Drug treatment of macular oedema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion: a network meta-analysis

Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of retinal vein occlusion

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

To assess the methodological quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) for the diagnosis and management of Retinal Vein Occlusion (RVO).

METHODS

A systematic review of CPGs for the diagnosis and management of RVO was carried out with a search in databases, metasearch engines, CPG development institutions, ophthalmology associations and CPG repositories until April 2022. Search update was performed on April 2023, with no new record available. Five CPGs published in the last 10 years in English/Spanish were selected, and 5 authors evaluated them independently, using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE-II) instrument. An individual assessment of each CPG by domain (AGREE-II), an overall assessment of the guide, and its use with or without modifications were performed. Additionally, a meta-synthesis of the recommendations for the most relevant outcomes was carried out.

RESULTS

The lowest score (mean 18.8%) was for domain 5 'applicability', and the highest score (mean 62%) was for domain 4 'clarity of presentation'. The 2019 American guideline (PPP) presented the best score (40.4%) in domain 3 'rigour of development'. When evaluating the overall quality of the CPGs analysed, all CPGs could be recommended with modifications. In the meta-synthesis, anti-VEGF therapy is the first-choice therapy for macular oedema associated with RVO, but there is no clear recommendation about the type of anti-VEGF therapy to choose. Recommendations for diagnosis and follow-up are similar among the CPGs appraised.

CONCLUSION

Most CPGs for the diagnosis and management of RVO have a low methodological quality assessed according to the AGREE-II. PPP has the higher score in the domain 'rigour of development'. Among the CPGs appraised, there is no clear recommendation on the type of anti-VEGF therapy to choose.

Efficacy, Safety, and Treatment Burden of Aflibercept 2 mg and Ranibizumab in Retinal Vein Occlusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to provide an updated evidence base for clinical decision-making by comparing the efficacy and safety of aflibercept 2 mg and ranibizumab in treating retinal vein occlusion (RVO).

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using eight databases up to December 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world studies (RWSs) comparing aflibercept and ranibizumab in patients with RVO were evaluated. The primary outcomes assessed were efficacy, number of injections administered, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Three RCTs (424 patients) and 11 RWSs (1415 patients) were included. For central RVO (CRVO), RCTs demonstrated a comparable efficacy, whereas RWSs showed that mean changes from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) were significantly greater with aflibercept compared to ranibizumab; the number of injections of aflibercept was fewer than that of ranibizumab in RCTs, but similar in RWSs. For branch RVO (BRVO), no statistically significant difference in efficacy between the two drugs in RCTs/RWSs was observed, with fewer injections of aflibercept at 12 months in RWSs. The safety profiles of both drugs were similar for both CRVO and BRVO.

CONCLUSIONS

For CRVO, aflibercept had similar efficacy and safety profile but with fewer injections versus ranibizumab in RCTs; RWSs showed greater BCVA improvement and CRT reduction with aflibercept than ranibizumab. For BRVO, RCTs showed similar in efficacy, safety, and injection numbers for both drugs, while RWSs demonstrated that aflibercept required fewer injections at 12 months of follow-up. Overall, this study provides updated evidence for clinical decision-making in the treatment of RVO.

Suprachoroidal triamcinolone acetonide for the treatment of macular edema associated with retinal vein occlusion: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Suprachoroidal Drug Delivery has emerged in recent years as a novel promising approach, which may help address the clinical unmet needs in the management of Retinal Vein Occlusion (RVO) associated Macular Edema (ME). In this study, we aim to evaluate the feasibility in regard of the potential efficacy and safety of suprachoroidal injection of Triamcinolone Acetonide (TA) using a microinjector as a mono-treatment of ME due to RVO.

METHODS

This trial included 16 eyes of 16 patients with RVO associated ME presenting to the department of ophthalmology, Al Mouwasat university hospital, Syria. 4 mg of preserved TA was injected suprachoroidally 4 mm away from the inferotemporal limbus using a patient-customized microinjector. After injection, patients were followed after 1 week then monthly for 3 months. Primary outcome measures included the percentage of participants with best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) gain≥15 letters and increased intraocular pressure (IOP) ≥ 20 mmHg in months 1,2, and 3, secondary measures included mean change from baseline BCVA, central subfield thickness (CST), and IOP through each of the follow-up points in addition to other measures.

RESULTS

After injection, BCVA gain≥15 letters occurred in 68.7, 62.5, 50, 50% of patients at week 1 and through months 1,2 and 3 respectively, the mean BCVA improved significantly by 16.4, 16, 14.4, and 11.9 letters (p-value< 0.0005) at week 1 and months 1,2 and 3 respectively. This visual gain was associated with a significant reduction of CST by 290.94 ± 181.76 (week-1) (p-value< 0.0005), 274.31 ± 184.60 (month-1) (p-value< 0.0005), 183.50 ± 165.61 (month-2) (p-value = 0.006) and 137,75 ± 156.25 μm (month-3) (p-value = 0.038). We reported one case of increased IOP ≥ 20 mmHg in the first month that decreased in the second month. The mean change of IOP readings was not statistically significant, with an increase ranging from 0.75 mmHg after the first week (p-value = 0.09) and 0.5 mmHg after 3 months (p-value = 0.72).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that suprachoroidal TA could be well tolerated and efficacious as a mono-treatment of RVO associated ME. Future clinical trials are required to confirm its longer-term safety and efficacy and to compare this efficacy with the other therapeutic options.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was retrospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov (ID: NCT05038072) on 08/09/2021. This article was published as a preprint on 22/06/2022. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1701105/v1 .

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.

Comparative Efficacy of Pharmacotherapy for Macular Edema Secondary to Retinal Vein Occlusion: A Network Meta-analysis

Purpose: This network meta-analysis was conducted to obtain the relative effectiveness of different pharmacotherapy of macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) by summarizing all available evidences.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for all relevant randomized controlled trials. The outcomes were estimated through a network meta-analysis, including the mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline, the proportion of patients who gained ≥15 letters in BCVA from baseline, the mean change in central retinal thickness (CRT).

Results: We identified 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 3,431 patients with RVO in our study. Different therapeutic regimens were compared including three anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents (ranibizumab, bevacizumab, and aflibercept), ranibizumab with laser, dexamethasone intravitreal implant, and laser. For branch RVO, ranibizumab 0.5 mg monthly [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 11, 95% confidence intervals (CrI) 3.6 to 19], ranibizumab 0.5 mg 3 + pro re nata (WMD = 9.4, 95% CrI 0.43–18) is most effective in terms of changes of BCVA and 15 letters or more of BCVA improvement. For central RVO, three anti-VEGF regimens can improve visual acuity and there is no significant difference of efficacy among ranibizumab, bevacizumab and aflibercept (p > 0.05). Ranibizumab 0.5 mg monthly could achieve additional efficacy in CRT reduction in eyes with branch RVO or central RVO (WMD = -130, 95% CrI -400 to 140 or WMD = -280, 95% CrI -590 to 16)). Dexamethasone intravitreal implant (WMD = 1.7, 95% CrI -4.2 to 7.1 or WMD = 0.38, 95% CrI -9.8 to 8.8)) did not show a significant improvement in visual acuity at the end of 6 months follow-up in eyes with branch RVO or central RVO.

Conclusion: In summary, this network meta-analysis demonstrated several anti-VEGF agents had equivalent effects on mean visual acuity changes and anatomical recovery in 6 months in eyes with branch or central RVO. Only one injection of dexamethasone intravitreal implant in 6 months could not maintain the visual benefit. Patients and clinicians could choose pharmacotherapies with further consideration toward personal factors.

Intravitreal ranibizumab versus aflibercept versus bevacizumab for macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion: the LEAVO non-inferiority three-arm RCT

BACKGROUND

Licensed ranibizumab (0.5 mg/0.05 ml Lucentis®; Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland) and aflibercept (2 mg/0.05 ml Eylea®; Bayer AG, Leverkusen, Germany) and unlicensed bevacizumab (1.25 mg/0.05 ml Avastin®; F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Basel, Switzerland) are used to treat macula oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion, but their relative clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and impact on the UK NHS and Personal Social Services have never been directly compared over the typical disease treatment period.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor agents for the management of macula oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion.

DESIGN

This was a three-arm, double-masked, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

SETTING

The trial was set in 44 UK NHS ophthalmology departments, between 2014 and 2018.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 463 patients with visual impairment due to macula oedema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion were included in the trial.

INTERVENTIONS

The participants were treated with repeated intravitreal injections of ranibizumab (n = 155), aflibercept (n = 154) or bevacizumab (n = 154).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was an increase in the best corrected visual acuity letter score from baseline to 100 weeks in the trial eye. The null hypothesis that aflibercept and bevacizumab are each inferior to ranibizumab was tested with a non-inferiority margin of -5 visual acuity letters over 100 weeks. Secondary outcomes included additional visual acuity, and imaging outcomes, Visual Function Questionnaire-25, EuroQol-5 Dimensions with and without a vision bolt-on, and drug side effects. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using treatment costs and Visual Function Questionnaire-Utility Index to measure quality-adjusted life-years.

RESULTS

The adjusted mean changes at 100 weeks in the best corrected visual acuity letter scores were as follows - ranibizumab, 12.5 letters (standard deviation 21.1 letters); aflibercept, 15.1 letters (standard deviation 18.7 letters); and bevacizumab, 9.8 letters (standard deviation 21.4 letters). Aflibercept was non-inferior to ranibizumab in the intention-to-treat population (adjusted mean best corrected visual acuity difference 2.23 letters, 95% confidence interval -2.17 to 6.63 letters; p = 0.0006), but not superior. The study was unable to demonstrate that bevacizumab was non-inferior to ranibizumab in the intention-to-treat population (adjusted mean best corrected visual acuity difference -1.73 letters, 95% confidence interval -6.12 to 2.67 letters; p = 0.071). A post hoc analysis was unable to demonstrate that bevacizumab was non-inferior to aflibercept in the intention-to-treat population (adjusted mean best corrected visual acuity difference was -3.96 letters, 95% confidence interval -8.34 to 0.42 letters; p = 0.32). All per-protocol population results were the same. Fewer injections were required with aflibercept (10.0) than with ranibizumab (11.8) (difference in means -1.8, 95% confidence interval -2.9 to -0.8). A post hoc analysis showed that more bevacizumab than aflibercept injections were required (difference in means 1.6, 95% confidence interval 0.5 to 2.7). There were no new safety concerns. The model- and trial-based cost-effectiveness analyses estimated that bevacizumab was the most cost-effective treatment at a threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year.

LIMITATIONS

The comparison of aflibercept and bevacizumab was a post hoc analysis.

CONCLUSION

The study showed aflibercept to be non-inferior to ranibizumab. However, the possibility that bevacizumab is worse than ranibizumab and aflibercept by 5 visual acuity letters cannot be ruled out. Bevacizumab is an economically attractive treatment alternative and would lead to substantial cost savings to the NHS and other health-care systems. However, uncertainty about its relative effectiveness should be discussed comprehensively with patients, their representatives and funders before treatment is considered.

FUTURE WORK

To obtain extensive patient feedback and discuss with all stakeholders future bevacizumab NHS use.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13623634.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Aflibercept versus dexamethasone for macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion

INTRODUCTION

Macular edema is a frequent complication of central retinal vein occlusion that might lead to deterioration of visual acuity. The most commonly used treatments are dexamethasone implant and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drugs, being aflibercept one of the most commonly used them. However, there is no consensus about which treatment constitute the best alternative.

METHODS

We searched in Epistemonikos, the largest database of systematic reviews in health, which is maintained by screening multiple information sources, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, among others. We extracted data from the systematic reviews, reanalyzed data of primary studies, conducted a meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

We identified two systematic reviews that included four primary studies overall, all randomized trials. We concluded that it is not possible to establish whether aflibercept is superior to dexamethasone in terms of improvement of visual acuity and safety, because the certainty of the existing evidence has been evaluated as very low.

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.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of an Aflibercept Treat-and-Extend Regimen in Treatment-Naïve Patients with Macular Oedema Secondary to Central Retinal Vein Occlusion (CRVO): A Prospective 12-Month, Single-Arm, Multicentre Trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate efficacy and safety of an aflibercept treat-and-extend (TAE) regimen in patients with macular oedema (MO) secondary to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO).

DESIGN SETTING AND PATIENTS

Phase IV, prospective, open-label, single-arm trial in 11 Spanish hospitals. Treatment-naïve patients with <6 month diagnosis of MO secondary to CRVO and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 73-24 ETDRS letters were included between 23 January 2015 and 17 March 2016.

INTERVENTION

Intravitreal aflibercept 2 mg monthly (3 months) followed by proactive individualized dosing.

MAIN OUTCOMES

Mean change in BCVA after 12 months.

RESULTS

24 eyes (24 patients) were included; mean (SD) age: 62.8 (15.0) years; 54.2% male; median (IQR) time since diagnosis: 7.6 (3.0, 15.2) days. Mean BCVA scores significantly improved between baseline (56.0 (16.5)) and Month 12 (74.1 (17.6)); mean (95% CI) change: 14.8 (8.2, 21.4); P=0.0001. Twelve (50.0%) patients gained ≥15 ETDRS letters. Foveal thickness improved between baseline (mean: 569.4 (216.8) µm) and Month 12 (mean 257.4 (48.4) µm); P < 0.0001. At Month 12, 8.3% patients had MO. The mean (SD) number of injections: 8.3 (3.0). No treatment-related AEs were reported. Five (20.8%) patients experienced ocular AEs. Two nonocular serious AEs were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

An aflibercept TAE regimen improves visual acuity in patients with MO secondary to CRVO over 12 months with good tolerability.

The short-term efficacy of intravitreal ranibizumab, aflibercept and dexamethasone implant in the treatment of macular edema due to non-ischemic central retinal vein occlusion

PURPOSE

To assess and compare the efficacy over 6 months of intravitreal ranibizumab (IR), aflibercept (IA) and dexamethasone implant (IDI) in eyes with macular edema (ME) secondary to non-ischemic central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO).

METHODS

This is a retrospective single-center study. Patients who received pro re nata treatment of IR 0.5 mg, IA 2 mg or IDI 0.7 mg (as Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3, respectively) for the treatment of ME due to non-ischemic CRVO were included in the study. Efficacy outcomes were considered as the changes in mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) from baseline over 6 months.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients (Group 1) received IR, 16 patients received (Group 2) IA, and 24 patients (Group 3) received IDI. The mean numbers of injections were 2.56 ± 1.0, 2.68 ± 0.9, and 1.62 ± 0.5 in Group 1, 2, and 3, respectively (p = 0.000). In Groups 1 and 2, the mean BCVA values increased significantly after the treatment (p < 0.001). However, in Group 3, no increase in mean BCVA was statistically significant in any month (p = 0.061). The proportion of eyes gaining at least three lines in BCVA was 33.3% in Group 1, 43.8% in Group 2, and 33.3% in Group 3 (p = 0.762). In all groups, significant improvements were observed in CMT after treatment (p < 0.001). At month 6, the mean changes in CMT were - 162.7 ± 186.5 µm in Group 1, - 310.1 ± 345.9 µm in Group 2, and - 193.8 ± 228.3 µm in Group 3, with no significant difference among groups (p = 0.474). Cataract formation and IOP increase were higher in the IDI group, but the differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.054 and p = 0.392, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

IR and IA may be preferred treatment for ME due to non-ischemic CRVO as visual improvement remains the primary ophthalmological objective. The most important advantages of IDI are its effect on CMT and the need for fewer injections. The increase in IOP and the formation of cataract may be observed more in IDI-treated eyes.

Intravitreal Ziv-Aflibercept: Clinical Effects and Economic Impact

During the past decade, drugs that inhibit the actions of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) have become standard-of-care treatment for a variety of chorioretinal vascular conditions. The off-label, intravitreal use of ziv-aflibercept (Zaltrap) has provided clinicians with an additional cost-effective drug. The commercial preparation of ziv-aflibercept contains the same aflibercept (VEGF-trap) molecule as Eylea but has a much higher osmolarity (1000 mOsm/kg vs 300 mOsm/kg). Initial concerns regarding cytotoxicity and long-term safety of intravitreal ziv-aflibercept have been largely negated after a series of publications failed to identify adverse ocular and systemic side effects. Both treatment-naive and anti-VEGF‒resistant cases of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), diabetic macular edema (DME), retinal vein occlusion (RVO), and choroidal neovascular membrane (CNVM) may respond as well to ziv-aflibercept as to aflibercept. A higher dose of ziv-aflibercept (2 mg in 0.08 mL) does not cause any adverse effects during short-term follow-up period (1 month). Data from various sources suggest that ziv-aflibercept may be as cost effective as bevacizumab, thereby making it an attractive treatment option in low- and middle-income countries. However, problems with off-label use, compounding, and counterfeiting limit its availability in many countries. Data from prospective, randomized, multicenter clinical trials are still required to convince physicians and regulatory bodies of its clinical efficacy and potential as early therapy.

Comparison between ranibizumab and aflibercept for macular edema associated with central retinal vein occlusion

PURPOSE

We compared the efficacy of bimonthly intravitreal injections of ranibizumab (IVR) with that of bimonthly intravitreal injections of aflibercept (IVA) in two prospective, consecutive groups of patients with macular edema (ME) secondary to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eyes with ME after CRVO received either bimonthly IVR (ranibizumab group; n = 13) or IVA (aflibercept group; n = 13) injections and were followed monthly for 6 months. Three patients in the ranibizumab group and two in the aflibercept group were lost to follow-up and excluded from the study. The best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central foveal thickness (CFT) on optical coherence tomography, and aqueous vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) concentrations were evaluated before and after treatment.

RESULTS

From baseline to month 6, significant improvements occurred in mean logMAR BCVA (ranibizumab group: 0.78-0.47; p < 0.05; aflibercept group: 0.74-0.54; p < 0.05) and mean CFT (ranibizumab group: 685-311 µm; p < 0.05; aflibercept group: 695-230 µm; p < 0.05). Fluctuations in CFT were seen at months 2, 4, and 6 in the ranibizumab group. Mean aqueous VEGF concentration decreased from baseline to month 2 in the ranibizumab group (509.9-348.2 pg/ml) and aflibercept group (412.1 pg/ml to undetectable limits in eight of 11 eyes and to 13.6, 15.6, and 24.1 pg/ml in the other three eyes, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant improvement of visual acuity in one group compared with another; VEGF may not be completely neutralized by bimonthly injections of ranibizumab.

Update in the Management of Macular Edema Following Retinal Vein Occlusions

Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is a common retinal vascular disease classified according to the anatomical location of the occlusion in central (CRVO) or branch (BRVO) retinal vein occlusion. RVO is an important cause of visual loss worldwide and frequently results in visual impairment and ocular complications. Major causes of vision loss in BRVO and CRVO include macular edema (ME), capillary non-perfusion, and neovascularization, causing glaucoma, vitreous hemorrhage and/or tractional retinal detachment.[1-4] Macular edema is the leading cause of decreased central visual acuity in RVO.[5] Recently, there was a paradigm shift in the treatment of ME due to RVO with the advent of new pharmacotherapy treatment strategies and combination therapies. This paper reviews the current thinking and discusses the evidence behind the emerging treatment options for ME following RVO, including laser photocoagulation, intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), intravitreal corticosteroid-based pharmacotherapies, and surgical management.

Pivotal clinical trials of novel ophthalmic drugs and medical devices: retrospective observational study, 2002-2012

OBJECTIVES

Novel therapeutics are an important part of ophthalmologists' armamentarium, and the risks and benefits of these therapies must be carefully evaluated. We sought to quantify the characteristics of the pivotal clinical trials supporting the regulatory approval of new ophthalmic drugs and medical devices.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

SETTING AND DATA SOURCE

Medical review dossiers for new ophthalmic drug and high-risk device approvals released publicly by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Proportion of pivotal trials with randomisation, masking, active or placebo controls and subgroup analyses; total and median number of trial enrollees; and the number of drugs and devices approved with required postapproval studies.

RESULTS

From 2002 to 2012, the FDA approved 11 ophthalmic drugs and 25 devices. The pivotal trials underlying the approvals of ophthalmic drugs in our study cohort enrolled a median of 809 patients. Virtually all drug trials were randomised and masked (91%), of which 7 (70%) used a placebo control. Pivotal trials for ophthalmic devices enrolled 324 patients on average, and significantly fewer trials for ophthalmic devices versus drugs were randomised (16% vs 91%; p<0.001) or masked (12% vs 91%; p<0.001). 8 (32%) ophthalmic devices and 6 (55%) ophthalmic drugs were approved with required postapproval studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Ophthalmic therapeutics were approved based on varying levels of evidence. Postapproval studies could be used to confirm or refute early indications of safety and effectiveness of these therapeutics, with the study results accessible to patients and clinicians who need to make informed treatment decisions.