Bevacizumab versus Ranibizumab on As-Needed Treatment Regimen for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration in Turkish Patients

ANTIVASCULAR ENDOTHELIAL GROWTH FACTOR DOSING AND EXPECTED ACUITY OUTCOME AT 1 YEAR

PURPOSE

To determine the dose-response characteristics of the antivascular endothelial growth factor agents ranibizumab and aflibercept in neovascular age-related macular degeneration using published randomized trials and observational series.

METHODS

Literature review of published series from 2006 to 2018 as determined from electronic searches of PubMed and the Cochrane Library. Data extracted included treatment strategy, frequency, and first year visual acuity response. Monthly or bimonthly treatment schedules were classified as Fixed, pro re nata studies as PRN, treat and extend as TE, and when no strategy was listed, as Variable.

RESULTS

Of 2062 citations retrieved, 96 were deemed eligible; these 96 citations provided 120 data points of dose frequency versus visual acuity change in Year 1 of treatment. The dose-response curve was nonlinear, but a log transform of the number of injections per year yielded a linear relationship defined by the expression, Letters of Improvement = -6.66 + 15.7*log (number of injections Year 1). After accounting for the number of injections neither the drug used (ranibizumab or aflibercept) nor the strategy used (Fixed, pro re nata, treat and extend, or Variable) were significant predictors of acuity change. As a group, studies using the pro re nata approach had the lowest number of injections and the worst acuity improvements as a treatment strategy.

CONCLUSION

There seems to be a predictable, mathematically defined relationship between dose frequency and visual acuity change at 1 year in neovascular age-related macular degeneration. The performance of current treatment efforts, as suggested by reported series and Medicare claims data, seems to be substandard.

Appraising the Quality of Systematic Reviews for Age-Related Macular Degeneration Interventions: A Systematic Review

Importance

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a leading cause of vision impairment. It is imperative that AMD care is timely, appropriate, and evidence-based. It is thus essential that AMD systematic reviews are robust; however, little is known about the quality of this literature.

Objectives

To investigate the methodological quality of systematic reviews of AMD intervention studies, and to evaluate their use for guiding evidence-based care.

Evidence Review

This systematic review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. All studies that self-identified as a systematic review in their title or abstract or were categorized as a systematic review from a medical subject heading and investigated the safety, efficacy and/or effectiveness of an AMD intervention were included. Comprehensive electronic searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to March 2017. Two reviewers independently assessed titles and abstracts, then full-texts for eligibility. Quality was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Study characteristics (publication year, type of intervention, journal, citation rate, and funding source) were extracted.

Findings

Of 983 citations retrieved, 71 studies (7.6%) were deemed eligible. The first systematic review relating to an AMD intervention was published in 2003. More than half were published since 2014. Methodological quality was highly variable. The mean (SD) AMSTAR score was 5.8 (3.2) of 11.0, with no significant improvement over time (r = -0.03; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.21; P = .83). Cochrane systematic reviews were overall of higher quality than reviews in other journals (mean [SD] AMSTAR score, 9.9 [1.2], n = 15 vs 4.7 [2.2], n = 56; P < .001). Overall, there was poor adherence to referring to an a priori design (22 articles [31%]) and reporting conflicts of interest in both the review and included studies (16 articles [23%]). Reviews funded by government grants and/or institutions were generally of higher quality than industry-sponsored reviews or where the funding source was not reported.

Conclusions and Relevance

There are gaps in the conduct of systematic reviews in the field of AMD. Enhanced endorsement of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement by refereed journals may improve review quality and improve the dissemination of reliable evidence relating to AMD interventions to clinicians.

Real-life experience of ranibizumab therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration from Turkey

AIM

To report the real-life experience and clinical results of intravitreal ranibizumab injections to neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) in a single institution in Turkey.

METHODS

A total of 101 eyes of 89 patients with nAMD treated with intravitreal ranibizumab injection, followed up for at least 24mo between 2009 and June 2014, which were evaluated retrospectively. A pro re nata (PRN) treatment protocol was performed after the patients had received three, monthly loading injections. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness measurements were evaluated at baseline and 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24mo. Number of injections and visits were also recorded.

RESULTS

Of the 89 patients, 34 (38.2%) were male and 55 (61.8%) were female and the mean age was 74.0±9.5 (52-91)y. The mean follow-up period was 24.82±4.4 (24-29)mo. Mean number of visits was 8.4±1.12 (7-12) in the first year and 6.6±1.33 (4-12) in the second year. The mean number of injections was 5.8±1.6 (3-10) and 4.2±2.2 (0-9) in the first and second year, respectively. The mean BCVA was 59±15.8 letters at baseline by the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart. The mean BCVA at 3, 12, and 24mo was 70.3±15.9, 67.9±14.3 and 67.3±16.9 letters, respectively. Improvement in visual acuity for each of the visits from baseline was found to be statistically significant (P<0.01). Visual acuity in 9 eyes at month 3, 7 eyes at month 12, and 13 eyes at month 24 did not change. The mean central macular thickness (CMT) was 437.99±164.78 µm at baseline. The mean CMT was 348.05±138.47 µm, 349.27±139.79 µm, and 344.13±146.30 µm at months 3, 12, and 24, respectively. The decrease in CMT for each of the visits from baseline was found to be statistically significant (P<0.01).

CONCLUSION

Anatomical and functional achievement are obtained in our study, but the mean number of injections and visits are found to be lower than the findings reported in randomized controlled clinical trials in the literature. However, the mean number of injections and visits in our study are compatible with the findings reported in real-life experience studies in the literature.

Intravitreal Bevacizumab and Cardiovascular Risk in Patients with Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies

INTRODUCTION

Intravitreal bevacizumab (IVTB) is used to treat age-related macular degeneration (ARMD), although its use is off-label and its cardiovascular safety has not been unequivocally established.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to assess the cardiovascular safety of IVTB in patients with ARMD.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies.

RESULTS

Of the 2028 non-duplicate records, five RCTs versus ranibizumab (N = 3038, 12/24 months), four RCTs comparing different regimens (N = 809, 12/23 months), one RCT versus pegaptanib, photodynamic therapy (PDT), or sham (N = 131, 12 months), and three observational studies versus PDT, ranibizumab, or pegaptanib (~150,000 or 1666 patients/12 months and 317 patients/1-2 years, respectively) had a low risk of bias/high quality and ≥20 patients per arm with ≥6 months and ≥3 injections of treatment. RCT-based comparisons with PDT or pegaptanib are negligible. Observational data have not demonstrated differences [all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke], but the level of evidence is "very low" (imprecise, indirect). RCT-based comparisons with ranibizumab did not demonstrate differences regarding some outcomes, although certain point estimates were at the level of a relevant harm/benefit [all-cause mortality odds ratio (OR) 1.103, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.641-1.898; vascular mortality OR 1.380, 95 % CI 0.476-3.997; MI OR 0.551, 95 % CI 0.265-1.146; stroke OR 0.657, 95 % CI 0.260-1.660; transitory ischemic attack OR 1.536, 95 % CI 0.444-5.313; atherothrombotic events (ATEs) OR 1.007, 95 % CI 0.641-1.593; venous thromboembolism OR 2.325, 95 % CI 0.963-5.612] or suggested a higher risk with bevacizumab (hypertension OR 7.512, 95 % CI 1.056-52.3), but estimates were based on sparse data, were extremely imprecise, and commonly exhibited considerable heterogeneity/inconsistency. The level of evidence per outcome was "low" or "very low". Observational data did not demonstrate difference (all-cause mortality, MI, stroke), or suggested a higher risk with bevacizumab (ATE), but were imprecise and indirect (level of evidence "very low"). RCT-based comparisons of different IVTB regimens suffered from the same limitations.

CONCLUSION

Published data on IVTB in AMRD provide only a low level of evidence on its cardiovascular safety and do not support any finite conclusions.