How Does the Standard of Care Evolve? Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Agents in Retinopathy of Prematurity Treatment as an Example

Ranibizumab for the treatment of retinopathy of prematurity: systematic review and meta-analysis

Anti-VEGF drugs like ranibizumab can be used to treat retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) by halting the formation of abnormal blood vessels, or lasers can be used to burn the edges of the retina where these vessels are present. The objective is to compare the efficacy for ROP between ranibizumab and laser therapy.

Material and methods

Electronic searches will be carried out in medical databases with key words and controlled vocabulary terms. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) will be assessed. The primary outcome will be the full ROP regression. Two reviewers will extract the data using predefined forms and, to assess the quality of the study, we will use RoB 2.0, the tool for randomized controlled trials developed by the Cochrane Collaboration. We used a combination of the inverse-variance approach and random-effects models for the meta-analysis.

Results

The eyes of 182 preterm infants who had ranibizumab treatment were assessed in a total of 364 eyes, and 135 infants received laser therapy. The follow-up period was between 6 and 24 months. Ranibizumab was not associated with greater regression of ROP compared to laser therapy in preterm infants (RR: 1.09, CI 95%: 0.95-1.24; p: 0.22). Also, ranibizumab was not associated with recurrence of ROP compared to laser therapy in preterm infants (RR: 3.77, CI 95%: 0.55-25.81; p: 0.22).

Conclusions

The efficacy of ranibizumab compared to laser is very uncertain in terms of ROP regression and decreased ROP recurrence in preterm infants.

Systematic Review Registration

identifier PROSPERO (CRD42022324150).

Effect of ranibizumab on retinopathy of prematurity: A meta-analysis

The primary objective of this study was to systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy of intravitreal ranibizumab injection in the treatment for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) in infants. The MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, China Biology Medicine disc, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, WanFang Data, CNKI, and CQVIP databases were searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of ranibizumab with laser treatment in ROP. The retrieval time was from 2007, on which ranibizumab was approved until 12 January 2022. Data were extracted based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two investigators employed QUADAS-2 to independently assess the quality of all eligible original studies. Following quality evaluation, we also performed a meta-analysis using STATA v 15.1 and RevMan v 5.4 and funnel plots were used to detect publication bias. A total of five RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. In this study, the regression rate of retinal neovascularization was used as the index of therapeutic effectiveness. According to the results, the retinal neovascularization regression rate of the intravitreal ranibizumab injection group was statistically higher than that of the laser therapy group [risk ratio (RR) = 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.18–1.35]; however, the incidence of adverse events, including recurrence and complications, was not different between them (RR = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.19–2.80). Therefore, intravitreal ranibizumab injection may be more clinically effective than laser therapy in the treatment for ROP. The safety and efficacy of ranibizumab in the long-term treatment for ROP needs further investigation.

Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, CRD42022296387

Challenges in Elucidating Ophthalmology's Standards of Care: A Review

Importance

Defining a standard of care is difficult, and physicians don't always agree on what it means in specific contexts. This is, in part, owing to constantly changing treatment patterns; but at the same time, the underlying framework that determines standards of care is continuously evolving. This situation presents clear challenges for all practicing physicians, including ophthalmologists.

Observations

Complicating the issue of defining a standard of care are the confusing origins and lexicon used to describe 3 related yet distinct ideas: standard of care, practice guidelines, and gold standards. Indeed, each of these terms is defined and influenced by many stakeholders both inside and outside the health care system. The term standard of care is one example that, although used frequently as a medical term, is often decided by courts and industry. Ophthalmology itself has provided one of the most influential cases in standard-of-care law history (Helling v Carey), which standardized the routine use of tonometry after the plaintiff lost vision because of a delayed glaucoma diagnosis. But even the courts' current view of standard of care is far different than it was at that defining moment in eye care history.

Conclusions and Relevance

Today, health care professionals typically equate standard of care with best clinical practices, and yet the law specifies a standard of minimal competence when determining standard of care. These competing definitions are, at best, misleading and, at worst, counterproductive. This narrative review examines how medical guidelines are developed, formalized, communicated, and adopted in the United States. It seeks to clarify ophthalmologists' understanding of the related but distinct ideas of standard of care, practice guidelines, and gold standards. Last, this review argues that quality of care must be distinguished from standard of care and outlines how legal definitions of standards of care can set exceedingly low benchmarks, discouraging innovation without reducing frivolous litigation.

Ranibizumab: A Review in Retinopathy of Prematurity

Ranibizumab (Lucentis^®) is a monoclonal antibody fragment targeted against VEGF-A that is the first approved anti-VEGF agent for the treatment of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP). In the pivotal, randomized, phase III RAINBOW trial in infants with ROP, the majority of intravitreal ranibizumab recipients experienced treatment success at 24 weeks, with a numerically greater treatment success rate in the ranibizumab 0.2 mg (80% of patients) than laser therapy (66%) group without reaching statistical significance for superiority. Long-term effects on vision following ranibizumab treatment are not yet known, but interim analyses from the RAINBOW extension study do not show evidence of degraded vision. Adverse reactions to ranibizumab in pediatric patients were consistent with the known safety profile in adults, with most adverse reactions attributed to the intravitreal injection procedure. Furthermore, systemic VEGF suppression was not observed in clinical trials, which is congruent with the rapid systemic clearance of ranibizumab. Overall, ranibizumab is an effective and generally well tolerated treatment for ROP and is not associated with systemic VEGF suppression. Although results for its long-term effects on vision are not yet available, ranibizumab is a promising alternative option to laser therapy for treating ROP.