Comparison of intravitreal bevacizumab and dexamethasone implant for the treatment of macula oedema associated with branch retinal vein occlusion

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.

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.

Current Outcomes of Anti-VEGF Therapy in the Treatment of Macular Oedema Secondary to Branch Retinal Vein Occlusions: A Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

The current body of evidence on the efficacy and safety of anti-VEGFs for macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) is steadily growing as large clinical trials and observational studies are continually completed. The aim of this meta-analysis is to analyse anatomical and functional outcomes in response to anti-VEGF therapy using evidence generated from a pooled analysis of current clinical trials and observational studies.

METHODS

The current meta-analysis includes treatment of BRVO with aflibercept, bevacizumab and ranibizumab from randomised controlled trials and observational studies. Inclusion criteria included peer-reviewed publications with at least a 12-month follow-up period. On literature review using multiple electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane), 22 studies met the inclusion criteria. Baseline patient characteristics, study design, sample size and 12- and 24-month change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central foveal thickness (CFT) as measured on optical coherence tomography imaging were pooled in a meta-analysis. Data were then stratified by study design and anti-VEGF therapy in subgroup analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 1,236 eyes from 22 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Mean baseline BCVA ranged from 66 ETDRS letters (20/50 Snellen equivalent) to 35 letters (20/200 Snellen). Mean baseline CFT ranged from 406.0 to 681.0 µm. Anti-VEGF treatment demonstrated an overall mean improvement in BCVA at 12 months of 14 letters (95% CI 12.0 to 16.2, p < 0.001) and CFT reduction of 228 µm (95% CI -278.9 to -176.1, p < 0.001). The BCVA gains at 12 months were maintained to month 24 with a mean gain of 12.5 letters (95% CI 6.3 to 18.8, p < 0.001), as well as reduction of CFT of 238 µm (95% CI -336.0 to -140.2, p < 0.001). No cases of endophthalmitis or glaucoma were reported in any study.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis confirms the comparable safety and efficacy of anti-VEGF therapies for patients with cystoid macular oedema secondary to BRVO. There is a need for randomised prospective comparative trials of anti-VEGF agents for BRVO.

Comparison of dexamethasone intravitreal implant with intravitreal anti-VEGF injections for the treatment of macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX) and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) in the treatment of macular edema (ME) secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were comprehensively searched for published studies comparing DEX with anti-VEGF for the treatment of ME caused by BRVO. Outcomes of the selected studies included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and adverse events. Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3 was used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Six trials comparing the efficacy and safety of DEX with anti-VEGF were included in this meta-analysis. At 1 month, DEX achieved a mean BCVA superior to that achieved by anti-VEGF (MD = -0.11, P < .0001), in addition to a superior mean BCVA change (MD = -0.35, P < .00001). At 3 months, the mean BCVA showed a significant difference (MD = -0.06, P = .03) between DEX and anti-VEGF treatment, while the mean BCVA change was similar to that with anti-VEGF treatment (MD = -0.06, P = .11). However, neither mean BCVA nor mean BCVA change showed a significant difference between DEX and anti-VEGF treatment at 6 months (MD = 0.08, P = .06; MD = 0.06, P = .43, respectively). Mean CMT and mean CMT change were significantly lower in the DEX group than in the anti-VEGF group at 1 month (MD = -53.63 μm, P < .00001; MD = -60.1 μm, P = .005, respectively). However, at 3 months, mean CMT and mean CMT change were similar between DEX and anti-VEGF treatment (MD = 17.4 μ, P = .74; MD = 18.01 μm, P = .72, respectively). Although mean CMT in the anti-VEGF group was not significantly lower than that in the DEX group at 6 months (MD = 55.53, P = .07), the mean CMT change from baseline achieved by the anti-VEGF treatment was significantly superior to that obtained with DEX (MD = 75.53, P = .0002). Concerning adverse events, no statistically significant differences were observed in the incidence of cataract (OR = 4.25, P = .07), but the use of DEX led to a higher risk of intraocular pressure elevation compared with anti-VEGF treatment (OR = 12.04, P = .006).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that visual acuity recovery and CMT were better in the DEX group than in the anti-VEGF group after 1 and 3 months, although the difference in CMT at 3 months was not significant. However, there were no significant differences in terms of visual acuity and CMT between the two groups after 6 months of follow-up. Therefore, DEX may be recommended as the first treatment option in ME associated with BRVO.

The efficacy of intravitreal dexamethasone implant as the first-line treatment for retinal vein occlusion-related macular edema in a real-life scenario

Purpose

This study evaluated the effect of intravitreal dexamethasone implant (IDI; Ozurdex) injection for treating macular edema in patients with branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) or central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO).

Methods

This prospective study included 40 eyes of 40 patients with nonischemic BRVO and 31 eyes of 31 patients with nonischemic CRVO who received IDI injection as the first-line treatment for macular edema. The best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) value before and after the treatment; intraocular pressure; optic coherence tomography findings; and all ocular examination findings, including central foveal thickness (CFT) measurement and fluorescein angiography findings, were evaluated for each patient.

Results

After the IDI injection, BCVA value increased (P < 0.001) and CFT value decreased (P < 0.001) in both groups. The recurrence rates of CFT elevation after the first and the second Ozurdex injections were 65.0% and 65.3%, respectively, in patients with BRVO and 70.9% and 68.1%, respectively, in patients with CRVO. A statistically significant correlation was observed between preinjection CFT value and postinjection recurrence of CFT elevation (P = 0.017).

Conclusion

Treatment with the IDI injections resulted in significant short-term improvement in CFT and BCVA values in patients with clinically significant RVO-related macular edema. Moreover, we observed that high preinjection CFT value was associated with a risk of postinjection recurrence of CFT elevation.

Head-to-head comparison of ranibizumab PRN versus single-dose dexamethasone for branch retinal vein occlusion (COMRADE-B)

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy and safety of ranibizumab 0.5 mg versus dexamethasone 0.7 mg according to their European labels in macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) in a 6-month, phase IIIb, randomized trial.

METHODS

Patients received either monthly ranibizumab for 3 months followed by Pro re nata (PRN) treatment (n = 126) or a sustained-release dexamethasone implant followed by PRN sham injections (n = 118). Main outcomes were mean average change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline to month 1 through month 6, mean changes in BCVA and foveal centre point thickness (FCPT), and adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

There was no difference in BCVA gains between the treatments prior to month 3. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) gain with dexamethasone declined thereafter. From month 3 to month 6, mean BCVA change from baseline was significantly higher with ranibizumab than with dexamethasone [raw means (standard deviation):+16.2 (±11) letters versus +9.3 (±10.1) letters]. At month 6, the difference in BCVA gains from baseline was +17.3 letters in the ranibizumab versus +9.2 letters in the dexamethasone group. Patients in the ranibizumab group received a mean of 2.94 loading injections and 1.74 PRN retreatment injections, while those in the dexamethasone group received a single loading injection. Elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) and AEs were more frequent with dexamethasone than ranibizumab treatment.

CONCLUSION

Ranibizumab PRN resulted in greater visual acuity (VA) gains in macular oedema following BRVO compared with single-dose dexamethasone over a 6-month study period, observed from month 3, when administered according to their European label. In clinical practice, retreatment with dexamethasone may be required prior to this point.

Bevacizumab versus Dexamethasone Implant Followed by Bevacizumab for the Treatment of Macula Edema Associated with Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion

Purpose

To compare visual and anatomical outcomes of intravitreal injections of bevacizumab and dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex) treatment for macular edema associated with branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent intravitreal bevacizumab administered monthly on a pro re nata (PRN) basis (26 eyes, IVB group) or an initial 700-µg dexamethasone implant followed by a bevacizumab PRN injection (20 eyes, IVD group) for treatment of macular edema associated with BRVO. We compared best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT). We also measured ellipsoid zone recovery rate and ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer volume within the center 6 mm zone. A linear mixed model analysis was performed to compare serial changes in BCVA and CMT.

Results

Both groups showed significant improvement in BCVA and significant reduction in CMT. However, BCVA in the first month was significantly better in the IVD group (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution, IVD group 0.21 ± 0.26 vs. IVB group 0.39 ± 0.30, p = 0.038) and the 1-month CMT was thinner in the IVD group (IVD group 270.0 ± 62.0 µm vs. IVB group 338.9 ± 122.6 µm, p = 0.028), and these trends were maintained during the 6-month follow-up. The IVD group showed more rapid macular edema resolution (p = 0.049); however, there were no significant differences in ellipsoid zone recovery rate (p = 0.268) or ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer volume between the two groups (p = 0.459).

Conclusions

There were no significant differences in final visual or anatomical outcomes between the two groups; however, initial dexamethasone implant injection followed by bevacizumab PRN injection initially showed more rapid improvement in vision and BRVO-associated macular edema resolution compared to intravitreal bevacizumab administered monthly on a PRN basis.

Switch of Intravitreal Therapy for Macular Edema Secondary to Retinal Vein Occlusion from Anti-VEGF to Dexamethasone Implant and Vice Versa

PURPOSE

To evaluate the anatomical and functional outcome of intravitreal dexamethasone implant for macular edema secondary to central (C) or branch (B) retinal vein occlusion (RVO) in patients with persistent macular edema (ME) refractory to intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment compared to treatment naïve patients and to dexamethasone-refractory eyes switched to anti-VEGF.

METHODS

Retrospective, observational study including 30 eyes previously treated with anti-VEGF (8 CRVO, 22 BRVO, mean age 69 ± 10 yrs), compared to 11 treatment naïve eyes (6 CRVO, 5 BRVO, 73 ± 11 yrs) and compared to dexamethasone nonresponders (2 CRVO, 4 BRVO, 69 ± 12). Outcome parameters were change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central foveal thickness (CFT) measured by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography.

RESULTS

Mean BCVA improvement after switch to dexamethasone implant was 4 letters (p = 0.08), and treatment naïve eyes gained 10 letters (p = 0.66), while we noted no change in eyes after switch to anti-VEGF (p = 0.74). Median CFT decrease was most pronounced in treatment naïve patients (-437 μm, p = 0.002) compared to anti-VEGF refractory eyes (-170 μm, p = 0.003) and dexamethasone-refractory eyes (-157, p = 0.31).

CONCLUSIONS

Dexamethasone significantly reduced ME secondary to RVO refractory to anti-VEGF. Functional gain was limited compared to treatment naïve eyes, probably due to worse BCVA and CFT at baseline in treatment naïve eyes.

New Developments in the Classification, Pathogenesis, Risk Factors, Natural History, and Treatment of Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion

For years, branch retinal vein occlusion is still a controversial disease in many aspects. An increasing amount of data is available regarding classification, pathogenesis, risk factors, natural history, and therapy of branch retinal vein occlusion. Some of the conclusions may even change our impression of branch retinal vein occlusion. It will be beneficial for our doctors to get a deeper understanding of this disease and improve the treatment skills. The aims of this review is to collect the information above and report new ideas especially from the past a few years.

Comparison of Choroidal Thickness Changes following Intravitreal Dexamethasone, Ranibizumab, and Triamcinolone in Eyes with Retinal Vein Occlusion

Purpose

To evaluate short-term choroidal thickness changes following intravitreal dexamethasone implant (DEX), ranibizumab (RAN), and triamcinolone acetonide (TA) in eyes with retinal vein occlusion (RVO) and macular edema (ME).

Methods

In this prospective study, 35 eyes of 35 patients with RVO and ME who were treated with intravitreal injections of DEX, RAN, and TA were included. Choroidal thickness was measured using semiautomated segmentation of enhanced depth imaging with optical coherence tomography at fovea and parafoveal areas. Changes in choroidal thickness following treatment were compared statistically.

Results

Choroidal thickness decreased following DEX, RAN, and TA treatments (all p>0.05). In the DEX group, at the first month nasal 1,500 µm (N11,500) and at the third month subfoveal (SF3) and nasal 500 µm (N3500) choroidal thickness revealed a significant reduction compared to RAN and TA groups (all p<0.05). In the TA group, choroidal thickness showed a significant reduction only at nasal 1,500 µm (N31,500) at the third month (p<0.05).

Conclusions

Choroidal thickness was decreased in all 3 groups. The DEX and TA groups showed a significant reduction at some areas. Ranibizumab had the smallest effect on choroidal thickness after 3 months among all groups.