomes were central macular thickness (CMT), central retinal thickness (CRT), central subfield thickness (CST), number of IVIs received, and incidence of adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies were included, for which 362 eyes were randomized to LPC-IVI and 365 to IVI. In comparing macular laser photocoagulation with IVI (MLP-IVI) in BRVO patients, no significant differences were seen in final BCVA (p = 0.78) or change in BCVA (p = 0.09) after treatment. Similarly, no significant differences were seen in final CMT (p = 0.54), change in CMT (p = 0.33), final CRT (p = 0.90), change in CRT (p = 0.97), or number of injections required (p = 0.78). The same results were seen in subgroup analyses for macular laser without peripheral laser in BRVO and CRVO patients. Consistent results were observed when considering peripheral LPC-IVI to IVI in BRVO and CRVO.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences were seen between combination MLP-IVI or peripheral LPC-IVI relative to IVI monotherapy for final BCVA or OCT parameters in macular oedema secondary to RVO.

[Ischemia and laser photocoagulation in retinal vein occlusion]

BACKGROUND

Retinal vein occlusions (RVO) are associated with retinal ischemia to a highly variable extent. An ischemic retina may lead to the development of neovascularization and further to secondary complications such as neovascular glaucoma, vitreous hemorrhage or tractional retinal detachment. Numerous factors such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and other cytokines are produced in the ischemic area, which cause macular edema. Before the introduction of intravitreal drug injections (IVI), retinal laser photocoagulation was the leading form of treatment. Macular laser photocoagulation was applied in the form of focal laser or grid laser in patients with branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) to treat macular edema. In patients with ischemic RVO, panretinal laser photocoagulation (PRP) was recommended for treatment of secondary neovascular complications. The value of laser treatment in the management of patients with RVO changed after the introduction of IVI treatment.

AIM

This article presents a review of the current study results and the recommendations for performing laser photocoagulation of the central and peripheral retina in patients with RVO.

CONCLUSION

Conventional focal or grid laser photocoagulation has been replaced by IVI treatment in the management of macular edema secondary to BRVO; however, macular laser treatment can still be considered in patients with BRVO if the macular edema persists despite the use of available IVI drugs. The use of central laser photocoagulation in these cases is based on the findings of fluorescein angiography. Disseminated panretinal laser photocoagulation is still indicated in RVO patients who have large areas of nonperfusion, have developed neovascularization and/or late complications. Targeted laser photocoagulation of the peripheral areas of nonperfusion has recently been recommended by several authors and is expected to improve not only the visual outcome of IVI treatment, but more importantly to also reduce the duration of treatment and the number of re-injections needed. Clear evidence for targeted laser treatment is not yet available and is a focus of currently ongoing prospective randomized studies.

Combination of Ranibizumab with macular laser for macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion: one-year results from a randomized controlled double-blind trial

Background

It is not clear whether macular laser combined with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) can reduce the number of anti-VEGF injections in the treatment of macular edema (ME) secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). Our study aimed to investigate the effects of intravitreal ranibizumab with or without macular laser for ME secondary to BRVO and its associated number of anti-VEGF injections.

Methods

This is a prospective, randomized, double-blind, monocentric trial.80 patients were enrolled and 64 patients fulfilled the study requirements. All patients received a minimum of 3 initial monthly ranibizumab injections, pro re nata (PRN) dosing thereafter VA and CRT stabilization criteria-driven PRN treatment. Laser was given 7 days after third ranibizumab injection in ranibizumab with laser group. The follow-up time of this study was 1 year. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improvement, central retinal thickness (CRT) reduction and number of injections of patients were compared between two groups. T-test, non-parametric Wilcoxon test and chis-square tests were adopted for between-group comparisons.

Results

Thirty patients received intravitreal ranibizumab 0.5 mg alone and 34 patients received intravitreal ranibizumab 0.5 mg with macular laser. At 52 week, BCVA increased significantly and CRT decreased significantly in both groups (P < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in BCVA improvement with baseline BCVA adjusted (p = 0.5226), and in the CRT reduction (P = 0.4552) between two groups after 52 weeks. There was also no significant difference in the number of injections between the two groups. (P = 0.0756). There was also no significant difference between ischemic and non-ischemic groups in BCVA improvement, CRT reduction and number of injections (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Our study suggests that ranibizumab combined with macular laser is effective in the treatment of ME secondary to BRVO after 1 year of treatment with 3 + PRN regimen. However, combination of macular grid photocoagulation showed no beneficial anatomical or functional effect during follow-up period, nor did it reduce the number of ranibizumab injections, either in ischemic group or non-ischemic group. We suggest that there is no need to combine macular grid photocoagulation in the treatment of ME secondary to BRVO in the future.

Trial registration

Clinical Trials NCT03054766. https://register.clinicaltrials.gov.Prospectively registered.

A systematic review of real-world evidence of the management of macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion

This review assessed the real-world evidence of the management of macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). A meta-analysis of 2530 eyes from 48 real-world studies of therapies for macular oedema secondary to BRVO was conducted. Baseline characteristics, visual, anatomical and safety outcomes were recorded. The weighted mean and weighted estimates from random-effects models were calculated for visual acuity (VA) and central subfield thickness (CST) changes at 6, 12 and 24 months. Primary outcome was change in VA (logMAR letters) at 12 months. Study quality was assessed using the quality appraisal checklist for case series developed by Institute of Health Economics. The mean baseline VA for the pooled data was 54.0 (51.5, 56.5) letters and the mean baseline CST was 501.3 (483.5, 519.1) µm. The random-effects estimate for mean (95% CI) change in VA was 14.6 (12.5, 16.7) letters at 12 months (n = 1727). The random-effects estimate for mean (95% CI) change in CST was -181.7 (-230.7, -132.7) µm at 12 months (n = 1325). The quality of studies varied considerably. Ocular and systemic adverse events were discussed in 79% and 42% of treatment arms respectively, with possible under-reporting. Visual and anatomical gains achieved in the real-world for anti-VEGF therapy were not as impressive as seminal RCTs, possibly due to reduced injection frequency in the real world and differences in baseline characteristics. There is an urgent need for consensus on the minimum efficacy, treatment burden and safety data to collect to strengthen the real-world evidence base.

Bevacizumab versus bevacizumab and macular grid photocoagulation for macular edema in eyes with non-ischemic branch retinal vein occlusion: results from a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND

The objective of the study was the investigation of the effects of intravitreal bevacizumab (BEV) with or without additional macular grid laser photocoagulation (GRID) for macular edema (ME) secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).

METHODS

Prospective, randomized, monocentric study. Thirty-two patients were included. Initially, all eyes in both groups received three monthly injections of BEV, followed by additional injections if re-treatment criteria were met. In the BEV + GRID group, photocoagulation was performed 2 weeks after the first BEV injection and laser re-treatment was allowed. The follow-up was 38 weeks. Main outcome measures were best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT). Changes of foveal avascular zone (FAZ) and of retinal ischemia, as well as the number of injections were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Sixteen eyes were randomized into each group. At baseline, BCVA was similar in both groups (BEV + GRID: 20/71; BEV: 20/60; P = 0.51). At 38 weeks, BCVA significantly improved in the two groups (BEV + GRID gain of 9 ± 11.2 letters and 16.25 ± 10.08 letters in the BEV) with no difference between them (P < 0.06). With regard to anatomical findings, initial CRT in BEV + GRID was 496.2 μm ± 138.4 μm and 538.9 μm ± 156.9 μm in BEV (P < 0.1697). At 38 weeks, CRT decreased in both groups significantly, 98.2 μm in the BEV + GRID (P = 0.02) and 141.7 μm in the BEV group (P = 0.01), with no significant difference between groups (P < 0.17). The area of FAZ a significantly increased in both groups (41% (P = 0.04) in BEV + GRID; 35% (P = 0.03) in BEV) during the study and the grade of peripheral ischemia remained unchanged. The mean number of injections was 3.8 (range 3-6) with no significant difference between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data demonstrate a beneficial effect of bevacizumab in ME in eyes with BRVO. A loading phase of three injections led to a significant improvement in vision in both groups, which persisted at week 38. Additional grid laser photocoagulation exhibited no beneficial functional or anatomical effect during the study, nor did it reduce the number of injections. The FAZ area increased significantly in both groups, but overall retinal ischemia did not. Further studies investigating more numerous eyes and longer follow-up are needed to confirm these data.

Intravitreal Injection of Anti-vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Agents for Ocular Vascular Diseases: Clinical Practice Guideline

PURPOSE

To provide the clinical recommendations for the administration of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) drugs especially bavacizumab for ocular vascular diseases including diabetic macular edema, neovascular age-related macular degeneration, myopic choroidal neovascularization, retinal vein occlusion and central serous chorioretinopathy.

METHODS

Twenty clinical questions were developed by the guideline technical committee. Relevant websites and databases were searched to find out the pertinent clinical practice guidelines to answer the questions. The technical committee provided possible answers (scenarios) according to the available evidences for each question. All scenarios along with their levels of evidence and the supported articles were sent to the experts for external review. If the experts did not agree on any of the scenarios for one particular clinical question, the technical committee reviewed all scenarios and their pertinent evidences and made the necessary decision. After that, the experts were asked to score them again. All confirmed scenarios were gathered as the final recommendations.

RESULTS

All the experts agreed on at least one of the scenarios. The technical committee extracted the agreed scenario for each clinical question as the final recommendation. Finally, 56 recommendations were developed for the procedure of intravitreal anti-VEGF injection and their applications in the management of ocular vascular diseases.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of this guideline can standardize the management of the common ocular vascular diseases by intravitreal injection of anti-VEGF agents. It can lead to better policy-making and evidence-based clinical decision by ophthalmologists and optimal evidence based eye care for patients.

Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion, Macular Ischemia, and Intravitreal Anti-VEGF Therapy

PURPOSE

To report a case with ischemic macular edema (ME) due to an acute branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) which was treated with repeated intravitreal anti-VEGF injections.

METHODS

Retrospective case presentation.

RESULTS

A 66-year-old female patient was treated with repeated intravitreal anti-VEGF injections due to ischemic ME following an acute BRVO. Over a period of 2.5 years best corrected visual acuity increased from 0.06 to 0.6 (decimal notation) accompanied by a reduction in central retinal thickness from 546 to 292 µm. Overall 17 anti-VEGF injections were administered to treat repeated recurrence of ME. Macular ischemia did not worsen during this profound intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy.

CONCLUSION

Intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy can be a beneficial treatment strategy even in ischemic ME following an acute BRVO.

Stromal Cell-Derived Factor 1 Polymorphism in Retinal Vein Occlusion

Background

Stromal cell-derived factor 1 (SDF1) has crucial role in the regulation of angiogenesis and ocular neovascularisation (NV). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between SDF1-3’G(801)A polymorphism and NV complications of retinal vein occlusion (RVO).

Methods

130 patients with RVO (median age: 69.0, range 35–93 years; male/female– 58/72; 55 patients had central RVO, 75 patients had branch RVO) were enrolled in this study. In the RVO group, 40 (30.8%) patients were diagnosed with NV complications of RVO and 90 (69.2%) patients without NVs. The median follow up period was 40.3 months (range: 18–57 months). The SDF1-3’G(801)A polymorphism was detected by PCR-RFLP. Allelic prevalence was related to reference values obtained in the control group consisted of 125 randomly selected, age and gender matched, unrelated volunteers (median age: 68.0, range 36–95 years; male/female– 53/72). Statistical analysis of the allele and genotype differences between groups (RVO patients vs controls; RVO patients with NV vs RVO patients without NV) was determined by chi-squared test. P value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Hardy-Weinberg criteria was fulfilled in all groups. The SDF1-3’G(801)A allele and genotype frequencies of RVO patients were similar to controls (SDF1-3’A allele: 22.3% vs 20.8%; SDF1-3’(801)AA: 5.4% vs 4.8%, SDF1-3’(801)GG: 60.8% vs 63.2%). The frequency of SDF1-3’(801)AA and SDF1-3’(801)GA genotypes, as well as the SDF1-3’(801)A allele frequency were higher in RVO patients with NV versus in patients without NV complication (SDF1-3’(801)AA+AG genotypes: 57.5% vs 31.1%, p = 0.008; SDF1-3’(801)A allele: 35.0% vs 16.7%, p = 0.002) or versus controls (SDF1-3’(801)AA+AG genotypes 57.5% vs 36.8%, p = 0.021; SDF1-3’(801)A allele: 35.0% vs 20.8% p = 0.01). Carrying of SDF1-3’(801)A allele increased the risk of neovascularisation complications of RVO by 2.69 (OR, 95% CI = 1.47–4.93).

Conclusion

These findings suggest that carrying SDF1-3’(801)A allele plays a role in the development of neovascular complications in retinal vein occlusion.

Clinical Trials in Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion

Branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) is the second most common retinal vascular disorder. The management of macular edema has changed considerably over time. The laser is considered the gold standard treatment for over two decades. However, visual recovery with laser is usually slow and incomplete. The advent of intravitreal agents, specifically anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGF) have heralded a new era which promises rapid recovery of vision and quality of vision. Randomized clinical trials have reported optimal results with anti-VEGF agents (ranibizumab, bevacizumab, and aflibercept) compared to laser therapy or steroids. However, nearly 50% of the patients require repeat intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy up to 4 years after initiating therapy to sustain the visual gains. The adverse events (systemic and ocular) of these agents are minimal. Monotherapy with anti-VEGF agents have been found to provide better results than any combination with laser. This review article summarizes evidence from randomized controlled trials evaluating treatment options for the treatment of macular edema secondary to BRVO with a special focus on anti-VEGF therapy.