Effect of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy on the risk of arterial thromboembolic events: a meta-analysis

Cardiovascular risk in anti-VEGF treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration

OBJECTIVE

Assess 5-year all-cause mortality (ACM), hemorrhagic stroke, ischemic stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI) risks in nAMD patients receiving anti-VEGF injections compared with controls.

DESIGN

Population-based retrospective cohort study using a U.S. federated health research network, containing de-identified data of 96 million patients from 1/1/2003 to 3/6/2023.

PARTICIPANTS

nAMD Patients with anti-VEGF injections. Controls included nAMD patients without anti-VEGF injections, non-exudative AMD patients, and patients without AMD.

METHODS

Patients were identified using nAMD ICD-10 and anti-VEGF CPT codes and matched for age, sex, and comorbidities. Five-year relative risk of ACM (RR1), hemorrhagic stroke (RR2), ischemic stroke (RR3), and MI (RR4) in nAMD patients receiving anti-VEGF injections were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 27,609 nAMD patients (mean diagnosis age [SD], [78.2 (10.3)]) received anti-VEGF injections; 769 nAMD patients without injections (75.8 [12.2]), 27,599 non-exudative AMD patients (78.2 [10.3]), and 21,902 no-AMD patients (76.1 [10.5]) were identified. After matching, nAMD patients receiving injections did not show increased risk versus nAMD patients without injections (RR1, 0.66; 95% CI [0.53, 0.82]), (RR2, 1.00 [0.42, 2.38]), (RR3, 1.70 [0.92,3.13]), (RR4, 0.63 [0.33, 1.18]). No increased risk was found compared to non-exudative AMD patients (RR1, 0.99 [0.95, 1.03]), (RR2, 0.94 [0.83,1.07]), (RR3, 1.04 [0.96, 1.12]), (RR4, 0.99 [0.91, 1.08]). Increased risk for ACM was observed versus no-AMD patients (RR1, 1.21 [1.15, 1.27]), but no other differences were found (RR2, 0.81 [0.70, 0.93]), (RR3, 1.00 [0.92, 1.09]), (RR4, 0.986 [0.90, 1.09]).

CONCLUSION

Anti-VEGF injections were not associated with major cardiovascular events in nAMD patients over 5 years.

Cardiovascular and Mortality Risk with Intravitreal Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Inhibitors in Patients with Diabetic Retinopathy

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the cardiovascular (CV) safety associated with intravitreal anti-VEGF injections (IAVIs) in patients with diabetic retinopathy (DR).

DESIGN

Population-based cohort study using Medicare and 2 commercial insurance claims databases in the United States from January 2009 to December 2017.

SUBJECTS

Patients with DR aged ≥ 18 years in whom treatment with either IVAIs or laser procedure or intravitreal steroid injections was initiated.

METHODS

We estimated the propensity score (PS) using multivariable logistic regression models, including 85 baseline covariates and PS-matched patients in a 1:1 ratio. We estimated the pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses based on prior history of CV events were also conducted.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

A composite CV outcome of myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke, its individual components, and all-cause mortality in 180 and 365 days after treatment initiation.

RESULTS

We identified 61 508 PS-matched patients in a 1:1 ratio in whom either IVAIs or laser or steroid treatment was initiated. Compared with laser or steroid treatment, IAVIs were not associated with an increased risk of the composite CV outcome (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.83-1.09), MI (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76-1.13), or stroke (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.80-1.19) or the risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.97-1.62) at 180 days of follow-up. At 365 days, the risk of the composite CV outcome, stroke, and MI remained similar between the 2 groups, although the risk of all-cause mortality was increased with IAVIs (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.14-1.60). The subgroup analysis showed that the risk of all-cause mortality was increased in patients with a prior history of CV events.

CONCLUSIONS

Among > 60 000 patients with DR, those who received IAVIs had a risk of CV events similar to those who received laser or steroid treatment. However, the risk of all-cause mortality was higher in patients who received IAVIs for DR.

Risk of Death Associated With Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

Although intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment represents the first-line therapy for many retinal diseases, the issue of their systemic safety is debatable.

Objectives

To assess whether intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy might be associated with increased risk of mortality and which variables are associated with the increase.

Data Sources

PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched from inception to May 6, 2019.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials comparing intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment with control groups and with follow-up of at least 6 months were selected.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data were independently collected by 2 investigators. Meta-analyses were conducted using the frequentist and Bayesian methods. For the frequentist approach, random- and fixed-effects models were used, with random-effects models considered the primary technique. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs were computed. For the bayesian approach, uninformative and informative priors were used. Odds ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were computed. Meta-regression analyses were based on random-effects models.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome measure was the all-cause death rate. Secondary outcomes included meta-regression analyses on the following variables: type of drug, number of injections, follow-up time, diagnosis, and cardiovascular risk.

Results

Of 2336 studies identified, 34 unique studies with 8887 unique participants were included in the present meta-analysis. For the frequentist analysis, fixed- and random-effects models yielded similar estimates (ORs, 1.34 [95% CI, 0.95-2.07; P = .09] and 1.34 [95% CI, 0.89-2.01; P = .17], respectively). For the Bayesian approach, noninformative and informative priors yielded similar results (ORs, 1.34 [95% CrI, 0.79-2.34; 0.13 probability of OR≤1.00] and 1.40 [95% CrI, 0.82-2.32; 0.11 probability of OR≤1.00], respectively). Meta-regression analyses showed the following risk for 1 injection more: frequentist OR of 1.12 (95% CI, 1.04-1.22; P = .005) and Bayesian OR of 1.06 (95% CrI, 0.98-1.15; 0.06 probability of OR≤1.00).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, no difference was found in the mortality rate between intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment and control groups. Additional data seem warranted to determine whether the mortality rate is increased in patients receiving a greater number of injections.

Intravitreal anti-VEGF agents and cardiovascular risk

Antagonists of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (Anti-VEGF) are widely administered by intravitreal injection for the treatment of ocular pathologies such as Age-related Macular Degeneration, Diabetic Macular Edema, Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy and occlusion of retinal vessels. Anti-VEGF agents, in particular bevacizumab, were introduced in oncology to inhibit tumor-induced angiogenesis feeding neoplastic tissues. Subsequently, other specific agents were developed for intraocular administration. Whereas systemic administration of anti-VEGF agents in oncology is burdened by increased risk of arterial hypertension and embolism, agents administered for ophthalmic indications are delivered locally into the eye globe in much smaller quantities. Nevertheless, clinical observations have raised the possibility that, even in these conditions, anti-VEGF agents may increase cardiovascular risk in patients who, being elderly and/or diabetic, are intrinsically prone to such events. This paper aims at reviewing the current knowledge on VEGF and its pharmacologic antagonists from mechanistic and side effect points of view, with specific reference to patients with sight-threatening conditions. Internists should be aware of the need to collaborate with ophthalmologists and pharmacovigilance operators to define as best as possible the risk/benefit balance of intravitreal agents in patients who might lose their sight if left untreated, or increase their risk of suffering a cardiovascular event if treated.

Interventions for Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Are Practice Guidelines Based on Systematic Reviews?

PURPOSE

Are existing systematic reviews of interventions for age-related macular degeneration incorporated into clinical practice guidelines?

DESIGN

High-quality systematic reviews should be used to underpin evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and clinical care. We examined the reliability of systematic reviews of interventions for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and described the main findings of reliable reviews in relation to clinical practice guidelines.

METHODS

Eligible publications were systematic reviews of the effectiveness of treatment interventions for AMD. We searched a database of systematic reviews in eyes and vision without language or date restrictions; the database was up to date as of May 6, 2014. Two authors independently screened records for eligibility and abstracted and assessed the characteristics and methods of each review. We classified reviews as reliable when they reported eligibility criteria, comprehensive searches, methodologic quality of included studies, appropriate statistical methods for meta-analysis, and conclusions based on results. We mapped treatment recommendations from the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Preferred Practice Patterns (PPPs) for AMD to systematic reviews and citations of reliable systematic reviews to support each treatment recommendation.

RESULTS

Of 1570 systematic reviews in our database, 47 met inclusion criteria; most targeted neovascular AMD and investigated anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) interventions, dietary supplements, or photodynamic therapy. We classified 33 (70%) reviews as reliable. The quality of reporting varied, with criteria for reliable reporting met more often by Cochrane reviews and reviews whose authors disclosed conflicts of interest. Anti-VEGF agents and photodynamic therapy were the only interventions identified as effective by reliable reviews. Of 35 treatment recommendations extracted from the PPPs, 15 could have been supported with reliable systematic reviews; however, only 1 recommendation cited a reliable intervention systematic review. No reliable systematic review was identified for 20 treatment recommendations, highlighting areas of evidence gaps.

CONCLUSIONS

For AMD, reliable systematic reviews exist for many treatment recommendations in the AAO PPPs and should be cited to support these recommendations. We also identified areas where no high-level evidence exists. Mapping clinical practice guidelines to existing systematic reviews is one way to highlight areas where evidence generation or evidence synthesis is either available or needed.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Safety of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) Inhibitors for the Treatment of Retinopathy of Prematurity

INTRODUCTION

Laser photocoagulation is the current gold standard treatment for proliferative retinopathy of prematurity (ROP). However, it permanently reduces the visual field and might induce myopia. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors for the treatment of ROP may enable continuing vascularization of the retina, potentially allowing the preservation of the visual field. However, for their use in infants concern remains. This meta-analysis explores the safety of VEGF inhibitors.

METHODS

The Ovid Interface was used to perform a systematic review of the literature in the databases PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 24 original reports (including 1.457 eyes) on VEGF inhibitor treatment for ROP. The trials were solely observational except for one randomized and two case-control studies. We estimated a 6-month risk of retreatment per eye of 2.8%, and a 6-month risk of ocular complication without the need of retreatment of 1.6% per eye. Systemic complications were only reported as isolated incidents.

DISCUSSION

VEGF inhibitors seem to be associated with low recurrence rates and ocular complication rates. They may have the benefit of potentially allowing the preservation of visual field and lower rates of myopia. Due to the lack of data, the risk of systemic side effects cannot be assessed.

Efficacy and tolerability of prostaglandin-timolol fixed combinations: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Prostaglandin-timolol fixed combinations (PG-timolol FCs) are now widely used to reduce intraocular pressure in patients with glaucoma. The efficacy and tolerability of these drugs are worthy of further exploration. An updated systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the clinical efficacy and tolerability of the three PG-timolol FCs.

METHODS

Pertinent randomized, controlled trials were identified through systematic searches of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane central register of controlled trials and the Chinese Biomedicine Database. The main efficacy measures were the weighted mean differences (WMDs) for the reduction from baseline to end of treatment in IOP at 9 am, 12 pm and 4 pm and diurnal curve. The main tolerability measures were the odds ratios (ORs) for the incidence of conjunctival hyperemia.

RESULTS

Nine studies involving 991 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Latanoprost-timolol FC (LTFC) and travoprost-timolol FC (TTFC) were not significantly different in lowering IOP at diurnal mean, 9 am, 12 pm and 4 pm. Bimatoprost-timolol FC (BTFC) provided significantly greater efficacy in lowering IOP at the three measurement time points and over the mean diurnal curve than LTFC (diurnal curve: WMD = 0.88 mmHg [95% CI, 0.42 to 1.33]; 9 am: WMD = 1.27 mmHg [0.68 to 1.86]; 12 pm: WMD = 1.16 mmHg [0.85 to 1.46]; 4 pm: WMD = 0.61 mmHg [0.51 to 0.70]) and TTFC (diurnal curve: WMD = 1.94 mmHg [0.19 to 3.68]; 9 am: WMD = 0.68 mmHg [0.15 to 1.21]; 12 pm: WMD = 0.90 mmHg [0.41 to 1.39]; 4 pm: WMD = 1.06 mmHg [0.61 to 1.51]). The incidence of hyperemia was significantly higher with BTFC than LTFC (pooled ORs: 1.85 [1.09 to 3.13]). The incidence of hyperemia was not significantly higher with TTFC than LTFC (pooled ORs: 2.52 [0.85 to 7.46]), and was not significantly higher with BTFC than TTFC (pooled OR: 1.65 [0.48 to 5.70]).

CONCLUSIONS

BTFC provided significantly greater efficacy in lowering IOP at diurnal mean, 9 am, 12 pm and 4 pm than LTFC and TTFC. LTFC was as effective as TTFC in lowering IOP at the four measurement time points and BTFC caused conjunctival hyperemia in more patients than LTFC. Further clinical trials are needed because of the limited number of studies.

Ranibizumab versus bevacizumab for ophthalmic diseases related to neovascularisation: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Background

Bevacizumab is believed to be as effective and safe as ranibizumab for ophthalmic diseases; however, its magnitude of effectiveness and safety profile remain controversial. Thus, a meta-analysis and systematic review appears necessary.

Methods

PubMed and EMBASE were systematically searched with no restrictions. All relevant citations comparing ranibizumab and bevacizumab were considered for inclusion. Pooled effect estimates were obtained using a fixed- and random-effects meta-analysis.

Results

Nine independent randomised-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) involving 2,289 participants were identified. Compared with bevacizumab, the overall combined weighted mean difference (WMD) of the mean change in visual acuity for ranibizumab was 0.52 letters (95% CI −0.11–1.14). The odds ratios (ORs) of gaining ≥15, gaining 5–14, losing 5–14 and losing ≤15 letters were 1.10 (95% CI 0.90–1.33), 0.93 (95% CI 0.77–1.11), 0.89 (95% CI 0.65–1.22) and 0.95 (95% CI 0.73–1.25), respectively. The risk of serious systemic events increased by 17% (95% CI 6%–27%, p = 0.0042) for bevacizumab treatment in comparison with ranibizumab. No statistically significant differences between the two treatments were found for the nonfatal arterial thrombotic events, ocular serious adverse, death from vascular and all causes events.

Conclusions

Bevacizumab is not inferior to ranibizumab as a treatment for achieving visual acuity. The use of bevacizumab was associated with an increased risk of developing serious systemic events. Weighing the costs and health outcomes is necessary when selecting between bevacizumab and ranibizumab for ophthalmic diseases. Due to the limitations of the available data, further research is needed.