A prospective pilot study comparing combined intravitreal ranibizumab and half-fluence photodynamic therapy with ranibizumab monotherapy in the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration

Managing Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration in Clinical Practice: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression

The use of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents has profoundly changed the prognosis of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). As clinical experiences have accumulated, it has become mandatory to summarize data to give information that can be useful in everyday practice. We conducted a systematic review to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that reported 12-month changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in patients with nAMD on anti-VEGF monotherapy. Data were analyzed in a random-effects meta-analysis with BCVA change as the primary outcome. Meta-regression was conducted to evaluate the impact of multiple covariates. Four hundred and twelve heterogeneous study populations (109,666 eyes) were included. Anti-VEGFs induced an overall improvement of +5.37 ETDRS letters at 12 months. Meta-regression showed that mean BCVA change was statistically greater for RCTs (p = 0.0032) in comparison with observational studies. Populations following a proactive regimen had better outcomes than those following a reactive treatment regimen. Mean BCVA change was greater in younger populations, with lower baseline BCVA and treated with a higher number of injections (p < 0.001). Our results confirm that anti-VEGFs may produce a significant functional improvement at 12 months in patients with nAMD.

Comparative efficacy and safety of different regimens of ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To give a comprehensive efficacy and safety ranking of different therapeutic regimens of ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).

DESIGN

A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other clinical trial registries were searched up to 1 October 2019 to identify related randomised controlled trials (RCT) of different regimens of ranibizumab for nAMD. The primary efficacy outcome was the changes of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 1 year, the primary safety outcome was the incidence of severe ocular adverse events. Secondary outcomes such as changes of central retinal thickness (CRT) were evaluated. We estimated the standardised mean difference (SMD), ORs, 95% CIs, the surface under the cumulative ranking curves and the mean ranks for each outcome using network meta-analyses with random effects by Stata 14.0.

RESULTS

We identified 26 RCTs involving 10 821 patients with nAMD randomly assigned to 21 different therapeutic regimens of ranibizumab or sham treatment. Ranibizumab 0.5 mg (treat and extend, T&E) is most effective in terms of changes of BCVA (letters, SMD=21.41, 95% CI 19.86 to 22.95) and three or more lines of BCVA improvement (OR=2.83, 95% CI 1.27 to 4.38). However, it could not significantly reduce retreatment times compared with monthly injection (SMD=-0.94, 95% CI -2.26 to 0.39). Ranibizumab 0.5 mg (3+pro re nata)+non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is most effective in reducing CRT and port delivery system of ranibizumab (100 mg/mL) could reduce the number of retreatment most significantly. All regimes have no more risk of severe ocular complications (including vitreous haemorrhage, rhegmatogenous retinal detachment, endophthalmitis, retinal tear and retinal pigment epithelium tear) or cardiocerebral vascular complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Ranibizumab 0.5 mg (T&E) is most effective in improving the visual outcome. The administration of topical NSAIDs could achieve additional efficacy in CRT reduction and visual improvement. Both interventions had acceptable risks of adverse events.

Combination verteporfin photodynamic therapy ranibizumab-dexamethasone in choroidal neovascularization due to age-related macular degeneration: results of a phase II randomized trial

PURPOSE

To assess whether combination therapy (CT) reduces retreatments when compared to ranibizumab monotherapy (RM), while safely maintaining similar vision outcomes.

METHODS

In this 24-month trial, patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) were randomized to 1) quarter-fluence or 2) half-fluence triple therapy (verteporfin photodynamic therapy [vPDT] + ranibizumab + dexamethasone), 3) half-fluence double therapy (vPDT + ranibizumab), or 4) RM. The primary outcomes were number of retreatment visits and change from baseline in visual acuity (VA) at 12 months.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-two subjects enrolled. There were 4.0 (P=0.02), 3.2 (P<0.001), 4.1 (P=0.03), and 5.7 retreatment visits through month 12, and 5.9 (P=0.03), 4.3 (P<0.001), 5.9 (P=0.02) and 8.7 through month 24, in groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively (P-value comparing with RM). Month 12 VA score change from baseline (95% confidence interval) was +3.6 (-0.9 to +8.1), +6.8 (+2.4 to +11.1), +5.0 (+0.6 to +9.3), and +6.5 (+1.7 to +11.4), respectively.

CONCLUSION

CT resulted in significantly fewer retreatment visits than a RM regimen at months 12 and 24. VA results appeared similar although wide confidence intervals preclude conclusions regarding vision outcomes.

Comparison of the efficacy of anti-VEGF monotherapy versus PDT and intravitreal anti-VEGF combination treatment in AMD: a Meta-analysis and systematic review

AIM

To compare the effect of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) monotherapy versus photodynamic therapy (PDT) and anti-VEGF combination treatment in age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

METHODS

A computerized online search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. Studies that compared anti-VEGF monotherapy with PDT and anti-VEGF combination treatment of AMD and were designed as randomized controlled trials were included. The means and standard deviations of the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), number of treatments and proportions of patients who gained BCVA ≥15, 10, 5, or 0 letters at 12(th) month were extracted. A systematic review and Meta-analysis of the comparison of the two approaches was conducted using Review Manager 5.2. Subgroup. A sensitivity analysis was also performed.

RESULTS

Eight studies were included. When the subgroup and sensitivity analysis was conducted, the results indicated that in the findings that included the monotherapy group and PDT (standard fluence, SF) group of Kaiser's study, the patients in the monotherapy group had a better BCVA compared with the combination group at 12(th) month in the PDT (SF) subgroup [weighted mean difference (WMD): 3.54; 95%CI: 0.36 to 6.73; P=0.03], and there were more patients who gained ≥15 letters of BCVA in the monotherapy group compared with the combination group in the total result [odds ratio (OR): 1.41; 95%CI: 1.02 to 1.95; P=0.04]. The same conclusion was obtained in the total result that included the monotherapy group and PDT (reduced fluence, RF) group of Kaiser's study (OR: 1.56; 95%CI: 1.13 to 2.15; P=0.007). However, there were no significant differences in the other indexes between the two therapies.

CONCLUSION

We found that anti-VEGF monotherapy is more effective on the recovery of visual acuity than combination therapy and more researches with lager sample size should be performed to study on the effect of the two therapy approaches on CRT and number of injections.

Intravitreal anti-VEGF injections for treating wet age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the main cause of blindness. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor is used to prevent further neovascularization due to wet AMD. The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the effect and protocol of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment on wet AMD.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, and reference lists. Meta-analysis was performed using Stata12.0 software, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), retinal thickness, and lesion size were evaluated.

RESULTS

Twelve randomized controlled trials spanning from 2010 to 2014 and involving 5,225 patients were included. A significant difference was observed between the intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) group and the intravitreal bevacizumab group (standard mean difference = -0.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.23 to -0.05). No significant differences were observed in best corrected VA, retinal thickness, or lesion size between IVR and the intravitreal aflibercept group. Compared to monthly injection, IVR as-needed injections (PRN) can raise VA by 1.97 letters (weighted mean difference = 1.97, 95% CI = 0.14-3.794). Combination therapy of IVR and photodynamic therapy can significantly raise VA by 2.74 letters when combined with IVR monotherapy (weighted mean difference = 2.74, 95% CI = 0.26-5.21).

CONCLUSION

The superiority remains unclear between IVR and intravitreal bevacizumab in the treatment of neovascular AMD. Intravitreal aflibercept dosed every 2 months required fewer injection times, but produced similar efficacy as monthly IVR. IVR PRN could significantly increase VA. Combined with photodynamic therapy, IVR therapy could also increase VA effectively.

Optical Coherence Tomography Monitoring Strategies for A-VEGF-Treated Age-Related Macular Degeneration: An Evidence-Based Analysis

BACKGROUND

New anti-angiogenesis pharmacotherapies have dramatically altered treatment of age-related macular degeneration (AMD), the leading cause of blindness in older adults. Monthly intraocular injections however, are extremely burdensome to ophthalmologists, patients, and their families. Repeated injections also increase risks of complications or adverse events. Although the pharmacokinetics of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (A-VEGF) drugs are fairly well known, an individuals' AMD presentation and their pharmacodynamics or response to the drug has been shown to be extremely variable. Therefore treating everyone on the same fixed or standard regimen has potential for undertreating or overtreating patients, and drug costs are not trivial.

OBJECTIVES

To review monitoring strategies and to evaluate the role of optical coherence tomography (OCT) in guiding management of A-VEGF-treated neovascular AMD (n-AMD) patients.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic reviews of biographic databases for studies published between 2008 and February 2013 involving A-VEGF-treated n-AMD patients monitored in longitudinal follow-up.

REVIEW METHODS

Studies were grouped according to varying treatments, monitoring schedules, and re-treatment protocols reported for n-AMD patients treated with A-VEGF. Several outcomes were evaluated across strategies including visual acuity (VA), retinal anatomy, re-treatment criteria and frequencies of clinical follow-up, OCT imaging investigations, and intravitreal injections. Results were summarized qualitatively, as heterogeneity in study objectives and methods precluded formal meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A systematic review identified 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 20 observational studies involving A-VEGF treatment employing various monitoring and as-needed (PRN) re-treatment protocols. Several maintenance strategies were unsuccessful, resulting in lower VA gains and stabilization than monthly injections in A-VEGF-treated n-AMD. These included fixed quarterly treatment; fixed quarterly monitoring and PRN re-treatment; and monthly monitoring with either VA-guided re-treatment or quantitative-only VA/OCT- (central retinal thickness [CRT] > 100 μm) guided re-treatment. PRN re-treatment strategies with A-VEGF on the basis of monthly follow-up and rigorous reviews of OCT qualitative and quantitative measures of disease activity did decrease injection burden while maintaining visual gains. Gains in VA obtained with PRN re-treatment in usual clinical practice, however, were not as high as gains in clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

To reduce treatment burden and provide a more individualized treatment strategy for n-AMD patients, OCT/VA-guided PRN treatment strategies have become the preferred and the dominant maintenance strategy. Success of these strategies, however, is dependent on close monitoring and adherence to tightly defined re-treatment criteria.

Combination of ranibizumab with photodynamic therapy vs ranibizumab monotherapy in the treatment of age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of combination of ranibizumab with photodynamic therapy (PDT) vs ranibizumab monotherapy in the treatment of age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

METHODS

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, Pubmed, and Embase were searched. There were no language or data restrictions in the search for trials. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Methodological quality of the literatures was evaluated according to the Jadad Score. RevMan 5.2.6 software was used to do the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included in our systematic review, among which four of them were included in quantitative analysis. The result shows that the ranibizumab monotherapy group had a better mean best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) change vs baseline at month 12 compared with that of the combination treatment group, and the statistical difference was significant (WMD, -2.61; 95% CI, -5.08 to -0.13; P=0.04). However, after the removal of one study, the difference between the two groups showed no significant difference (WMD, -2.29; 95% CI, -4.81 to 0.23; P=0.07). Meanwhile, no significant central retinal thickness (CRT) reduction was found in the combination treatment group and the ranibizumab monotherapy group at 12 months follow-up. Nevertheless, the combination group tended to have a greater reduction in CRT (WMD, -4.13µm; 95%CI, -25.88 to 17.63, P=0.71). The proportion of patients gaining more than 3 lines at month 12 in the ranibizumab group was higher than in the combination group and there was a significant difference (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.95; P=0.02). Whereas there was no significant difference for the proportion of patients gaining more than 0 line at month 12 between the two groups (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.15; P=0.52). The general tendency shows a reduction in ranibizumab retreatment number in the combination treatment group compared with the ranibizumab monotherapy group. As major adverse events, the differences in the number of eye pain, endophthalmitis, hypertension and arterial thromboembolic events were not significant between the two groups, and the incidence of serious adverse events in the two groups was very low.

CONCLUSION

For the maintenance of vision, the comparison of the combination of ranibizumab with PDT vs ranibizumab monotherapy shows no apparent difference. Compared with the combination of ranibizumab and PDT, patients treated with ranibizumab monothearpy may gain more visual acuity (VA) improvement. The combination treatment group had a tendency to reduce the number of ranibizumab retreatment. Both the two treatment strategies were well tolerated.