Treatment Patterns of Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor and Laser Therapy Among Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema

Discovery of Aptamers and the Acceleration of the Development of Targeting Research in Ophthalmology

Aptamers are widely applied to diagnosis and therapy because of their targeting. However, the current progress of research into aptamers for the treatment of eye disorders has not been well-documented. The current literature on aptamers was reviewed in this study. Aptamer-related drugs and biochemical sensors have been evaluated for several eye disorders within the past decade; S58 targeting TGF-β receptor II and pegaptanib targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) are used to prevent fibrosis after glaucoma filtration surgery. Anti-brain-derived neurotrophic factor aptamer has been used to diagnose glaucoma. The first approved aptamer drug (pegaptanib) has been used to inhibit angiogenesis in age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and diabetic retinopathy (DR), and its efficacy and safety have been demonstrated in clinical trials. Aptamers, including E10030, RBM-007, AS1411, and avacincaptad pegol, targeting other angiogenesis-related biomarkers have also been discovered and subjected to clinical trials. Aptamers, such as C promoter binding factor 1, CD44, and advanced end products in AMD and DR, targeting other signal pathway proteins have also been discovered for therapy, and biochemical sensors for early diagnosis have been developed based on aptamers targeting VEGF, connective tissue growth factor, and lipocalin 1. Aptamers used for early detection and treatment of ocular tumors were derived from other disease biomarkers, such as CD71, nucleolin, and high mobility group A. In this review, the development and application of aptamers in eye disorders in recent years are systematically discussed, which may inspire a new link between aptamers and eye disorders. The aptamer development trajectory also facilitates the discovery of the pathogenesis and therapeutic strategies for various eye disorders.

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. In the previous update of this review, we found moderate-quality evidence that, at 12 months, aflibercept was slightly more effective than ranibizumab and bevacizumab for improving vision in people with DMO, although the difference may have been clinically insignificant (less than 0.1 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), or five Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters, or one ETDRS line).

Objectives

The objective of this updated review was to compare the effectiveness and safety of the different anti-VEGF drugs in RCTs at longer followup (24 months).

Search methods

We searched various electronic databases on 8 July 2022.

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 pairwise meta-analysis and we augmented this evidence using network meta-analysis (NMA) methods. We used the Stata 'network' meta-analysis package for all analyses. We used the CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis) web application to grade the certainty of the evidence.

Main results

We included 23 studies (13 with industry funding) that enrolled 3513 people with DMO (median central retinal thickness (CRT) 460 microns, interquartile range (IQR) 424 to 482) and moderate vision loss (median best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) 0.48 logMAR, IQR 0.42 to 0.55. One study that investigated ranibizumab versus sham and one study that mainly enrolled people with subclinical DMO and normal BCVA were not suitable for inclusion in the efficacy NMA. Consistent with the previous update of this review, we used ranibizumab as the reference drug for efficacy, and control (including laser, observation, and sham) as the reference for systemic safety. Eight trials provided data on the primary outcome (change in BCVA at 24 months, in logMAR: lower is better). We found no evidence of a difference between the following interventions and ranibizumab alone: aflibercept (mean difference (MD) -0.05 logMAR, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.12 to 0.02; moderate certainty); bevacizumab (MD -0.01 logMAR, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.10; low certainty), brolucizumab (MD 0.00 logMAR, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.07; low certainty), ranibizumab plus deferred laser (MD 0.00 logMAR, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.10; low certainty), and ranibizumab plus prompt laser (MD 0.03 logMAR, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.09; very low certainty). We also analysed BCVA change at 12 months, finding moderate-certainty evidence of increased efficacy with brolucizumab (MD -0.07 logMAR, 95%CI -0.10 to -0.03 logMAR), faricimab (MD -0.08 logMAR, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.05), and aflibercept (MD -0.07 logMAR, 95 % CI -0.10 to -0.04) compared to ranibizumab alone, but the difference could be clinically insignificant. Compared to ranibizumab alone, NMA of six trials showed no evidence of a difference with aflibercept (moderate certainty), bevacizumab (low certainty), or ranibizumab with prompt (very low certainty) or deferred laser (low certainty) regarding improvement by three or more ETDRS lines at 24 months. There was moderate-certainty evidence of greater CRT reduction at 24 months with brolucizumab (MD -23 microns, 95% CI -65 to -1 9) and aflibercept (MD -26 microns, 95% CI -53 to 0.9) compared to ranibizumab. There was moderate-certainty evidence of lesser CRT reduction with bevacizumab (MD 28 microns, 95% CI 0 to 56), ranibizumab plus deferred laser (MD 63 microns, 95% CI 18 to 109), and ranibizumab plus prompt laser (MD 72 microns, 95% CI 25 to 119) compared with ranibizumab alone. Regarding all-cause mortality at the longest available follow-up (20 trials), we found no evidence of increased risk of death for any drug compared to control, although effects were in the direction of an increase, and clinically relevant increases could not be ruled out. The certainty of this evidence was low for bevacizumab (risk ratio (RR) 2.10, 95% CI 0.75 to 5.88), brolucizumab (RR 2.92, 95% CI 0.68 to 12.58), faricimab (RR 1.91, 95% CI 0.45 to 8.00), ranibizumab (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.34), and very low for conbercept (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.81) and aflibercept (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.77). Estimates for Antiplatelet Trialists Collaboration arterial thromboembolic events at 24 months did not suggest an increase with any drug compared to control, but the NMA was overall incoherent and the evidence was of low or very low certainty. Ocular adverse events were rare and poorly reported and could not be assessed in NMAs.

Authors' conclusions

There is limited evidence of the comparative efficacy and safety of anti-VEGF drugs beyond one year of follow-up. We found no clinically important differences in visual outcomes at 24 months in people with DMO, although there were differences in CRT change. We found no evidence that any drug increases all-cause mortality compared to control, but estimates were very imprecise. Evidence from RCTs may not apply to real-world practice, where people in need of antiangiogenic treatment are often under-treated, and the individuals exposed to these drugs may be less healthy than trial participants.

Predictive Assessment of Quantitative Ultra-Widefield Angiographic Features for Future Need for Anti-VEGF Therapy in Diabetic Eye Disease

The objective of this study was to identify biomarkers that predict a future need for anti-VEGF therapy in diabetic retinopathy (DR). Eyes with DR that underwent ultra-widefield angiography (UWFA) and had at least a 1 year follow-up were grouped based on future anti-VEGF treatment requirements: (1) not requiring treatment, (2) immediate treatment (within 3 months of UWFA), and (3) delayed treatment (after 3 months of UWFA). Quantitative UWFA features and clinical factors were evaluated. Random forest models were built to differentiate eyes requiring immediate and delayed treatment from the eyes not requiring treatment. A total of 173 eyes were included. The mean follow-up was 22 (range: 11–43) months. The macular leakage index, panretinal leakage index, presence of DME, and visual acuity were significantly different in eyes requiring immediate (n = 38) and delayed (n = 34) treatment compared to eyes not requiring treatment (n = 101). Random forest model differentiating eyes requiring immediate treatment from eyes not requiring treatment demonstrated an AUC of 0.91 ± 0.07. Quantitative angiographic features have potential as important predictive biomarkers of a future need for anti-VEGF therapy in DR and may serve to guide the frequency of a follow-up.

Review of clinical studies and recommendation for a therapeutic flow chart for diabetic macular edema

Diabetic macular edema (DME), characterized by exudative fluid accumulation in the macula, is the most common form of sight-threatening retinopathy in patients with diabetes. The management of DME has changed considerably in recent years, especially following the development of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy which has emerged as a first-line therapy for center-involved DME. Laser treatment, intravitreal steroid therapy, and vitrectomy are also important treatment options for DME. We believe that it is important to choose the most appropriate treatment option for DME based on the clinical evidences, in addition to the careful consideration of individual patients' general or ocular condition, DME characteristics, patients' motivation, and compliance to the treatment in real-world clinical practice. In this review, we have summarized important clinical evidences for the main treatments for DME, presented an expert review for these evidences, and proposed a recommended therapeutic flow chart for DME. We hope that our review of the clinical evidences and the recommended therapeutic flow chart for DME will contribute to better treatment outcome for DME.

Enhancing Risk Assessment in Patients with Diabetic Retinopathy by Combining Measures of Retinal Function and Structure

Purpose

To determine whether combining measures of retinal structure and function predicts need for intervention for diabetic retinopathy (DR) better than either modality alone.

Methods

The study sample consisted of 279 diabetic patients who participated in an earlier cross-sectional study. Patients were excluded if they were previously treated for macular edema or proliferative DR or if they had other retinopathies. Medical records were reviewed for ocular interventions including vitrectomy, intravitreal injection, and laser treatment. Need for intervention was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier analyses and Cox proportional hazards. Baseline electroretinograms and fundus photographs were obtained. Two definitions of structural positive findings were as follows: 1. Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study diabetic retinopathy severity scale (ETDRS-DR) severity ≥ level 53 (ETDRS-DR+) and 2. ETDRS-DR+ or clinically significant macular edema (VTDR+). A positive function finding corresponded to a RETeval DR Score >23.5 (RETeval+).

Results

For patients with VTDR+ the incidence of intervention was 19%, 31%, and 53% after 1, 2, and 3 years of follow-up. In these patients, intervention incidence increased to 34%, 54%, and 74% the subsequent 1, 2, and 3 years if function was above criterion (RETeval+), whereas RETeval-  results reduced the risk to 3%, 4%, and 29%, respectively, reducing risk to similar levels seen for patients with VTDR- results at baseline.

Conclusions

Prediction of subsequent intervention was best when combining structural and functional information.

Translational Relevance

This study demonstrates that clinical management of diabetic retinopathy is improved by adding electroretinography to fundus photographic information in assessing the risk of the need for intervention.

Healthcare Utilization and Treatment Patterns in Diabetic Macular Edema in Korea: a Retrospective Chart Review

BACKGROUND

Limited data exist on real-world treatment patterns for diabetic macular edema (DME) in Korea. In this study, we investigated DME treatment patterns from 2009 to 2014 and the impact of baseline treatment on healthcare resource utilization and visual acuity (VA) outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort chart review of DME patients treated at 11 hospital ophthalmology clinics between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2013 was conducted. We collected data on demographics, healthcare resource utilization (clinic visits, treatment visits, and visits for ocular investigations), distribution of DME treatments, and VA.

RESULTS

Overall, 522 DME patients (men, 55.2%; mean age, 59 years; mean HbA1c [n = 209], 8.4%) with 842 DME eyes were evaluated. For all treatments, healthcare resource utilization was significantly higher during the first 6 months versus months 7-12, year 2, or year 3 (P ≤ 0.001), but was highest for patients whose first treatment was an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment (visits/quarter; anti-VEGF, 1.9; corticosteroids, 1.7; laser, 1.4). Use of macular laser therapy decreased (44% to 8%), whereas use of anti-VEGF injections increased (44% to 69%) during the study period. However, VA improvement was not commensurate with healthcare resource utilization of anti-VEGF treatment (mean VA gain, 2.7 letters).

CONCLUSION

A trend toward increasing use of intravitreal anti-VEGF injections for DME treatment was observed in Korea. However, the frequency of dosing and monitoring was lower in clinical practice versus major clinical trials, which may have led to the less-than-favorable improvements in visual outcomes.

Real-World Outcomes with Ranibizumab 0.5 mg in Patients with Visual Impairment due to Diabetic Macular Edema: 12-Month Results from the 36-Month BOREAL-DME Study

PURPOSE

To report the real-world effectiveness and safety of ranibizumab 0.5 mg in patients with visual impairment due to diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

This is a French, 36-month, multicenter, observational cohort study. Between December 2013 and April 2015, ophthalmologists enrolled diabetic patients aged ≥18 years with DME-related visual impairment and for whom ranibizumab 0.5 mg was initiated. Here, we present the 12-month results from this cohort. The primary endpoint was the mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA); sample size calculations were based on RESTORE trial data (BCVA mean change = 6.8 letters, preci sion = 0.7 letters). Secondary endpoints included the change in central subfield thickness (CSFT), number of visits, number of injections received, and frequency of ocular and nonocular adverse events and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

Between December 2013 and April 2015, a total of 290 patients with DME were enrolled by 84 ophthalmologists; 12-month data are available for 242 patients (due to low recruitment rates, precision was recalculated for 242 evaluable patients: the precision was then of 1.0 letters). Mean age (± standard deviation) was 66.1 ± 11.0 years and 56.6% were male. The mean baseline BCVA and CSFT were 59.2 letters (95% confidence interval [CI] 57.3, 61.0) and 457 μm (95% CI: 438, 476), respectively. At month 12, the mean gain in BCVA from baseline was 7.4 letters (95% CI: 5.4, 9.4), with 36.8% of patients with BCVA > 70 letters versus 13.2% at baseline. Mean change in CSFT was -125 μm (95% CI: -146, -103). The mean number of ranibizumab injections was 5.1 ± 2.3 over an average of 10.4 ± 3.0 visits. No new safety findings were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The BOREAL study confirms the effectiveness and safety of ranibizumab for the treatment of DME-related visual impairment in routine clinical practice with fewer injections than reported in clinical trials.

A noninterventional study to monitor patients with diabetic macular oedema starting treatment with ranibizumab (POLARIS)

Purpose

Antivascular endothelial growth factor agents are increasingly used in diabetic macular oedema (DME); however, there are few studies exploring their use in DME in real‐world settings.

Methods

POLARIS was a noninterventional, multicentre study to monitor 12‐month outcomes in patients starting ranibizumab treatment in routine practices. The primary outcome was mean change in visual acuity (VA) from baseline to month 12 (last observation carried forward approach). Other outcomes included mean change in central retinal thickness (CRT) and resource utilization. Visual acuity (VA) outcomes were also stratified by country, baseline visual acuity score (VAS), sex, age and injection frequency.

Results

Outcomes were analysed from all treated patients (n = 804) and from first‐year completers (patients who had a visual acuity assessment at 12 months; n = 568). The mean (SD) baseline VAS was 59.4 (15.9) letters, and the mean change in visual acuity was 4.4 letters (95% confidence interval: 3.3–5.4) at month 12 (study eye; first‐year completers). The mean number of injections (study eye) was 4.9, and the mean number of all visits (any eye) was 10 (58% were injection visits) over 12 months (first‐year completers). The mean (SD) baseline CRT was 410.6 (128.8) μm, and the mean change in CRT was −115.2 μm at month 12 (study eye; first‐year completers). Visual acuity (VA) outcomes were generally comparable across most countries and subgroups and were greatest in patients with the lowest baseline VAS (≤60 letters).

Conclusion

POLARIS showed that real‐world outcomes in DME patients starting treatment with ranibizumab were lower than those observed in clinical studies, in spite of extensive monitoring.

Treatment patterns in diabetic macular edema in Taiwan: a retrospective chart review

Objectives

To characterize diabetic macular edema (DME) treatment patterns in Taiwan and examine their impact on health care resource utilization and visual and anatomic outcomes.

Methods

Retrospective, observational cohort study of longitudinal data from medical records of five hospital ophthalmology clinics. Patients with type 2 diabetes and DME who received ≥1 laser treatment or pharmacotherapy (intravitreal/subtenon corticosteroids and/or intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF] agents) between January 2012 and December 2013 (index period) and attended ≥1 follow-up visit after the first treatment during that period were identified (prevalent population, N=431). In addition, a subset that received no anti-VEGFs before 2012 (anti-VEGF-naïve population, N=77) was analyzed. Outcome measures were change in DME treatment distribution between January 2009 and December 2014 and health care resource utilization over up to 3 years from the first DME treatment received in the index period (prevalent population), mean number of anti-VEGF injections and change from baseline in visual acuity and central macular thickness over 12 months (anti-VEGF-naïve population).

Results

Between 2009 and 2014, laser treatment use declined, overall use of anti-VEGFs increased, and bevacizumab use decreased proportionately as ranibizumab use increased. Patients receiving corticosteroids and anti-VEGFs in the first 6 months post-index had greater health care resource utilization than those treated with laser, corticosteroids, or anti-VEGF alone (P<0.0001, cross-cohort comparison). Among anti-VEGF-naïve patients, 69% received one to four anti-VEGF injections in the first year post-index. Overall, visual acuity improvement from baseline was minimal at 1 year (0.4 letters, observed data; 0.1 letters, last observation carried forward), and modest central macular thickness reduction (28 µm [last observation carried forward]) was detected.

Conclusion

In Taiwanese clinics, DME treatment patterns have shifted from use of laser to anti-VEGFs (with higher health care resource utilization); however, few patients receive anti-VEGF injections at the frequency reported in landmark trials, consistent with poorer visual outcomes. Effective alternative treatments with lower treatment burden should be considered.

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.

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.

Anti-VEGF treatment of diabetic macular edema in clinical practice: effectiveness and patterns of use (ECHO Study Report 1)

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and injection frequency of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors as used in clinical practice for the treatment of diabetic macular edema.

Methods

Multicenter (10 sites), retrospective chart review in patients (n=156) who received ≥3 anti-VEGF injections. Data collected for ≥6 months after the first injection included Snellen best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) by time-domain or spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (TD-OCT or SD-OCT).

Results

Mean number of anti-VEGF injections (627 bevacizumab, 594 ranibizumab, 1 aflibercept) was 5.8 (year 1), 5.0 (year 2), and 3.4 (year 3). Percentage of patients with BCVA of 20/40 or better and CRT ≤250 μm on TD-OCT or ≤300 μm on SD-OCT at the same visit (primary endpoint) ranged from 16.4% to 38.9% after the first 10 injections; 51.9%–62.3% achieved ≥20/40 BCVA and 26.2%–48.0% met CRT criteria. Therapy was well tolerated with 19 treatment-related adverse events (all ocular) reported.

Conclusion

Anti-VEGF injections were administered less frequently and were less effective than those in the ranibizumab registration trials. After each of the first 9 injections, <25% of patients achieved both BCVA of 20/40 or better and a dry macula. A substantial proportion of patients are suboptimal responders to anti-VEGF therapy; these patients may be candidates for other therapies, including intravitreal corticosteroid and laser therapy.