Systematic review and mixed treatment comparison of intravitreal aflibercept with other therapies for diabetic macular edema (DME)

Aflibercept versus ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of aflibercept (AFL) versus ranibizumab (RAN) for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CNKI databases were searched up to September 2022 to identify prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing AFL with RAN for the treatment of DME. Review Manager 5.3 software was used for data analysis. We used the GRADE system to evaluate the quality of the evidence for each outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 8 RCTs involving 1067 eyes (939 patients) were included; there were 526 eyes in the AFL group and 541 eyes in the RAN group. Meta-analysis revealed that there was no significant difference between RAN and AFL in the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of DME patients at 6 months (WMD: -0.05, 95% CI  =  -0.12 to 0.01, moderate quality) and 12 months after injection (WMD: -0.02, 95% CI  =  -0.07 to 0.03, moderate quality). Additionally, there was no significant difference between RAN and AFL in the reduction of central macular thickness (CMT) at 6 months (WMD: -0.36, 95% CI  =  -24.99 to 24.26, very low quality) and 12 months after injection (WMD: -6.36, 95% CI  =  -16.30 to 3.59, low quality). Meta-analysis showed that the number of intravitreal injections (IVIs) for AFL was significantly lower than that for RAN (WMD: -0.47, 95% CI  =  -0.88 to -0.05, very low quality). There were fewer adverse reactions to AFL than to RAN, but the difference was not significant.

CONCLUSION

This study found that there was no difference in BCVA, CMT or adverse reactions between AFL and RAN at 6 and 12 months of follow-up, but AFL needed fewer IVIs than RAN.

Diversity when interpreting evidence in network meta-analyses (NMAs) on similar topics: an example case of NMAs on diabetic macular oedema

BACKGROUND

Different network meta-analyses (NMAs) on the same topic result in differences in findings. In this review, we investigated NMAs comparing aflibercept with ranibizumab for diabetic macular oedema (DME) in the hope of illuminating why the differences in findings occurred.

METHODS

Studies were searched for in English and Chinese electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP; see detailed search strategy in the main body). Two independent reviewers systematically screened to identify target NMAs that included a comparison of aflibercept and ranibizumab in patients with DME. The key outcome of interest in this review is the change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), including various ways of reporting (such as the proportion of participants who gain ≥ 10 ETDRS letters at 12 months; average change in BCVA at 12 months).

RESULTS

For the binary outcome of BCVA, different NMAs all agreed that there is no clear difference between the two treatments, while continuous outcomes all favour aflibercept over ranibizumab. We discussed four points of particular concern that are illustrated by five similar NMAs, including network differences, PICO (participants, interventions, comparators, outcomes) differences, different data from the same measures of effect, and differences in what is truly significant.

CONCLUSIONS

A closer inspection of each of these trials shows how the methods, including the searches and analyses, all differ, but the findings, although presented differently and sometimes interpreted differently, were similar.

Microbiota and Ocular Diseases

Recent advances have identified significant associations between the composition and function of the gut microbiota and various disorders in organ systems other than the digestive tract. Utilizing next-generation sequencing and multiomics approaches, the microbial community that possibly impacts ocular disease has been identified. This review provides an overview of the literature on approaches to microbiota analysis and the roles of commensal microbes in ophthalmic diseases, including autoimmune uveitis, age-related macular degeneration, glaucoma, and other ocular disorders. In addition, this review discusses the hypothesis of the "gut-eye axis" and evaluates the therapeutic potential of targeting commensal microbiota to alleviate ocular inflammation.

Phase 1 Study of THR-687, a Novel, Highly Potent Integrin Antagonist for the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema

Purpose

To evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of THR-687 in patients with center-involved diabetic macular edema (DME).

Design

Phase 1, open-label, multicenter, 3 + 3 dose-escalation study with 3-month follow-up.

Participants

Patients 18 years of age or older with visual impairment resulting from DME.

Methods

Single intravitreal injection of THR-687 (0.4 mg, 1.0 mg, or 2.5 mg).

Main Outcome Measures

The primary outcome measure was the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). The secondary outcome measure was the incidence of adverse events (AEs), including the occurrence of laboratory abnormalities. Exploratory outcome measures included changes from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central subfield thickness (CST), assessments of ischemia and leakage on fluorescein angiography, and THR-687 levels in plasma.

Results

Twelve patients were treated: 3 patients received 0.4 mg of THR-687, 3 patients received 1.0 mg of THR-687, and 6 patients received 2.5 mg of THR-687. Most patients were men (9/12 patients). Their mean age was 57.8 years. No DLTs or serious AEs were reported at any of the dose levels tested. Overall, 9 AEs in the study eye were reported for 5 of 12 patients. Of those, 4 AEs in 3 of 12 patients were deemed treatment related by the investigator, all of which were mild, started on the day of the injection, and had resolved within 28 days without treatment. Overall, mean gains from baseline in BCVA were observed at all study visits with a rapid onset (7.2 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] letters at day 7) and a durability up to the end of the study (8.3 ETDRS letters at month 3). A mean decrease in CST was observed up to month 1. Overall, the mean BCVA gains and CST decreases were highest at the highest THR-687 dose level tested. THR-687 was undetectable in plasma at 7 days after the injection.

Conclusions

At all dose levels tested, a single intravitreal injection of THR-687 was safe and well tolerated. Preliminary efficacy was observed by a rapid gain in BCVA with 3 months’ durability and a decrease in CST up to 1 month after the injection.

Cardiovascular Adverse Events With Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Drugs: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

IMPORTANCE

Systemic safety of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) is a matter of debate and regular updates are necessary.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate systemic adverse events (SAEs) associated with intravitreal anti-VEGF drugs compared with non-anti-VEGF treatments in patients with ocular diseases.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from inception to July 7, 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials conducted in adults with retinal diseases who received intravitreal anti-VEGF drugs.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Studies and treatment characteristics and outcome data were extracted and analyzed, and study quality was evaluated.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Main outcomes were major cardiovascular events (MACEs) and total mortality. Secondary outcomes included nonocular hemorrhage, components of MACEs, other cardiovascular outcomes, serious SAEs, and all SAEs.

RESULTS

A total of 74 randomized clinical trials were analyzed: 32 trials (43%) included 14 190 patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD), 24 (32%) included 5424 patients with diabetic retinopathy (diabetic macular edema or proliferative diabetic retinopathy), 17 trials (23%) included 3757 patients with retinal vein occlusion, and 1 trial (1%) included 122 patients with myopic choroidal neovascularization. Anti-VEGF drug administration did not increase MACEs compared with control agents (odds ratio [OR], 1.16; 95% CI, 0.85-1.58) or total mortality (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.82-1.96). There was an interaction (subgroup difference, P = .04) in mortality risk depending on the underlying disease with an increase (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.03-3.16; P = .04) in the risk of death in patients with diabetic retinopathy; however, no increase was observed in patients with AMD or retinal vein occlusion. Administration of anti-VEGF drugs increased the risk of nonocular hemorrhage (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.01-2.10), mainly in patients with AMD.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Intravitreal anti-VEGF was not associated with an increase in MACEs in the trials examined herein. Increased mortality in patients with diabetes and nonocular hemorrhages, especially in those with AMD, could represent a safety signal, but the evidence was not strong. However, continued surveillance of SAEs remains warranted.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of intravitreal aflibercept in the treatment of diabetic macular edema in China

Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of intravitreal aflibercept compared with macular laser photocoagulation and ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema (DME) in China. Methods: A Markov model was developed to reflect the vision changes in DME patients. Parameters were estimated from VIVID-EAST trial data, published literature and physician surveys. Results: In a 20-year horizon, intravitreal aflibercept was associated with 7.825 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and 217,841 Chinese Yuan Renminbi (CNY), laser photocoagulation was associated with 7.189 QALYs and 135,489 CNY, and ranibizumab was associated with 7.462 QALYs and 222,477 CNY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were 129,397 CNY/QALY and -12,774 CNY/QALY for intravitreal aflibercept versus laser photocoagulation and ranibizumab, respectively. Conclusion: Intravitreal aflibercept was considered as a cost-effective strategy for DME when compared with laser photocoagulation; it was considered as a dominant strategy when compared with ranibizumab.

One year effectiveness study of intravitreal aflibercept in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a meta-analysis

The current body of evidence on the efficacy and safety of aflibercept for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is steadily growing as large clinical trials and observational studies are continually completed. Our aim was to analyse 1-year visual acuity (VA) outcomes in response to aflibercept therapy and identify factors affecting treatment response using evidence generated from a pooled analysis of current studies. A literature review of multiple electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, MedMEME) revealed 12 studies meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria for statistical analysis. Treatment posology, baseline patient characteristics, study type, sample size and 12-month change in VA were pooled in a meta-analysis with VA change as the main outcome. Data were then stratified by study design and posology in subgroup analyses. A meta-regression was conducted to regress 12-month VA change against posology, baseline VA and age. Users of aflibercept experienced an overall increase of 7.37 letters (95% confidence interval: 6.27-8.48, p heterogeneity: <0.001) in VA at 12 months of follow-up. In subgroup analyses, mean VA change was higher for randomized control trials and cohorts following regular posology (>7 injections/year) compared to observational studies and irregular posology. The meta-regression showed larger VA gains with regular posology compared to an irregular posology, and decreased effect size as age increased. This meta-analysis strongly suggests improved VA outcomes at 12 months in patients with wet AMD for 2.0 mg aflibercept, comparable to but slightly lower than landmark trials. Increased injection frequency and younger age demonstrates a trend with improved outcomes.

One-Year Effectiveness Study of Intravitreous Ranibizumab in Wet (Neovascular) Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

The clinical efficacy of ranibizumab has been examined by a large number of prospective and retrospective studies to date. This meta-analysis was conducted to summarize the current body of evidence on visual acuity (VA) changes with use of ranibizumab in the treatment of wet (neovascular) age-related macular degeneration (wAMD).

METHODS

A literature review of multiple electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, MedMEME) was conducted to find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that reported changes in VA while patients with wAMD were on ranibizumab. Study factors analyzed were baseline patient characteristics, study type, sample size, and 12-month change in VA. Data were pooled in a meta-analysis with VA change as the main outcome. Data were then stratified by study design and a meta-regression was conducted to assess 12-month VA change against baseline VA and age.

RESULTS

A total of 42 studies were included for analysis. An overall increase of 5.58 letters (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.42-6.75; p heterogeneity, < 0.001) was shown with use of ranibizumab compared to baseline. Improvements in VA were larger for RCTs, at 7.71 letters (95% CI: 6.66-8.76; p heterogeneity, 0.013), compared to observational studies, at 4.85 letters (95% CI: 3.32-6.38; p heterogeneity, < 0.001). The meta-regression showed a significant decrease in effect size between baseline VA and 12-month VA change.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests visual improvements at 12 months of 0.5-mg ranibizumab use in patients with wAMD. A higher gain in VA was observed when pooling results from RCTs compared to those in observational studies.

An efficacy comparison of anti-vascular growth factor agents and laser photocoagulation in diabetic macular edema: a network meta-analysis incorporating individual patient-level data

BACKGROUND

This was an updated network meta-analysis (NMA) of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents and laser photocoagulation in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). Unlike previous NMA that used meta-regression to account for potential confounding by systematic variation in treatment effect modifiers across studies, this update incorporated individual patient-level data (IPD) regression to provide more robust adjustment.

METHODS

An updated review was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials for inclusion in a Bayesian NMA. The network included intravitreal aflibercept (IVT-AFL) 2 mg bimonthly (2q8) after 5 initial doses, ranibizumab 0.5 mg as-needed (PRN), ranibizumab 0.5 mg treat-and-extend (T&E), and laser photocoagulation. Outcomes included in the analysis were change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), measured using an Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart, and patients with ≥10 and ≥ 15 ETDRS letter gains/losses at 12 months. Analyses were performed using networks restricted to IPD-only and IPD and aggregate data with (i) no covariable adjustment, (ii) covariable adjustment for baseline BVCA assuming common interaction effects (against reference treatment), and (iii) covariable adjustments specific to each treatment comparison (restricted to IPD-only network).

RESULTS

Thirteen trials were included in the analysis. IVT-AFL 2q8 was superior to laser in all analyses. IVT-AFL 2q8 showed strong evidence of superiority (95% credible interval [CrI] did not cross null) versus ranibizumab 0.5 mg PRN for mean change in BCVA (mean difference 5.20, 95% CrI 1.90-8.52 ETDRS letters), ≥15 ETDRS letter gain (odds ratio [OR] 2.30, 95% CrI 1.12-4.20), and ≥10 ETDRS letter loss (OR 0.25, 95% CrI 0.05-0.74) (IPD and aggregate random-effects model with baseline BCVA adjustment). IVT-AFL 2q8 was not superior to ranibizumab 0.5 mg T&E for mean change in BCVA (mean difference 5.15, 95% CrI -0.26-10.61 ETDRS letters) (IPD and aggregate random-effects model).

CONCLUSIONS

This NMA, which incorporated IPD to improve analytic robustness, showed evidence of superiority of IVT-AFL 2q8 to laser and ranibizumab 0.5 mg PRN. These results were irrespective of adjustment for baseline BCVA.

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for diabetic macular oedema: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a common complication of diabetic retinopathy. Antiangiogenic therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) can reduce oedema, improve vision and prevent further visual loss. These drugs have replaced laser photocoagulation as the standard of care for people with DMO.

OBJECTIVES

The 2014 update of this review found high-quality evidence of benefit with anti-VEGF modalities, compared to laser photocoagulation, for the treatment of DMO. The objective of this updated review is to compare the effectiveness and safety of the different anti-VEGF drugs using network meta-analysis methods.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched various electronic databases on 26 April 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any anti-angiogenic drug with an anti-VEGF mechanism of action versus another anti-VEGF drug, another treatment, sham or no treatment in people with DMO.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods for pair-wise meta-analysis and we augmented this evidence using network meta-analysis methods. We focused on the relative efficacy and safety of the three most commonly used drugs as interventions of direct interest for practice: aflibercept and ranibizumab, used on-label; and off-label bevacizumab.We collected data on three efficacy outcomes (gain of 15 or more Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters; mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA); mean change in central retinal thickness (CRT)), three safety outcomes (all severe systemic adverse events (SSAEs); all-cause death; arterial thromboembolic events) and quality of life.We used Stata 'network' meta-analysis package for all analyses. We investigated the risk of bias of mixed comparisons based on the variance contribution of each study, having assigned an overall risk of bias to each study.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-four studies included 6007 participants with DMO and moderate vision loss, of which two studies randomised 265 eyes of 230 participants and one was a cross-over study on 56 participants (62 eyes) that was treated as a parallel-arm trial. Data were collected on drugs of direct interest from three studies on aflibercept (975 eyes), eight studies on bevacizumab (515 eyes), and 14 studies on ranibizumab (1518 eyes). As treatments of indirect interest or legacy treatment we included three studies on pegaptanib (541 eyes), five studies on ranibizumab plus prompt laser (557 eyes), one study on ranibizumab plus deferred laser (188 eyes), 13 studies on laser photocoagulation (936 eyes) and six studies on sham treatment (793 eyes).Aflibercept, bevacizumab and ranibizumab were all more effective than laser for improving vision by 3 or more lines after one year (high-certainty evidence). Approximately one in 10 people improve vision with laser, and about three in 10 people improve with anti-VEGF treatment: risk ratio (RR) versus laser 3.66 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.79 to 4.79) for aflibercept; RR 2.47 (95% CI 1.81 to 3.37) for bevacizumab; RR 2.76 (95% CI 2.12 to 3.59) for ranibizumab. On average there was no change in visual acuity (VA) with laser after one year, compared with a gain of 1 or 2 lines with anti-VEGF treatment: laser versus aflibercept mean difference (MD) -0.20 (95% CI -0.22 to -0.17) logMAR; versus bevacizumab MD -0.12 (95% CI -0.15 to -0.09) logMAR; versus ranibizumab MD -0.12 (95% CI -0.14 to -0.10) logMAR. The certainty of the evidence was high for the comparison of aflibercept and ranibizumab with laser and moderate for bevacizumab comparison with laser due to inconsistency between the indirect and direct evidence.People receiving ranibizumab were less likely to gain 3 or more lines of VA at one year compared with aflibercept: RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.94), moderate-certainty evidence. For every 1000 people treated with aflibercept, 92 fewer would gain 3 or more lines of VA at one year if treated with ranibizumab (22 to 148 fewer). On average people receiving ranibizumab had worse VA at one year (MD 0.08 logMAR units, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.11), moderate-certainty evidence; and higher CRT (MD 39 µm, 95% CI 2 µm to 76 µm; low-certainty evidence). Ranibizumab and bevacizumab were comparable with respect to aflibercept and did not differ in terms of VA: RR of gain of 3 or more lines of VA at one year 1.11 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.43), moderate-certainty evidence, and difference in change in VA was 0.00 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.03) logMAR, moderate-certainty evidence. CRT reduction favoured ranibizumab by -29 µm (95% CI -58 µm to -1 µm, low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of overall statistical inconsistency in our analyses.The previous version of this review found moderate-certainty evidence of good safety of antiangiogenic drugs versus control. This update used data at the longest available follow-up (one or two years) and found that aflibercept, ranibizumab and bevacizumab do not differ regarding systemic serious adverse events (SSAEs) (moderate- or high-certainty evidence). However, risk of bias was variable, loop inconsistency could be found and estimates were not precise enough on relative safety regarding less frequent events such as arterial thromboembolic events or death (low- or very low-certainty evidence).Two-year data were available and reported in only four RCTs in this review. Most industry-sponsored studies were open-label after one year. One large publicly-funded study compared the three drugs at two years and found no difference.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Anti-VEGF drugs are effective at improving vision in people with DMO with three to four in every 10 people likely to experience an improvement of 3 or more lines VA at one year. Aflibercept may confer some advantage over ranibizumab and bevacizumab in people with DMO at one year in visual and anatomic terms but it is unclear whether this applies to the long-term. There is a need for more evidence on the long-term (greater than two years) comparative effects of these anti-VEGF agents. Evidence from RCTs may not apply to real-world practice, where people in need of antiangiogenic treatment are often under-treated and under-monitored.We found no signals of differences in overall safety between the three antiangiogenic drugs that are currently available to treat DMO, but our estimates are imprecise for cardiovascular events and death.

Aflibercept for clinically significant diabetic macular edema: 12-month results in daily clinical practice

Purpose

To assess the effectiveness and safety of intravitreal aflibercept in clinically significant diabetic macular edema (DME) in daily clinical practice.

Methods

Prospective, open-label, single-center study. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor naïve patients with clinically significant DME received intravitreal injections of aflibercept 2 mg, five monthly doses followed by a fixed schedule every 2 months for 12 months. The mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] letters) was the primary outcome.

Results

The mean BCVA improved significantly as compared with baseline at 12 months of treatment (47.3 [14.2] vs 62.2 [13.9] ETDRS letters, P<0.001). Significant improvement in BCVA was already observed at visit 2 after the loading doses of aflibercept. At 12 months, gains in ETDRS letters were documented in all eyes (100%), with gains ≥10 letters in 89.6%, ≥15 letters in 65.5%, and ≥20 letters in 6.9% (n=2). A significant reduction in central macular thickness from a mean of 460.5 (11.8) μm at baseline to 229.0 (43.8) μm at 12 months (P<0.001) was observed. Significant reductions of central macular thickness were already observed after the loading doses and continued lowering throughout the study period. No adverse events occurred.

Conclusion

Aflibercept as a first-line therapy was effective and well tolerated for treating clinically significant DME in naïve patients in daily practice. Successful results in terms of improvement of visual and reduction in central macular thickness contribute to provide evidence for the positioning of aflibercept as a first-line indication of newly diagnosed clinically significant DME.

Management of diabetic macular edema in Japan: a review and expert opinion

Diabetic retinopathy is a frequent cause of visual impairment in working-age adults (≥ 30 years) and in Japan is most commonly observed in those aged 50-69 years. Diabetic macular edema (DME) is one of the main causes of vision disturbance in diabetic retinopathy, which is a clinically significant microvascular complication of diabetes. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy is becoming the mainstay of treatment for DME. However, to achieve sustained long-term improvement in visual acuity, conventional laser photocoagulation, vitrectomy and steroid therapy are also expected to play a role in the treatment of DME. This review summarizes the epidemiology and pathology of diabetic retinopathy and DME, evaluates the findings regarding the diagnosis and treatment of DME, and underscores the importance of systemic management of the disease in the context of the current health care situation in Japan. Finally, the unmet needs of patients with DME and prospects for research are discussed. The weight of evidence suggests that it is important to establish a multipronged treatment strategy centered on anti-VEGF therapy.

Aflibercept in the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema: A Review and Consensus Paper

Purpose

To reach a consensus, among experts, on the role of aflibercept in diabetic macular edema (DME) through literature review.

Methods

Two round tables, involving 12 Italian experts, were organized: in the first one, 6 pharmacologic and clinical questions were selected and analyzed by a systematic literature review, using a population, intervention, control, and outcomes framework; in the second one, the nominal group technique was used to discuss relevant evidence related to each question. The consensus was assessed using the 5-point Delphi score.

Results

Agreement on statements was reached on 6/6 questions. The final statements were as follows: 1) High levels of both vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and placental growth factor play an important role in the pathogenesis of DME. 2) The aflibercept pharmacologic profile is notably different from that of other anti-VEGF. 3) Aflibercept significantly improves functional and anatomical outcomes, and rapidly improves best-corrected visual acuity up to its peak; these results remain stable over time. 4) Diabetic macular edema aflibercept treatment requires a 5-monthly injection loading phase. Alternatively, a personalized pro re nata (PRN) regimen based on monthly monitoring and strict retreatment criteria can be used. 5) As an alternative to the bimonthly fixed regimen, in the maintenance phase the treatment schedule may be a PRN regimen with strict retreatment criteria or a treat and extend regimen. 6) No concerns on aflibercept ocular and systemic safety emerged from the literature.

Conclusions

Consensus was reached among experts on how to best treat patients with DME with aflibercept.

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for diabetic macular oedema: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a common complication of diabetic retinopathy. Antiangiogenic therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) modalities can reduce oedema and thereby improve vision and prevent further visual loss. These drugs have replaced laser photocoagulation as the standard of care for people with DMO.

OBJECTIVES

The 2014 update of this review found high-quality evidence of benefit with antiangiogenic therapy with anti-VEGF modalities, compared to laser photocoagulation, for the treatment of DMO.The objective of this updated review is to compare the effectiveness and safety of the different anti-VEGF drugs in preserving and improving vision and quality of life using network meta-analysis methods.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched various electronic databases on 26 April 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any anti-angiogenic drug with an anti-VEGF mechanism of action versus another anti-VEGF drug, another treatment, sham or no treatment in people with DMO.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods for pair-wise meta-analysis and we augmented this evidence using network meta-analysis methods. We focused on the relative efficacy and safety of the three most commonly used drugs as interventions of direct interest for practice: aflibercept and ranibizumab, used on-label; and off-label bevacizumab.We collected data on three efficacy outcomes (gain of 15 or more Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters; mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA); mean change in central retinal thickness (CRT)), three safety outcomes (all severe systemic adverse events (SSAEs); all-cause death; arterial thromboembolic events) and quality of life.We used Stata 'network' meta-analysis package for all analyses. We investigated the risk of bias of mixed comparisons based on the variance contribution of each study, having assigned an overall risk of bias to each study.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-four studies included 6007 participants with DMO and moderate vision loss, of which two studies randomised 265 eyes of 230 participants and one was a cross-over study on 56 participants (62 eyes) that was treated as a parallel-arm trial. Data were collected on drugs of direct interest from three studies on aflibercept (975 eyes), eight studies on bevacizumab (515 eyes), and 14 studies on ranibizumab (1518 eyes). As treatments of indirect interest or legacy treatment we included three studies on pegaptanib (541 eyes), five studies on ranibizumab plus prompt laser (557 eyes), one study on ranibizumab plus deferred laser (188 eyes), 13 studies on laser photocoagulation (936 eyes) and six studies on sham treatment (793 eyes).Aflibercept, bevacizumab and ranibizumab were all more effective than laser for improving vision by 3 or more lines after one year (high-certainty evidence). Approximately one in 10 people improve vision with laser, and about three in 10 people improve with anti-VEGF treatment: risk ratio (RR) versus laser 3.66 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.79 to 4.79) for aflibercept; RR 2.47 (95% CI 1.81 to 3.37) for bevacizumab; RR 2.76 (95% CI 2.12 to 3.59) for ranibizumab. On average there was no change in visual acuity (VA) with laser after one year, compared with a gain of 1 or 2 lines with anti-VEGF treatment: laser versus aflibercept mean difference (MD) -0.20 (95% CI -0.22 to -0.17) logMAR; versus bevacizumab MD -0.12 (95% CI -0.15 to -0.09) logMAR; versus ranibizumab MD -0.12 (95% CI -0.14 to -0.10) logMAR. The certainty of the evidence was high for the comparison of aflibercept and ranibizumab with laser and moderate for bevacizumab comparison with laser due to inconsistency between the indirect and direct evidence.People receiving ranibizumab were less likely to gain 3 or more lines of VA at one year compared with aflibercept: RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.94), moderate-certainty evidence. For every 1000 people treated with aflibercept, 92 fewer would gain 3 or more lines of VA at one year if treated with ranibizumab (22 to 148 fewer). On average people receiving ranibizumab had worse VA at one year (MD 0.08 logMAR units, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.11), moderate-certainty evidence; and higher CRT (MD 39 µm, 95% CI 2 µm to 76 µm; low-certainty evidence). Ranibizumab and bevacizumab were comparable with respect to aflibercept and did not differ in terms of VA: RR of gain of 3 or more lines of VA at one year 1.11 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.43), moderate-certainty evidence, and difference in change in VA was 0.00 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.03) logMAR, moderate-certainty evidence. CRT reduction favoured ranibizumab by -29 µm (95% CI -58 µm to -1 µm, low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of overall statistical inconsistency in our analyses.The previous version of this review found moderate-certainty evidence of good safety of antiangiogenic drugs versus control. This update used data at the longest available follow-up (one or two years) and found that aflibercept, ranibizumab and bevacizumab do not differ regarding systemic serious adverse events (SSAEs) (moderate- or high-certainty evidence). However, risk of bias was variable, loop inconsistency could be found and estimates were not precise enough on relative safety regarding less frequent events such as arterial thromboembolic events or death (low- or very low-certainty evidence).Two-year data were available and reported in only four RCTs in this review. Most industry-sponsored studies were open-label after one year. One large publicly-funded study compared the three drugs at two years and found no difference.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Anti-VEGF drugs are effective at improving vision in people with DMO with three to four in every 10 people likely to experience an improvement of 3 or more lines VA at one year. There is moderate-certainty evidence that aflibercept confers some advantage over ranibizumab and bevacizumab in people with DMO at one year in visual and anatomic terms. Relative effects among anti-VEGF drugs at two years are less well known, since most studies were short term. Evidence from RCTs may not apply to real-world practice, where people in need of antiangiogenic treatment are often under-treated and under-monitored.We found no signals of differences in overall safety between the three antiangiogenic drugs that are currently available to treat DMO, but our estimates are imprecise for cardiovascular events and death.

A systematic review of the asymmetric inheritance of cellular organelles in eukaryotes: A critique of basic science validity and imprecision

We performed a systematic review to identify all original publications describing the asymmetric inheritance of cellular organelles in normal animal eukaryotic cells and to critique the validity and imprecision of the evidence. Searches were performed in Embase, MEDLINE and Pubmed up to November 2015. Screening of titles, abstracts and full papers was performed by two independent reviewers. Data extraction and validity were performed by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Study quality was assessed using the SYRCLE risk of bias tool, for animal studies and by developing validity tools for the experimental model, organelle markers and imprecision. A narrative data synthesis was performed. We identified 31 studies (34 publications) of the asymmetric inheritance of organelles after mitotic or meiotic division. Studies for the asymmetric inheritance of centrosomes (n = 9); endosomes (n = 6), P granules (n = 4), the midbody (n = 3), mitochondria (n = 3), proteosomes (n = 2), spectrosomes (n = 2), cilia (n = 2) and endoplasmic reticulum (n = 2) were identified. Asymmetry was defined and quantified by variable methods. Assessment of the statistical reliability of the results indicated only two studies (7%) were judged to have low concern, the majority of studies (77%) were 'unclear' and five (16%) were judged to have 'high concerns'; the main reasons were low technical repeats (<10). Assessment of model validity indicated that the majority of studies (61%) were judged to be valid, ten studies (32%) were unclear and two studies (7%) were judged to have 'high concerns'; both described 'stem cells' without providing experimental evidence to confirm this (pluripotency and self-renewal). Assessment of marker validity indicated that no studies had low concern, most studies were unclear (96.5%), indicating there were insufficient details to judge if the markers were appropriate. One study had high concern for marker validity due to the contradictory results of two markers for the same organelle. For most studies the validity and imprecision of results could not be confirmed. In particular, data were limited due to a lack of reporting of interassay variability, sample size calculations, controls and functional validation of organelle markers. An evaluation of 16 systematic reviews containing cell assays found that only 50% reported adherence to PRISMA or ARRIVE reporting guidelines and 38% reported a formal risk of bias assessment. 44% of the reviews did not consider how relevant or valid the models were to the research question. 75% reviews did not consider how valid the markers were. 69% of reviews did not consider the impact of the statistical reliability of the results. Future systematic reviews in basic or preclinical research should ensure the rigorous reporting of the statistical reliability of the results in addition to the validity of the methods. Increased awareness of the importance of reporting guidelines and validation tools is needed for the scientific community.

The Efficacy and Safety of Current Treatments in Diabetic Macular Edema: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Purpose

To compare the efficacy and safety of current treatments in diabetic macular edema (DME).

Methods

PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL were systematically reviewed for randomized controlled trials of current treatments in DME through August 2015. Data on the mean change of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) were extracted, and adverse events (AEs) were collected.

Results

A total of 21 trials were included in our network meta-analysis. Intravitreal ranibizumab improved BCVA most significantly (OR: +7.01 95%CI (2.56 to 11.39)) in 6 months and intravitreal aflibercept (+8.19 (5.07 to 11.96)) in 12 months. Intravitreal triamcinolone combined with LASER decreased CMT most significantly (-111.34 (-254.61 to 37.93)) in 6 months and intravitreal aflibercept (-110.83 (-190.25 to -35.27)) in 12 months. Compared with the relatively high rate of ocular AEs in the groups with administration of steroids, systematic AEs occurred more frequently in the groups with vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors involved.

Conclusions

Our analysis confirms that intravitreal aflibercept is most favorable with both BCVA improvement and CMT decrease than other current therapies in the management of DME within 12 months. Vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors for DME should be used with caution due to systematic AEs. Combined intravitreal triamcinolone with LASER has a stronger efficacy in decreasing CMT than the other interventions in the early stage after injection. More high-quality randomized controlled trials will be necessary.

Initiation of intravitreal aflibercept injection treatment in patients with diabetic macular edema: a review of VIVID-DME and VISTA-DME data

Background

Diabetic macular edema (DME) shows a gradual and sustained functional and morphologic response to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) drugs, but the optimal schedule for initiation of anti-VEGF therapy is not known. This study evaluates the treatment response behavior of DME in the Phase 3 trials of intravitreal aflibercept, with 5 initial intravitreal aflibercept injections (IAI), 2 mg every 4 weeks (2q4), in the upload phase.

Methods

This post hoc pooled analysis of the VISTA-DME (NCT01363440) and VIVID-DME (NCT01331681) trials evaluated the change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) during the upload phase, using pooled data from both IAI treatment groups [2q4 and 2 mg every 8 weeks (2q8)]. The mean visit-to-visit change in BCVA and CRT, and the respective rate of gainers and losers was calculated for each successive visit. A secondary analysis compared the visit-to-visit change in BCVA between the 2q4 and 2q8 treatment arms during the upload period and the first year treatment period.

Results

The majority of eyes showed a continuing improvement of BCVA after the first IAI. The proportions of eyes gaining BCVA (≥5 letters) at each visit compared with the previous visit during the IAI 2q4 upload phase were 60 (4-weeks), 19 (8-weeks), 16 (12-weeks), 15 (16-weeks), and 14 % (20-weeks). In contrast, the proportions of eyes losing BCVA (≥5 letters) were 3 (4-weeks), 7 (8-weeks), 7 (12-weeks), 9 (16-weeks), and 8 % (20-weeks), respectively. The odds of BCVA (≥5 letters) gain/loss exceeded 1.7 at each visit (range 1.7–20). Overall, the proportion of patients with BCVA gain ≥5 letters at week 20 (compared with baseline) was 76 and 80 % in the 2q4 and 2q8 groups, respectively. The proportions of eyes showing a visit-to-visit decrease in CRT of ≥30 µm during the first 5 IAI were 77 (4-weeks), 27 (8-weeks), 21 (12-weeks), 17 (16-weeks), and 12 % (20-weeks). In the secondary analysis, the BCVA outcomes were similar for the 2q8 and 2q4 treatment arms.

Conclusions

The data presented here are consistent with continual functional and anatomic improvement following the fourth and fifth initial 2q4 injections, suggesting that an intensive and sufficiently long upload may be beneficial.

Trial registration VIVID-DME: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01331681; VISTA-DME: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01363440

Using Patient-Level Data to Develop Meaningful Cross-Trial Comparisons of Visual Impairment in Individuals with Diabetic Macular Edema

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of baseline characteristics on visual outcome of patients with diabetic macular edema and compare the results of clinical trials with different patient populations.

METHODS

A model was created with patient-level data from the RESPOND/RESTORE trials to estimate the impact of baseline characteristics on increases in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies, measured by letters gained on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study scale from baseline to month 12. Mean BCVA gains with ranibizumab 0.5 mg pro re nata or laser photocoagulation monotherapy were predicted, assuming baseline characteristics equivalent to those in the VIVID-DME/VISTA-DME trials. These results were compared with the gain with aflibercept 2.0 mg every 8 weeks in VIVID-DME/VISTA-DME. Sensitivity analyses assessed outcome robustness.

RESULTS

Baseline BCVA and central retinal thickness differed significantly between trials. In unadjusted data, patients in RESPOND/RESTORE receiving ranibizumab gained an additional 6.6 letters [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.5-8.7] compared with patients receiving laser monotherapy. After adjusting data to assume baseline characteristics equivalent to VIVID-DME/VISTA-DME, patients receiving ranibizumab were predicted to gain an additional 9.9 letters (95% CI: 7.3-12.4) compared with those receiving laser monotherapy. These results were similar (0.1-letter difference in favor of aflibercept; 95% CI: -2.9 to 3.2; P = 0.94) to the gain in BCVA in patients receiving aflibercept in VIVID-DME/VISTA-DME compared with those receiving laser monotherapy (10.0 letters, 95% CI: 8.3-11.7).

CONCLUSION

After adjusting for baseline characteristics, the difference in letters gained between patients receiving ranibizumab versus aflibercept was non-significant across trials, highlighting the importance of adjusting for baseline characteristics in future comparisons.

FUNDING

Novartis Pharma AG.

Conversion to aflibercept for diabetic macular edema unresponsive to ranibizumab or bevacizumab

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to determine if eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME) unresponsive to ranibizumab or bevacizumab would benefit from conversion to aflibercept.

METHODS

This study was conducted as a retrospective chart review of subjects with DME unresponsive to ranibizumab and/or bevacizumab and subsequently converted to aflibercept.

RESULTS

In total, 21 eyes from 19 subjects of mean age 62±15 years were included. The majority of subjects were male (63%). The median number of ranibizumab or bevacizumab injections before switching to aflibercept was six, and the median number of aflibercept injections after switching was three. Median follow-up was 5 months after the switch. Mean central foveal thickness (CFT) was 453.52±143.39 mm immediately prior to the switch. Morphologically, intraretinal cysts were present in all cases. Mean CFT after the first injection decreased significantly to 362.57±92.82 mm (Wilcoxon signed-rank test; P<0.001). At the end of follow-up, the mean CFT was 324.17±98.76 mm (P<0.001). Mean visual acuity was 0.42±0.23 logMAR just prior to the switch, 0.39±0.31 logMAR after one aflibercept injection, and 0.37±0.22 log-MAR at the end of follow-up. The final visual acuity was significantly better than visual acuity before the switch (P=0.04).

CONCLUSION

Eyes with DME unresponsive to multiple ranibizumab/bevacizumab injections demonstrate anatomical and visual improvement on conversion to aflibercept.