Three intravitreal bevacizumab versus two intravitreal triamcinolone injections in recent onset central retinal vein occlusion

Intravitreal Injection of Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factors Combined with Corticosteroids for the Treatment of Macular Edema Secondary to Retinal Vein Occlusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) and corticosteroid combination therapy for the management of treatment-naïve or recurrent/refractory macular edema caused by retinal vein occlusion (RVO) in comparison with anti-VEGF monotherapy.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis study, the data from publications in the electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials, ISI and Scopus from January 1, 2007, through November 20, 2020, were compiled. Heterogeneity was statistically quantified by the I2 statistic, and meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Twenty-four related studies were identified, including a total of 1280 eyes, which consisted of 685 and 507 patients with central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) and branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO), respectively. This study demonstrated a greater improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in the combination group compared to anti-VEGF monotherapy for both CRVO and BRVO cases at 6 months after initiating therapy. The improvement in vision was more notable in BRVO cases than in CRVO cases. However, the changes in central macular thickness (CMT) did not differ significantly between the different treatment approaches, and the results were inconclusive. Including all cases with RVO, there was no inferiority in terms of BCVA improvement and CMT reduction in the triamcinolone subgroup compared with the slow-release dexamethasone implant subgroup. A greater improvement was noticed in terms of BCVA in the sequentially treated subgroup compared to the simultaneous treatment subgroup, while there was a greater reduction in CMT in the simultaneous subgroup with the highest reduction recorded at 1 month after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that combination therapy with intravitreal anti-VEGF and corticosteroid (such as intravitreal or subtenon triamcinolone or dexamethasone implant) has a slightly better effect on improving BCVA in cases with BRVO or CRVO at 6 months compared to monotherapy.

Antivascular endothelial growth factor for macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents in treating macular oedema due to retinal vein occlusion (RVO-ME).

Methods

Studies of randomised controlled trials were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane databases and ClinicalTrials.gov registry. RevMan V.5.4 software and GRADE were used to synthesise the data and validate the evidence, respectively.

Results

Seventeen studies were included in this meta-analysis. The anti-VEGF agents showed significant better mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improvement, more patients with ≧15 Early Treatment in Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters gained and fewer patients with ≧15 ETDRS letters lost, more effectiveness at reducing central retinal thickness (CRT) and improving the quality of life than sham and steroids both at 6 and 12 months. Compared with laser, the anti-VEGF agents showed significant BCVA improvement and more effectiveness at CRT both at 6 and 12 months. The proportion of eyes gaining ≧15 ETDRS letters was greater in the anti-VEGF group at 6 months. The anti-VEGF and other three groups reported similar levels of non-ocular serious adverse events (SAEs). The incidence of eye pain was significantly higher in the anti-VEGF group than in the sham group. There was a significant increase in the incidence of ocular AEs and conjunctival haemorrhage in the anti-VEGF group compared with the laser group. The incidence of elevated intraocular pressure and cataract was significantly higher in the steroid group than in the anti-VEGF group.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis suggested that treatment of ME secondary to RVO with anti-VEGF improves visual and anatomical outcomes compared with other treatments. Thus, anti-VEGF treatment is the first choice for treating patients with ME secondary to RVO.

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion

BACKGROUND

Branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) is one of the most commonly occurring retinal vascular abnormalities. The most common cause of visual loss in people with BRVO is macular oedema (MO). Grid or focal laser photocoagulation has been shown to reduce the risk of visual loss. Limitations to this treatment exist, however, and newer modalities may have equal or improved efficacy. Antiangiogenic therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) has recently been used successfully to treat MO resulting from a variety of causes.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the efficacy and gather evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the potential harms of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents for the treatment of macular oedema (MO) secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2019, Issue 6); MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the last search was 12 June 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating BRVO. Eligible trials had to have at least six months' follow-up where anti-VEGF treatment was compared with another treatment, no treatment, or placebo. We excluded trials where combination treatments (anti-VEGF plus other treatments) were used; and trials that investigated the dose and duration of treatment without a comparison group (other treatment/no treatment/sham).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted the data using standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with an improvement from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity of greater than or equal to 15 letters (3 lines) on the Early Treatment in Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) Chart at six months and 12 months of follow-up. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of participants who lost greater than or equal to 15 ETDRS letters (3 lines) and the mean visual acuity (VA) change at six and 12 months, as well as the change in central retinal thickness (CRT) on optical coherence tomography from baseline at six and 12 months. We also collected data on adverse events and quality of life (QoL).

MAIN RESULTS

We found eight RCTs of 1631 participants that met the inclusion criteria after independent and duplicate review of the search results. These studies took place in Europe, North America, Eastern Mediterranean region and East Asia. Included participants were adults aged 18 or over with VA of 20/40 or worse. Studies varied by duration of disease but permitted previously treated eyes as long as there was sufficient treatment-free interval. All anti-VEGF agents (bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept) and steroids (triamcinolone and dexamethasone) were included. Overall, we judged the studies to be at moderate or unclear risk of bias. Four of the eight studies did not mask participants or outcome assessors, or both. One trial compared anti-VEGF to sham. At six months, eyes receiving anti-VEGF were significantly more likely to have a gain of 15 or more ETDRS letters (risk ratio (RR) 1.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 2.49; 283 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mean VA was better in the anti-VEGF group at six months compared with control (mean difference (MD) 7.50 letters, 95% CI 5.29 to 9.71; 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGF also proved more effective at reducing CRT at six months (MD -57.50 microns, 95% CI -108.63 to -6.37; 281 participants; lower CRT is better; moderate-certainty evidence). There was only very low-certainty evidence on adverse effects. There were no reports of endophthalmitis. Mean change in QoL (measured using the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire VFQ-25) was better in people treated with anti-VEGF compared with people treated with sham (MD 7.6 higher score, 95% CI 4.3 to 10.9; 281 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Three RCTs compared anti-VEGF with macular laser (total participants = 473). The proportion of eyes gaining 15 or more letters was greater in the anti-VEGF group at six months (RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.05; 2 studies, 201 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mean VA in the anti-VEGF groups was better than the laser groups at six months (MD 9.63 letters, 95% CI 7.23 to 12.03; 3 studies, 473 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was a greater reduction in CRT in the anti-VEGF group compared with the laser group at six months (MD -147.47 microns, 95% CI -200.19 to -94.75; 2 studies, 201 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was only very low-certainty evidence on adverse events. There were no reports of endophthalmitis. QoL outcomes were not reported. Four studies compared anti-VEGF with intravitreal steroid (875 participants). The proportion of eyes gaining 15 or more ETDRS letters was greater in the anti-VEGF group at six months (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.10; 2 studies, 330 participants; high-certainty evidence) and 12 months (RR 1.76, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.28; 1 study, 307 participants; high-certainty evidence). Mean VA was better in the anti-VEGF group at six months (MD 8.22 letters, 95% CI 5.69 to 10.76; 2 studies, 330 participants; high-certainty evidence) and 12 months (MD 9.15 letters, 95% CI 6.32 to 11.97; 2 studies, 343 participants; high-certainty evidence). Mean CRT also showed a greater reduction in the anti-VEGF arm at 12 months compared with intravitreal steroid (MD -26.92 microns, 95% CI -65.88 to 12.04; 2 studies, 343 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). People receiving anti-VEGF showed a greater improvement in QoL at 12 months compared to those receiving steroid (MD 3.10, 95% CI 0.22 to 5.98; 1 study, 307 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Moderate-certainty evidence suggested increased risk of cataract and raised IOP with steroids. There was only very low-certainty evidence on APTC events. No cases of endophthalmitis were observed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available RCT evidence suggests that treatment of MO secondary to BRVO with anti-VEGF improves visual and anatomical outcomes at six and 12 months.

Use of Anti-VEGF Drugs in Retinal Vein Occlusions

Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is one of the most prevalent causes of visual loss in the Western World. Its pathogenesis is still not completely known. Chronic macular edema and ischemia compromise the functional and anatomical status of the retina. Antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections have demonstrated better results than other previous options, including observation or laser therapy. This narrative review aims to analyze the current aspects related to these drugs.

Intravitreal Medications for Retinal Vein Occlusion: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Purpose

To evaluate the outcomes of different intravitreal injections for the treatment of retinal vein occlusion including central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) and branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).

Methods

PubMed, Cochrane, the metaRegister of ControlledTrials, and ClinicalTrials were searched for intravitreal anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) and steroids with relevant keywords and date limitation of 2009-2018. Meta-analysis was performed on studies that met the defined inclusion criteria. Main outcomes were visual acuity (VA) and central macular thickness (CMT).

Results

Out of 681 studies, 36 articles (including 21 reporting CRVO and 15 dealing with BRVO) were selected for systematic review. All five intravitreal drugs including triamcinolone, dexamethasone, ranibizumab, bevacizumab, and aflibercept showed improvement of CMT and VA as compared to placebo or laser treatment. Six randomized controlled trials were selected for meta-analysis in RVO patients. The pooled mean difference of visual improvement between sham and ranibizumab was 12.7 Early Treatment for Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters (95%CI: 11.00 to 13.2), and the pooled mean difference in CMT reduction was 221μm (95%CI: 153 to 284); both changes were significantly in favor of ranibizumab. The pooled mean difference of visual improvement between bevacizumab and triamcinolone was 5.3 ETDRS letters in favor of bevacizumab (95%CI: 16 μm to 17.5 μm). Triamcinolone led to 68.1 μm greater CMT reduction than bevacizumab (95%CI: 58 μm to 76 μm). However, none of these differences were statistically significant.

Conclusion

Treatment with anti-VEGF agents in RVO is superior to observation. No significant difference was seen between the eyes treated with bevacizumab or triamcinolone based on these results.

IMPACT OF RETINAL ISCHEMIA ON FUNCTIONAL AND ANATOMICAL OUTCOMES AFTER ANTI-VASCULAR ENDOTHELIAL GROWTH FACTOR THERAPY IN PATIENTS WITH RETINAL VEIN OCCLUSION

PURPOSE

To compare the impact of the classification of retinal vein occlusion (RVO) into ischemic or nonischemic forms on outcomes after anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy.

METHODS

Retrospective review of consecutive patients with RVO evaluated at the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust between July 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015. Outcomes, including gain of ≥10 and ≥15 letters at 12 months, mean change in best-corrected visual acuity from baseline to 12 months, resolution of macular edema at 12 months, and development of neovascular complications and epiretinal membrane after anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy, were compared between ischemic and nonischemic eyes using regression models.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventeen eyes (115 patients), 58 with central RVO and 59 with branch RVO, were included. A greater proportion of eyes with ischemic branch RVO gained ≥10 and ≥15 letters at 12 months than those with nonischemic branch RVO (P = 0.005 and P = 0.016, respectively). No statistically significant differences in visual outcomes were observed between ischemic and nonischemic central RVO. Retinal vein occlusion classification was not associated with anatomical outcomes after treatment.

CONCLUSION

Findings support the use of anti-vascular endothelial growth factors in ischemic and nonischemic forms of RVO.

Effect of funding source on reporting bias in studies of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy for retinal vein occlusion

PURPOSE

To examine the relationship between industry funding and outcome reporting bias in high-quality studies investigating the use of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents for patients with macular oedema secondary to branch or central retinal vein occlusion (RVO).

METHODS

This systematic review in PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE examined all randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses published in journals with impact factor of ≥2 that investigated effectiveness of intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy in patients with RVO. The main outcome measure was correspondence between statistical outcome and abstract conclusion wording.

RESULTS

Forty-five studies met inclusion criteria; 38 (84%) showed correspondence between outcome and abstract conclusion without difference between industry-funded and nonindustry-funded publications (p = 0.39) or between publications in journals with impact factor ≥3 versus <3 (p = 0.96).

CONCLUSION

In high-quality studies of intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy for RVO, neither industry funding nor journal impact factor affected the rate of outcome reporting bias.

Long-term management of non-ischemic central retinal vein occlusion with fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant 190 μg (ILUVIEN®)

INTRODUCTION

Macular edema after central retinal vein occlusion is a common cause of vision loss. Upregulation of vascular endothelial growth factor and higher levels of inflammatory mediators have been involved in the pathogeny of the macular edema in central retinal vein occlusion.

CASE REPORT

The authors report a case with non-ischemic central retinal vein occlusion that was successfully treated with a single sustained-release fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant. After a course of repeated injections of shorter-acting corticosteroid, the affected eye presented a visual acuity of 20/200 and a central subfield foveal thickness of 587 µm. After fluocinolone acetonide in intravitreal implant and during a follow-up period of 12 months, a continuous and sustained increase in visual acuity until 20/25 with significant anatomical improvements and an acceptable safety profile was observed.

CONCLUSION

These results, demonstrate that fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant might be an effective treatment option in macular edema secondary to non-ischemic central retinal vein occlusion.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of drug therapies for macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents and corticosteroids for the treatment of macular oedema (ME) secondary to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO).

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients from previously reported randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anti-VEGF and corticosteroids for the treatment of ME secondary to CRVO.

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted using PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and clinicaltrials.gov until March 2017. Therapeutic effects were estimated using the proportions of patients gaining/losing ≥15 letters, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT). Treatment safety was estimated using the proportions of adverse events, namely increased intraocular pressure (IOP), cataracts, vitreous haemorrhage (VH) and retinal tear. The software ADDIS (V.1.16.8) was used for analysis. Treatment effect and safety of different drugs could be ranked based on simulation.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs comprising 2060 patients were identified. Regarding patients gaining ≥15 letters, aflibercept and ranibizumab were significantly more effective than sham/placebo at 6 months. Regarding patients losing ≥15 letters at 6 months, ranibizumab showed significant improvement compared with dexamethasone. Aflibercept, bevacizumab or ranibizumab showed greater improvements in BCVA than sham/placebo at 6 months. Intravitreal ranibizumab injection demonstrated greater CRT reduction than both sham and dexamethasone did. Dexamethasone had a higher risk of increased IOP than aflibercept and ranibizumab. Ranibizumab demonstrated a greater risk of cataracts than dexamethasone. Aflibercept and ranibizumab demonstrated low incidence of VH and retinal tear, respectively. Aflibercept had a slight advantage over ranibizumab as assessed by benefit-risk analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-VEGF agents have advantages in the treatment of ME secondary to CRVO. Aflibercept and ranibizumab showed marked BCVA improvement and CRT reduction. Aflibercept may have a slight advantage over ranibizumab. The results of this study can serve as a reference for clinicians to provide patient-tailored treatment.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017064076.

Fuchs heterochromic iridocyclitis-associated glaucoma: a retrospective comparison of primary Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation and trabeculectomy with mitomycin C

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of primary trabeculectomy with mitomycin C and Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) implantation in patients with Fuchs heterochromic iridocyclitis (FHIC)-related glaucoma, a rare complication of an uncommon form of uveitis. Methods : In this retrospective comparative case series, 26 FHIC-associated glaucoma patients received trabeculectomy (n=12) or an AGV (n=14). Primary outcome measures were surgical success, defined as intraocular pressure (IOP) ≤21 mmHg, decreasing ≥20% from baseline, and no secondary glaucoma surgery. Secondary outcome measures were the number of glaucoma medications, complications, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and IOP. Results: The follow-up was 34.0±17.7 months in patients that received trabeculectomy and 33.4±18.6 months in AGV (P= 0.837). The cumulative probability of success rate was 41.7% for trabeculectomy and 85.7% for AGV, with no significant difference in complications (P>0.05). The IOP in patients that received trabeculectomy dropped from 23.4±3.3 mmHg to 21.6±5.2 mmHg at the final visit (P= 0.041). In patients that received AGV, the IOP decreased from 24±7.8 to 17.1±2.6 mmHg (P= 0.003). The number of glaucoma medications at baseline were 3.3±0.5 in those that received trabeculectomy and 3±0.6 in those that received AGV (P=0.233), and decreased to 2.4±1.0 (P=0.008) and 1.7±0.6 (P=0.002), respectively. BCVA was equal in both groups and did not change (P>0.05). Conclusion: Primary AGV had a higher success rate than trabeculectomy, with patients also needing fewer medications for the management of FHIC-associated glaucoma.

Fuchs heterochromic iridocyclitis-associated glaucoma: a retrospective comparison of primary Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation and trabeculectomy with mitomycin C

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of primary trabeculectomy with mitomycin C and Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) implantation in patients with Fuchs heterochromic iridocyclitis (FHIC)-related glaucoma, a rare complication of an uncommon form of uveitis. Methods : In this retrospective comparative case series, 26 FHIC-associated glaucoma patients received trabeculectomy (n=12) or an AGV (n=14). Primary outcome measures were surgical success, defined as intraocular pressure (IOP) ≤21 mmHg, decreasing ≥20% from baseline, and no secondary glaucoma surgery. Secondary outcome measures were the number of glaucoma medications, complications, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and IOP. Results: The follow-up was 34.0±17.7 months in patients that received trabeculectomy and 33.4±18.6 months in AGV (P= 0.837). The cumulative probability of success rate was 41.7% for trabeculectomy and 85.7% for AGV, with no significant difference in complications (P>0.05). The IOP in patients that received trabeculectomy dropped from 23.4±3.3 mmHg to 21.6±5.2 mmHg at the final visit (P= 0.041). In patients that received AGV, the IOP decreased from 24±7.8 to 17.1±2.6 mmHg (P= 0.003). The number of glaucoma medications at baseline were 3.3±0.5 in those that received trabeculectomy and 3±0.6 in those that received AGV (P=0.233), and decreased to 2.4±1.0 (P=0.008) and 1.7±0.6 (P=0.002), respectively. BCVA was equal in both groups and did not change (P>0.05). Conclusion: Primary AGV had a higher success rate than trabeculectomy, with patients also needing fewer medications for the management of FHIC-associated glaucoma.

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.

POOLED ESTIMATES OF INCIDENCE OF ENDOPHTHALMITIS AFTER INTRAVITREAL INJECTION OF ANTI-VASCULAR ENDOTHELIAL GROWTH FACTOR AGENTS WITH AND WITHOUT TOPICAL ANTIBIOTIC PROPHYLAXIS

PURPOSE

To assess the effect of topical antibiotic prophylaxis on postoperative endophthalmitis after intravitreal injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed from inception to March 2016 using PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, to identify articles that reported cases of endophthalmitis after intravitreal injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents. We used a pooled analysis to estimate the incidence of cases of endophthalmitis who developed after injections performed with and without topical antibiotic prophylaxis. We used regression analysis to explore the effects of study characteristics on heterogeneity.

RESULTS

From our search of electronic databases, we identified and screened 4,561 unique records. We judged 60 articles to have reported findings for cohorts of patients who met our inclusion criteria, (12 arms of randomized clinical trials, 11 prospective cohort studies, and 37 retrospective cohort studies), which included 244 cases of endophthalmitis and 639,391 intravitreal injections of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents. The final pooled estimate endophthalmitis proportions were 9/10,000 (95% confidence interval, 7/10,000-12/10,000) in the antibiotic-treated group and 3/10,000 (95% confidence interval, 2/10,000-5/10,000) in the untreated group. The estimated incidence of endophthalmitis with topical antibiotic prophylaxis was approximated three times the incidence without prophylaxis. Random effects regression showed that none of the study characteristics significantly affected the effect size in either group.

CONCLUSION

Topical antibiotic after intravitreal injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents is associated with a higher risk of endophthalmitis.

Comparison of treatment response to intravitreal injection of triamcinolone, bevacizumab and combined form in patients with central retinal vein occlusion: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO), is the second-most common disorder after diabetic retinopathy that threatens the vision related to retinal vessels. One of the main reasons of vision loss is CRVO in acute and chronic forms.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the response to intravitreal injection of triamcinolone, bevacizumab, and a combined form in patients with CRVO.

METHODS

This study was a double-blinded randomized clinical trial conducted on patients with CRVO who were referred to the ophthalmology clinic of Urmia Imam Khomeini Hospital from May 2015 to May 2016. In total, ninety patients were divided into three groups using random numbers table. The first group received intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVT) for treatment of macular edema due to CRVO, the second group received intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) and the third group received a combination of IVT and IVB. The best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) were recorded and analyzed using optical coherence tomography system.

RESULTS

In this study a total of 90 eyes were studied, 41 case (45.55%) were male and 49 cases (54.44%) were female. The mean age of patients was 68.41±8.32 years. The mean score of final visual acuity was 0.293±0.11 in the IVT group, 0.25±0.10 in the IVB group and 0.48±0.15 in the IVB+IVT group. The differences between groups considering final visual acuity was significant (p<0.001). The mean thickness of final macular was 383.33±97.70 micrometer in IVT group, 386.33±136.79 micrometers in IVB group and 307.33±110.79 micrometers in IVT+IVB group which were significant (p=0.014).

CONCLUSION

Using a combination of bevacizumab and triamcinolone in the treatment of central retinal vein occlusion compared with using each of them separately, had a better result and can be used as a solution in this disease.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered at the Thai Registry of Clinical Trials (http://www.clinicaltrials.in.th) with the TCTR ID: TCTR20170612005.

FUNDING

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Comparison between anti-VEGF therapy and corticosteroid or laser therapy for macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion: A meta-analysis

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Therapeutic effects of anti-VEGF agents, corticosteroids and laser therapy have been previously examined for treating macular oedema secondary to branch and central retinal vein occlusion (BRVO and CRVO). However, anti-VEGF efficacy has not been previously compared to corticosteroid or laser therapy efficacy. We performed a meta-analysis to compare these treatments.

METHODS

Pertinent publications were identified through comprehensive literature searches. Therapeutic effects were estimated using best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT) and intraocular pressure (IOP). The Review Manager (version 5.3.5) was used to perform searches.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Eleven randomized, controlled trials that included 1045 RVO patients were identified. For eyes with BRVO, anti-VEGF therapy improved BCVA significantly more than corticosteroid/laser therapy at 3 (P=.0002), 6 (P<.00001) and 12 months (P<.00001). For eyes with CRVO, this difference was only significant at 6 months (P=.002). The same was true when efficacy was examined using CRT at 3 and 6 months (BRVO: both P<.00001, CRVO 6 months: P=.02). Long-term efficacy of anti-VEGF agents was limited in eyes with BRVO and CRVO. Improvements in BCVA were similar at 1 and 3 months (P=.74), but BCVA decreased between 3 and 6 months (P=.03). In contrast, BCVA progressively decreased 1 and 6 months following corticosteroid/laser therapy (both P<.00001). Lastly, eyes that had been treated with anti-VEGF agents had significantly lower IOP changes than eyes treated with corticosteroids/laser 3 and 6 months after initiating therapy (both P<.00001).

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Anti-VEGF agents improve BCVA and reduce CRT more effectively and longer than corticosteroid/laser in eyes with RVO. Anti-VEGF agents also have a lower risk of elevating IOP. Additionally, anti-VEGF agents are more effective for treating BRVO than CRVO.

Comparison of intravitreal bevacizumab with intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide for treatment of cystoid macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion: a Meta-analysis

AIM

To compare the effects of intravitreal injection of bevacizumab (IVB) with intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA) on the treatment of cystoid macular edema (CME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO).

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science and the Chinese Biomedical Database. The comparison was divided into two groups, group 1 conducted comparison in branch RVO (BRVO) or central RVO (CRVO), group 2 conducted comparison in ischemic-RVO or nonischemic-RVO. Pooled mean differences (MDs) for changes in visual acuity (VA), central macular thickness (CMT) and intraocular pressure (IOP) were calculated in groups at 4, 12 and 24wk after treatment respectively.

RESULTS

Eight studies comparing the efficacy of IVB with IVTA were included in the Meta-analysis. In group 1, in BRVO, significant difference was shown on the comparison of CMT at 24wk (MD, -45.66; 95% CI, -76.03 to -15.28; P=0.003), IVB was effective on BRVO for at least 24wk; no significant differences were found in the comparison of VA at each time points (P>0.05 respectively). In CRVO, no significant differences were found in the comparison of VA or CMT between IVB and IVTA at each time points (P>0.05, respectively). In group 2, in ischemic-RVO, significant differences were shown in the comparison of VA (MD, -0.28; 95% CI, -0.42 to -0.14; P<0.0001) and CMT (MD, -86.50; 95% CI, -151.18 to -22.43; P=0.008) at 24wk; In nonischemic-RVO, no significant differences were demonstrated in the comparison of VA or CMT between IVB and IVTA at each time points (P>0.05, respectively). The occurrence of high IOP was much lower in IVB group.

CONCLUSION

This Meta-analysis suggested that IVB was effective in decreasing CMT in BRVO for at least 24wk, IVB is more effective on improving VA and reducing CMT in ischemic-RVO. IVB is more promising on RVO than IVTA.