Macular laser photocoagulation with or without intravitreal triamcinolone pretreatment for diabetic macular edema: a result from five randomized controlled trials

Efficiency and safety of laser photocoagulation with or without intravitreal ranibizumab for treatment of diabetic macular edema: a systematic review and Meta-analysis

AIM

To compare the therapeutic effect and safety of laser photocoagulation along with intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) versus laser therapy in treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

Pertinent publications were identified through comprehensive searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing IVR+laser to laser monotherapy in patients with DME. Therapeutic effect estimates were determined by weighted mean differences (WMD) of change from baseline in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) at 6, 12, or 24mo after initial treatment, and the risk ratios (RR) for the proportions of patients with at least 10 letters of improvement or reduction at 12mo. Data regarding major ocular and nonocular adverse events (AEs) were collected and analyzed. The Review Manager 5.3.5 was used.

RESULTS

Six RCTs involving 2069 patients with DME were selected for this Meta-analysis. The results showed that IVR+laser significantly improved BCVA compared with laser at 6mo (WMD: 6.57; 95% CI: 4.37-8.77; P<0.00001), 12mo (WMD: 5.46; 95% CI: 4.35-6.58; P<0.00001), and 24mo (WMD: 3.42; 95% CI: 0.84-5.99; P=0.009) in patients with DME. IVR+laser was superior to laser in reducing CRT at 12mo from baseline with statistical significance (WMD: -63.46; 95% CI: -101.19 to -25.73; P=0.001). The pooled RR results showed that the proportions of patients with at least 10 letters of improvement or reduction were in favor of IVR+laser arms compared with laser (RR: 2.13; 95% CI: 1.77-2.57; P<0.00001 and RR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.22-0.62; P=0.0002, respectively). As for AEs, the pooled results showed that a significantly higher proportion of patients suffering from conjunctival hemorrhage (study eye) and diabetic retinal edema (fellow eye) in IVR+laser group compared to laser group (RR: 3.29; 95% CI: 1.53-7.09; P=0.002 and RR: 3.02; 95% CI: 1.24-7.32; P=0.01, respectively). The incidence of other ocular and nonocular AEs considered in this Meta-analysis had no statistical difference between IVR+laser and laser alone.

CONCLUSION

The results of our analysis show that IVR+laser has better availability in functional (improving BCVA) and anatomic (reducing CRT) outcomes than laser monotherapy for the treatment of DME. However, the patients who received the treatment of IVR+laser may get a higher risk of suffering from conjunctival hemorrhage (study eye) and diabetic retinal edema (fellow eye).

Effect of focal laser photocoagulation in eyes with mild to moderate non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy

AIM

To report the effect of focal laser photocoagulation on both the severity of hard exudates (HEs) and the rate of disease progression in eyes with mild to moderate non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 33 patients (60 eyes) who had been diagnosed with mild to moderate NPDR between January 2006 and December 2012. The patients were divided into 2 groups: Group A (38 eyes in 20 patients treated using focal laser photocoagulation) and Group B (treated without laser photocoagulation). We also reviewed the best corrected visual acuity measurements, and the fundus photographs taken at both baseline and follow-up visits.

RESULTS

In Group A, HE severity grade had decreased significantly from baseline to the final visit (P<0.05), but this was not the case in Group B (P=0.662). The cumulative probabilities of retinopathy progression at 5y were 26% in Group A and 30% in Group B. Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed no significant difference between the groups with regard to retinopathy progression (P=0.805).

CONCLUSION

Focal laser photocoagulation reduced the levels of HEs in eyes with mild to moderate NPDR. However, the treatment was not able to decelerate the progression of DR.