Combination of Grid Laser Photocoagulation and a Single Intravitreal Ranibizumab as an Efficient and Cost-Effective Treatment Option for Macular Edema Secondary to Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion

Efficacy of the efficacy between dexamethasone versus triamcinolone acetonide after cataract surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical effects between dexamethasone and triamcinolone acetonide (TA) after phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation among cataract patients.

METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published up to August 2020. The primary outcome was intraocular pressure. The secondary outcomes were the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), anterior chamber cell, and anterior chamber flare. The pooled effect sizes were expressed as weighted mean differences (WMDs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs) of 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale criteria were used for the quality assessment of included studies.

RESULTS

Seven relevant studies met the inclusion criteria. For the primary outcome, there was no significant difference between TA injection and dexamethasone in comparing intraocular pressure (IOP) (SMD = 0.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-0.29, 0.73], P = .408; I² = 86.9%) in the first day after treatment and last day of assessment. For the secondary outcomes, the logMAR (WMD = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.08]) and the anterior chamber flare (SMD = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.18], P = .087; I² = 0%) showed no differences. However, the amount of anterior chamber cells (SMD = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.42, -0.01], P = .044; I² = 0%) in the TA injection on the first day postoperative was higher than for dexamethasone. After treatment, there was no difference between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports that there were no differences in IOP, logMAR, and anterior chamber flare between TA injection and dexamethasone among cataract patients. TA injection treatment on the first day showed higher amounts of anterior chamber cells than with dexamethasone.

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.

Comparison of the efficiency of anti-VEGF drugs intravitreal injections treatment with or without retinal laser photocoagulation for macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: To compare the efficiency of anti-VEGF drugs intravitreal injections(IVI) treatment with or without retinal laser photocoagulation(LPC) for macular edema(ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion(RVO).

Methods: The randomized controlled trials and retrospective studies including anti-VEGF drug IVI combined with retinal LPC and single IVI in the treatment of macular edema secondary to RVO were collected in PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. We extracted the main outcome indicators including the best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness(CMT), the number of injections and the progress of retinal non-perfusion areas(NPAs) for systematic evaluation, to observe whether IVI + LPC could be more effective on the prognosis of RVO. We use Review Manager 5.4 statistical software to analyze the data

Results: 527 articles were initially retrieved. We included 20 studies, with a total of 1387 patients who were divided into the combination(IVI + LPC) treatment group and the single IVI group. All the patients completed the ocular examination including BCVA, slit-lamp test, fundus examination and Optical Coherence Tomography(OCT) test before and after each treatment. There was no statistical difference between the combination treatment group and single IVI group on BCVA(WMD = 0.12,95%CI = -3.54–3.78,p = 0.95),CMT(WMD = -4.40,95%CI = -21.33–12.53,p = 0.61) and NPAs(WMD = 0.01,95%CI = -0.28–0.30,p = 0.94).However, the number of IVI was decreased significantly in the combination treatment group in BRVO patients, compared to that in the single IVI group(WMD = -0.69,95%CI = -1.18∼-0.21,p = 0.005).

Conclusion: In the treatment of RVO patients with macular edema, the combination of IVI and retinal LPC neither improves BCVA nor reduces CMT significantly compared with the single IVI treatment. However, the combination treatment can decrease the number of intravitreal injections in patients with BRVO, while it is not observed in CRVO patients.

Efficacy and Safety of Intravitreal Injection of Triamcinolone Acetonide and Conbercept for Intraocular Lens after Cataract Surgery

Objective

To investigate the effect of intravitreal injection of triamcinolone acetonide and conbercept on the efficacy and safety of diabetic macular edema (DME) after cataract intraocular lens (IOL) surgery.

Methods

A total of 350 patients with cataract complicated with diabetic macular edema in our hospital from January 2017 to July 2021 were randomly divided into conbercept group and triamcinolone acetonide group. Patients in the conbercept group were given intravitreal injection of conbercept during IOL surgery, and patients in the triamcinolone acetonide group were given injection of triamcinolone acetonide during surgery.

Results

Three months after treatment, the best-corrected visual acuity of the two groups was significantly higher than before, the corrected visual acuity of the conbercept group was more significant than the triamcinolone acetonide group, and the intraocular pressure of the triamcinolone acetonide group was higher than the conbercept group. The foveal thickness and macular volume were significantly reduced in both groups, and was reduced more in the conbercept group than in the triamcinolone acetonide group. The contents of VEGF, SDF-1, and IL-6 in both groups were significantly decreased, and the decrease was more significant in the conbercept group than in the triamcinolone acetonide group. The patients with elevated intraocular pressure, headache and vomiting, orbital swelling pain, eye swelling pain, and eye pain in the triamcinolone acetonide group were significantly higher than those in the conbercept group (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

Conbercept and triamcinolone acetonide has a good therapeutic effect on DME in pseudophakic eyes after cataract IOL surgery, which can reduce the degree of macular edema and improve the visual function. However, the therapeutic effect of injection therapy with conbercept is safe, the prognosis is better, and the complication rate is low.

Outcomes of combined treatments in patients with retinal arterial macroaneurysm

Purpose:

To evaluate the outcome of the combined approach between intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) and focal laser photocoagulation (FLP) in the treatment of symptomatic retinal arterial macroaneurysm (RAM).

Methods:

A total of 10 patients were included in this clinical case series report. They were diagnosed with symptomatic RAM (one eye in each) and assessed by a comprehensive ophthalmologic examination, including fluorescein angiography (FA), optical coherence tomography angiography (OCT-A), and indocyanine green angiography (ICGA). All patients were treated with an IVR followed by an FLP 2 weeks later. If necessary, a second IVR was given 1 month after the first one (or 2 weeks after the first FLP), which was followed by a second FLP treatment 2 weeks later in the needed cases. All cases were followed up for 6 months after the last treatment.

Results:

Both the retina hemorrhage and edema were resolved by the treatment. No ocular and/or systemic side effects were evident, and no recrudescence of RAM was seen within the 6 months of follow-up.

Conclusion:

The combined treatment of IVRs and FLPs was successful in the management of symptomatic RAM.

Analysis of intravitreal bevacizumab treatment for macular oedema due to retinal vein occlusion

PURPOSE

Our aim was to analyse the clinical effect of intravitreal bevacizumab treatment for macular oedema due to central/branch retinal vein occlusion (CRVO/BRVO). The end points were final best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), BCVA improvement, final central 1-mm macular subfield thickness (CST) and change in CST.

METHODS

Our study included 34 CRVO and 25 BRVO patients. Patients received intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) treatment at our department. Our control group consisted of 50 CRVO and 30 BRVO patients, who had not received this treatment because their disease developed before the anti-VEGF treatment became available. For statistical analysis, two-sample t-test, Pearson's correlation, and ANOVA were used. The level of significance was defined at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

With the two-sample t-test we found significant improvement of BCVA in the IVB-treated group (CRVO: 0.171 ± 0.270, p1 = 3.25×10-4; BRVO: 0.215 ± 0.282, p2 = 5.52×10-4). The difference in BCVA improvement was also significant compared to the control group (CRVO: p1 = 3.46×10-4; BRVO: p2 = 0.003). Significant decrease was observed in the CST in the treated group (CRVO: -345.114 ± 280.577, p1 = 6.94×10-9; BRVO: -151.875 ± 174.341, p2 = 1.67×10-4). In case of BRVO patients the final BCVA was significantly better in the treated group (0.617 ± 0.334) compared to the control group (0.406 ± 0.357), p = 0.016.

CONCLUSION

IVB treatment results in significantly better final visual acuity and leads to significantly increased BCVA improvement compared to patients with RVO-induced macular oedema receiving no treatment.

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.