Intravitreal Ranibizumab (Lucentis) for the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Control Trials

Systemic Adverse Events Among Patients With Diabetes Treated With Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Injections

Importance

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents are currently the mainstay of treatment for diabetic retinopathy (DR). Although effective, data on their systemic safety remains inconclusive, particularly in high-risk patient groups.

Objective

To explore the systemic safety of intravitreal anti-VEGF agents among patients with diabetes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a retrospective, longitudinal population-based analysis of the Corporate Data Warehouse, a large-scale database of patients within the US Veteran Health Affairs. All patients 18 years and older with type 2 diabetes who were seen at any Veterans Affairs health care facility in the US between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2012, were identified. Data were then extracted on incident systemic adverse events among this patient cohort from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2017. All individuals with diabetes who did and did not receive anti-VEGF injections were included. Patients with a history of prior systemic adverse events and those who received an intravitreal injection between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2012, were excluded. Data were analyzed from October 2019 to March 2023.

Exposure

Anti-VEGF injection.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Proportion of patients with any incident systemic adverse event, acute myocardial infarction, cardiovascular disease, or kidney disease at 1-, 3-, and 5-year follow-up.

Results

A total of 1 731 782 patients (mean [SD] age, 63.8 [12.3] years; 1 656 589 [95.7%] male) with type 2 diabetes were included. DR was present in 476 013 (27.5%), and 14 022 (0.8%) received anti-VEGF injections. Of the total number of patients with type 2 diabetes, 321 940 (18.6%) developed systemic adverse events between 2013 and 2017. The 5-year cumulative incidence of any systemic adverse event was 37.0% (5187/14 022) in the injection group vs 18.4% (316 753/1 717 760) in the noninjection group (P < .001). Anti-VEGF injections were independently associated with a higher likelihood of developing any systemic adverse event (odds ratio, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.7-1.9) when controlling for age, race, sex, ethnicity, tobacco use, severity of DR, Deyo-Charlson Comorbidity Index score, mean hemoglobin A1c, total number of injections, and statin use.

Conclusion and Relevance

In this study, intravitreal anti-VEGF injections were independently associated with a higher likelihood of systemic adverse events among patients with diabetes.

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).

A novel device for accurate and efficient testing for vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy

AIMS

To evaluate the performance of the RETeval device, a handheld instrument using flicker electroretinography (ERG) and pupillography on undilated subjects with diabetes, to detect vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy (VTDR).

METHODS

Performance was measured using a cross-sectional, single armed, non-interventional, multi-site study with Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study 7-standard field, stereo, color fundus photography as the gold standard. The 468 subjects were randomized to a calibration phase (80%), whose ERG and pupillary waveforms were used to formulate an equation correlating with the presence of VTDR, and a validation phase (20%), used to independently validate that equation. The primary outcome was the prevalence-corrected area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for the detection of VTDR.

RESULTS

The area under the ROC curve was 0.86 for VTDR. With a sensitivity of 83%, the specificity was 78% and the negative predictive value was 99%. The average testing time was 2.3 min.

CONCLUSIONS

With a VTDR prevalence similar to that in the U.S., the RETeval device will identify about 75% of the population as not having VTDR with 99% accuracy. The device is simple to use, does not require pupil dilation, and has a short testing time.

Efficacy of Intravitreal Triamcinolone Acetonide for Diabetic Macular Edema After Vitrectomy

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy of intravitreal injection of triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA) for diabetic macular edema (DME) in vitrectomized eyes with DME without vitrectomy eyes.

METHODS

This retrospective comparative study evaluated the efficacy of IVTA treatment of DME in 26 consecutive eyes (23 patients). Changes in mean best-corrected visual acuity (VA) and mean central retinal thickness (CRT) were retrospectively evaluated before IVTA and during the 6-month period after IVTA.

RESULTS

Subjects were divided into 2 groups: 13 consecutive eyes (11 patients) with proliferative diabetic retinopathy or DME that underwent vitrectomy (vitrectomized group), and 13 consecutive eyes (12 patients) with DME who received IVTA, but did not undergo vitrectomy (nonvitrectomized group). In the vitrectomized group, there was a significantly decreased CRT for up to 4 months as compared to the thicknesses before IVTA. In the nonvitrectomized group, there was a significantly decreased CRT for up to 5 months after IVTA. In both groups, there was significant improvement in the VA for up to 4 months after IVTA.

CONCLUSION

IVTA may represent a valid treatment option for DME, even in vitrectomized eyes.

Ranibizumab monotherapy or combined with laser versus laser monotherapy for diabetic macular edema: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objective

To evaluate the relative efficacy of ranibizumab (RBZ) monotherapy or combined with laser (RBZ + Laser) versus laser monotherapy for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME).

Methods

A comprehensive literature search using PUBMED, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Library to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RBZ or RBZ + Laser to laser monotherapy in patients with DME. Efficacy estimates were determined by comparing weighted mean differences (WMD) in the change of best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) from baseline, and the risk ratios (RR) for the proportions of patients with at least 15 letters change from baseline. Safety analysis estimated the RR of cardiac disorders at 6 to 12 months in RBZ therapy vs. laser monotherapy. Statistical analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.1 software.

Results

Seven RCTs were selected for this meta-analysis, including 1749 patients (394 patients in the RBZ group, 642 patients in the RBZ + Laser group, and 713 patients in the laser group). RBZ and RBZ + Laser were superior to laser monotherapy in the mean change of BCVA and CMT from baseline (WMD = 5.65, 95% confidence interval (CI), 4.44–6.87, P<0.00001; WMD  = 5.02, 95% CI, 3.83–6.20, P<0.00001, and WMD  = −57.91, 95% CI, −77.62 to −38.20, P<0.00001; WMD  = −56.63, 95% CI, −104.81 to −8.44, P = 0.02, respectively). The pooled RR comparing the proportions of patients with at least 15 letters improvement or deterioration were also in favor of RBZ and RBZ + Laser (RR = 2.94, 95% CI, 1.82–4.77, P<0.00001; RR = 2.04, 95% CI, 1.50–2.78, P<0.00001, and RR = 0.21, 95% CI, 0.06–0.71, P = 0.01; RR = 0.52, 95% CI, 0.29–0.95, P = 0.03, respectively). There were no significant differences between RBZ and RBZ + Laser for any of the parameters. There were no difference in the safety profile between RBZ and laser.

Conclusion

RBZ and RBZ + Laser had better visual and anatomic outcomes than laser monotherapy in the treatment of DME. RBZ + Laser seemed to be equivalent to RBZ.

The effect of combined treatment of bevacizumab and triamcinolone for diabetic macular edema refractory to previous intravitreal mono-injections

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficiency of combined treatment of bevacizumab and triamcinolone in refractory diffuse DME (DDME). Twenty-five pseudophakic eyes with DDME refractory to previous successive intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB, 1.25 and 2.5 mg/0.1 ml) and triamcinolone (IVT, 4 mg and 10 mg/0.1 ml) injections were included. The average number of injections was two (1-4). The mean best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 0.8 (0.3-1.5) logMAR before enrollment, 0.6 (0.0-1.5) logMAR at 6 months and 0.6 (0-1.8) logMAR at 12 months (p = 0.0001, p = 0.003). The median central macular thickness (CMT) of all the eyes was 575 (502-1049) µm at baseline, 370 (179-983) µm at 6 months, and 410 (198-929) µm at 12 months (p = 0.0001; p = 0.0001). At 6 months, the VA of 13 (52 %) patients was stabilized (± 0.2 logMAR of initial BCVA) and 12 (48 %) patients showed visual improvement (>0.2 logMAR). At 12 months, 10 (40 %) patients had stabilized vision, 13 (52 %) showed visual improvement and 2 (8 %) showed visual loss. At 6 months, 18 (72 %) patients showed anatomic stabilization (a decrease of 10 % to 50 % in initial CMT) and 7 (28 %) anatomical success (a decrease in CMT more than 50 % or ≤250 µm at final visit). At 12 months, 13 (52 %) patients showed anatomic stabilization, 10 (40 %) anatomic success, and 2 (8 %) anatomical failure (decrease in CMT less than 10 %). The combined application of IVB and triamcinolone may improve vision and decrease CMT in severe DDME cases refractory to previous monotherapies.

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for diabetic macular oedema

BACKGROUND

Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a common complication of diabetic retinopathy. Although grid or focal laser photocoagulation has been shown to reduce the risk of visual loss in DMO, or clinically significant macular oedema (CSMO), vision is rarely improved. Antiangiogenic therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) modalities is used to try to improve vision in people with DMO.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effects in preserving and improving vision and acceptability, including the safety, compliance with therapy and quality of life, of antiangiogenic therapy with anti-VEGF modalities for the treatment of DMO.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2014, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to April 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to April 2014), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to April 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 28 April 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. The risk ratios (RR) for visual loss and visual gain of three or more lines of logMAR visual acuity were estimated at one year of follow-up (plus or minus six months) after treatment initiation.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen studies provided data on four comparisons of interest in this review. Participants in the trials had central DMO and moderate vision loss.Compared with grid laser photocoagulation, people treated with antiangiogenic therapy were more likely to gain 3 or more lines of vision at one year (RR 3.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.7 to 4.8, 10 studies, 1333 cases, high quality evidence) and less likely to lose 3 or more lines of vision (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.24, 7 studies, 1086 cases, high quality evidence). In meta-analyses, no significant subgroup difference was demonstrated between bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept for the two primary outcomes, but there was little power to detect a difference. The quality of the evidence was judged to be high, because the effect was large, precisely measured and did not vary across studies, although some studies were at high or unclear risk of bias for one or more domains. Regarding absolute benefit, we estimated that 8 out of 100 participants with DMO may gain 3 or more lines of visual acuity using photocoagulation whereas 28 would do so with antiangiogenic therapy, meaning that 100 participants need to be treated with antiangiogenic therapy to allow 20 more people (95% CI 13 to 29) to markedly improve their vision after one year. People treated with anti-VEGF on average had 1.6 lines better vision (95% CI 1.4 to 1.8) after one year compared to laser photocoagulation (9 studies, 1292 cases, high quality evidence). To achieve this result, seven to nine injections were delivered in the first year and three or four in the second, in larger studies adopting either as needed regimens with monthly monitoring or fixed regimens.In other analyses antiangiogenic therapy was more effective than sham (3 studies on 497 analysed participants, high quality evidence) and ranibizumab associated with laser was more effective than laser alone (4 studies on 919 participants, high quality evidence).Ocular severe adverse events, such as endophthalmitis, were rare in the included studies. Meta-analyses conducted for all antiangiogenic drugs compared with either sham or photocoagulation did not show a significant difference regarding serious systemic adverse events (15 studies, 441 events in 2985 participants, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.17), arterial thromboembolic events (14 studies, 129 events in 3034 participants, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.25) and overall mortality (63 events in 3562 participants, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.47). We judged the quality of the evidence on adverse effects as moderate due to partial reporting of safety data and the exclusion of participants with previous cardiovascular events in some studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high quality evidence that antiangiogenic drugs provide a benefit compared to current therapeutic options for DMO, that is grid laser photocoagulation, in clinical trial populations at one or two years. Future research should investigate differences between drugs, effectiveness under real-world monitoring and treatment conditions, and safety in high-risk populations, particularly regarding cardiovascular risk.

Systemic safety of ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema: meta-analysis of randomized trials

PURPOSE

To evaluate systemic safety of ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically reviewed. Eligible studies were randomized trials on ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema with observation at least 6 months and ≥80% completion rate that reported systemic adverse events of cerebrovascular accident, myocardial infarction, vascular death, and overall mortality. The numbers of adverse events were compared between patients treated with ranibizumab and those without. Furthermore, dose-dependent effect of ranibizumab was estimated for overall mortality through Poisson meta-regression.

RESULTS

Six trials with 2,459 patients were included. All trials had exclusion criteria on systemic vascular conditions for enrollment. Risk ratio for cerebrovascular accident, myocardial infarction, vascular death, and overall mortality were 0.80 (95% confidence interval, 0.37-1.73; P = 0.57), 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.46-1.80; P = 0.78), 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 0.58-2.86; P = 0.53), and 1.92 (95% confidence interval, 0.78-4.73; P = 0.16), respectively. Poisson regression model showed a significant dose-dependent increase in overall mortality in the largest randomized trial using monthly ranibizumab (P = 0.04). However, the significance disappeared (P = 0.133) when pooled with other studies using ranibizumab on pro re nata basis.

CONCLUSION

Ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema is considered safe when the patients are carefully selected based on systemic vascular conditions and it is used on pro re nata basis. Further evaluation is necessary on more intensive use or on high-risk patients.

Efficacy of anti-VEGF and laser photocoagulation in the treatment of visual impairment due to diabetic macular edema: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Compare the efficacy of ranibizumab, aflibercept, laser, and sham in the first-line treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) to inform technology assessments such as those conducted by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, congress abstracts, ClinicalTrials.gov registry and Novartis data on file.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Studies reporting 6- or 12-month results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating at least two of ranibizumab 0.5 mg pro re nata, aflibercept 2.0 mg bi-monthly, laser photocoagulation or sham. Study quality was assessed based on likelihood of bias in selection, attrition, detection and performance.

OUTCOME MEASURE

Improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) measured as the proportion of patients gaining ≥10 letters on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study scale. The outcome was chosen following acceptance by NICE of a Markov model with 10-letter health states in the assessment of ranibizumab for DME.

META-ANALYSIS

Bayesian network meta-analyses with fixed and random effects adjusted for differences in baseline BCVA or central retinal thickness.

RESULTS

The analysis included 1,978 patients from eight RCTs. The random effects model adjusting for baseline BCVA was the best model based on total residual. The efficacy of ranibizumab was numerically, but not statistically, superior to aflibercept (odds ratio [OR] 1.59; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.61-5.37). Ranibizumab and aflibercept were statistically superior to laser monotherapy with ORs of 5.50 (2.73-13.16) and 3.45 (1.62-6.84) respectively. The probability that ranibizumab is the most efficacious treatment was 73% compared with 14% for aflibercept, 12% for ranibizumab plus laser, and 0% for laser.

LIMITATIONS

Three of the eight RCTs included are not yet published. The models did not adjust for all potential effect modifiers.

CONCLUSION

Ranibizumab was non-significantly superior to aflibercept and both anti-VEGF therapies had statistically superior efficacy to laser.

Current approaches to the management of diabetic retinopathy

This review reflects the current status of the diabetic retinopathy treatment problem and describes the results of the largest trials on epidemiology, screening and the risk factors for complications. In addition, this article describes the current approaches and treatment options for diabetic retinopathy, including a description of fenofibroic acid with its mechanism of action and data from clinical trials. This article also contains information on antiangiogenic agents for intravitreal administration.

Fellow eye effect of unilateral intravitreal bevacizumab injection in eyes with diabetic macular edema

AIMS

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor compounds are routinely used for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME). We aim to evaluate for the existence and magnitude of treatment effect on fellow un-injected eyes.

METHODS

A consecutive group of patients with bilateral DME who received unilateral bevacizumab injections was retrospectively evaluated. Data collected included demographics, ophthalmic and systemic findings, and optical coherence tomography (OCT) measurements of macular thickness.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients were evaluated. Mean follow-up was 245 days (range: 30-800), and the mean number of bevacizumab injections was 3.6 (range: 1-11). At end of follow-up, the mean (SD) OCT central subfield thickness reduced by 72 ± 112 micron in the injected eye (from 469 ± 139 to 397 ± 120 micron; P=0.001), while in the non-injected eye it reduced by 49 ± 75 micron (from 380 ± 130 to 331 ± 106 micron; P<0.001). Sixteen injected eyes (45.7%) showed central subfield thickness reduction of ≥50 micron while 10 (28.6%) non-injected eyes showed such thickness reduction. Improved VA following treatment was detected in 14 (40%) injected eyes and in 15 (43%) non-injected eyes.

CONCLUSIONS

Unilateral bevacizumab injections in patients with bilateral DME are often associated with bilateral response.

SUMMARY STATEMENT

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor compounds are routinely used for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME). In this retrospective study, we show that unilateral bevacizumab injections often result in reduction of the macular thickness in the fellow un-injected eye.

The link between intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor injections and glaucoma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize the reports of both transient and sustained elevation in intraocular pressure (IOP) associated with intravitreal injections of antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents and to review the possible mechanisms for these findings.

RECENT FINDINGS

Transient elevation in IOP is common after intravitreal injection of anti-VEGF agents. Sustained IOP elevation is less commonly seen but can require medical and/or surgical intervention. The mechanism for sustained IOP elevation is not well understood but has been attributed to trabecular meshwork injury from repeated injections, a potential toxic or inflammatory reaction after exposure to the biologic agents and/or vehicle, or mechanical blockade of the trabecular meshwork by protein aggregates or contaminant particles associated with packaging and injection techniques, among other potential causes.

SUMMARY

Intravitreal anti-VEGF injections are commonly used to treat neovascular diseases of the eye. Although they have a favorable side-effect profile, their use can be associated with both transient and sustained elevation in IOP. Further research is necessary to determine the cause of these findings.

Intravitreal Injection of Normal Saline Induces Retinal Degeneration in the C57BL/6J Mouse

PURPOSE

To investigate the adverse effect of intravitreal injection of normal saline (NS) and phosphate buffered saline (PBS) in mouse eyes.

METHODS

NS or PBS was injected intravitreally into C57BL/6J mouse eyes. Retinal lesions were monitored by fundus imaging, spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT), and histological investigations. Retinal immune gene expression was determined by real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The toxic effect of NS and PBS or retinal protein from NS- or PBS-injected eyes on retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) was tested in B6-RPE-07 mouse RPE cell cultures.

RESULTS

Intravitreal injection of NS dose-dependently induced localized retinal lesion in mice. Histological investigations revealed multiple vacuoles in photoreceptor outer segments and RPE cells. The lesions recovered over time and by 3 weeks post injection the majority of lesions vanished in eyes receiving 1 μl NS. Inflammatory genes, including TNF-α, IL-1β, IL-6, iNOS, and VEGF were upregulated in NS injected eyes. Intravitreal injection of PBS did not cause any pathology. The treatment of B6-RPE07 cells with 30% PBS or 30% NS did not affect RPE viability. However, incubation of 1-μg/ml retinal protein from NS-injected eyes, but not PBS-injected eyes induced RPE cell death.

CONCLUSION

NS is toxic to the C57BL/6J mouse retina and should not be used as a vehicle for intraocular injection. PBS is not toxic to the retina and is a preferred vehicle.

TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE

NS is not a physiological solution for intraocular injection in the C57BL/6J mice and questions its suitability for intraocular injection in other species, including human.

Management paradigms for diabetic macular edema

PURPOSE

To provide evidence-based recommendations for diabetic macular edema (DME) management based on updated information from publications on DME treatment modalities.

DESIGN

Perspective.

METHODS

A literature search for "diabetic macular edema" or "diabetic maculopathy" was performed using the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases to identify studies from January 1, 1985 to July 31, 2013. Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and randomized controlled trials with at least 1 year of follow-up published in the past 5 years were preferred sources.

RESULTS

Although laser photocoagulation has been the standard treatment for DME for nearly 3 decades, there is increasing evidence that superior outcomes can be achieved with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy. Data providing the most robust evidence from large phase II and phase III clinical trials for ranibizumab demonstrated visual improvement and favorable safety profile for up to 3 years. Average best-corrected visual acuity change from baseline ranged from 6.1-10.6 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters for ranibizumab, compared to 1.4-5.9 ETDRS letters with laser. The proportion of patients gaining ≥ 10 or ≥ 15 letters with ranibizumab was at least 2 times higher than that of patients treated with laser. Patients were also more likely to experience visual loss with laser than with ranibizumab treatment. Ranibizumab was generally well tolerated in all studies. Studies for bevacizumab, aflibercept, and pegaptanib in DME were limited but also in favor of anti-VEGF therapy over laser.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-VEGF therapy is superior to laser photocoagulation for treatment of moderate to severe visual impairment caused by DME.

Diabetic Retinopathy-Update on Prevention Techniques, Present Therapies, and New Leads

Diabetic retinopathy is the major ocular complication associated with diabetes, and represents the leading cause of legal blindness in the working-age population of developed countries. Although classically diagnosed based on abnormalities of the retinal microvasculature, diabetic retinopathy is now widely recognized as a neurovascular disease. While all patients with diabetes are at increased risk for eye disease including diabetic retinopathy, proactive measures, and timely intervention can prevent or delay subsequent vision loss. Systemic management of diabetes by combined control of glycemia, blood pressure, and serum lipid levels remains the most important method of preventing diabetic retinopathy onset and progression. Once detected, surgical and medical interventions including photocoagulation, vitrectomy, and intravitral drug injection can help preserve vision. However, the need for improved detection methods and therapies that will allow earlier diagnosis and treatment remains apparent. This review summarizes current techniques for the prevention and intervention for diabetic retinopathy, and examines ongoing developments in the search for new endpoints and therapies as they apply to preventing vision loss associated with diabetes.

Intravitreal bevacizumab for proliferative diabetic retinopathy with new dense vitreous hemorrhage after full panretinal photocoagulation

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) injections for the treatment of proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) with new dense vitreous hemorrhage (VH) after previous full panretinal photocoagulation (PRP).

METHODS

Prospective study of consecutive PDR with prior complete PRP patients, who presented with new dense VH, were treated with IVB injection. Complete ophthalmic examination and/or ocular ultrasonography were performed at baseline and 1, 6, and 12 weeks and 6, 9, and 12 months after the first injection. Reinjection was done in non-clearing and recurrent VH.

RESULTS

Eighteen eyes of 18 patients, mean age 47.7 ± 12.69 years were included. In all, 14 (77.78%) patients had type 2 diabetes mellitus. Systemic hypertension and dyslipidemia were the most common systemic diseases. All cases were phakic eye with previous complete PRP. Patients received 1.6 ± 0.42 intravitreal injections over a 12-month period. VH cleared completely in 7 (38.89%), 9 (50%), and 13 (72.22%) eyes after 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months, respectively. Re-bleeding, however, occurred in 10 (56%) eyes during the follow-up period, and 5 (28%) eyes still had residual VH at the last visit. Statistically significant visual gain was observed in 9 (50%) eyes. Unfortunately, 2 (11%) eyes had severe visual loss because of the tractional retinal detachment (TRD). Mild ocular complication was detected in one patient.

CONCLUSION

IVB injection had good efficacy and safety for treatment of new VH in patients with PDR and prior complete PRP. This procedure may be especially relevant for diabetic patients at high-risk for surgical intervention.

Intravitreal triamcinolone versus intravitreal bevacizumab for diabetic macular edema: a meta-analysis

AIM

To compare the efficacy of the sole intravitreal triamcinolone (IVT) versus intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) alone or IVB combined with IVT in the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

Pertinent publications were identified through systematic searches of database and manually searching. Methodological quality of the literatures was valuated according to the Jadad Score. RevMan 5.1.0 was used to do the meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was determined and sensitivity was conducted.

RESULTS

Six studies were ultimately included in the meta-analysis. The results of our analysis showed IVT had a statistically significant improvement in vision over the IVB at 1 month and 3 months (P<0.01). However, the reduction was not significant regarding central macular thickness (CMT) during the earlier (1 month and 3 months) follow-up period (P=0.12, P=0.41, respectively). At later visit (6 months), IVT had a significant decrease in CMT when compared to IVB (P<0.01) while no significant improvement in visual acuity (VA) was observed (P=0.14). The incidence of intraocular hypertension was 13/102 in IVT group during follow-up period while 0/103 in IVB group. The difference was significant (P<0.01). With regards to IVT versus IVB combined with IVT, there were no significant differences in CMT at 1 month (P=0.86) and 3 months (P=0.06). The incidence of intraocular hypertension was 6/67 in IVT group during follow-up period while 4/66 in IVB+IVT group. But the difference was not significant (P=0.53).

CONCLUSION

Current evidence shows IVT is superior in improving VA at earlier follow-up (1 month and 3 months) and in reducing CMT at later follow-up (6 months) for DME. At other time, it is in favor of IVT treatment but there are no statistically significances. However, IVT has the side-effect of ocular hypertension. There is no adequate evidence of the benefit adding IVB to IVT in contrast to IVT alone.

Antiangiogenic therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor modalities for diabetic macular oedema

BACKGROUND

Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a common complication of diabetic retinopathy. Although grid or focal laser photocoagulation has been shown to reduce the risk of visual loss in DMO or clinically significant macular oedema (CSMO), vision is rarely improved. Antiangiogenic therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) modalities has recently been proposed for improving vision in people with DMO.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of anti-VEGF therapy for preserving or improving vision in people with DMO.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 6), MEDLINE (January 1946 to June 2012), EMBASE (January 1980 to June 2012), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 13 June 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any antiangiogenic drugs with an anti-VEGF mechanism of action versus another treatment, sham treatment, or no treatment in patients with DMO. We also included economic evaluations to assess cost-effectiveness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted the data. The risk ratio (RR) of visual loss and visual gain of three or more lines was estimated at least six months after treatment. Each economic analysis was described narratively using a structured format.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies provided data on three comparisons of interest in this review. We based our conclusions on the RR of gain or loss of three or more lines of vision at about one year, which was more consistently reported as follow-up.Compared with sham treatment, there was evidence of moderate quality in three studies (497 participants, follow-up 8 to 12 months) that antiangiogenic therapy (pegaptanib: two studies, 246 participants; ranibizumab: one study, 151 participants) doubled and, respectively, halved, the chance of gaining or losing three or more lines of vision (RR: 2.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36 to 3.53; RR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.59). In meta-analyses, the benefit was larger for ranibizumab compared to pegaptanib, but no significant subgroup difference could be demonstrated regarding our primary outcome.Compared with grid laser photocoagulation, there was evidence of moderate quality that antiangiogenic therapy (bevacizumab: two studies, 167 participants; ranibizumab: two studies, 300 participants; aflibercept: one study, 221 participants, 89 used for data extraction) more than doubled and, respectively, reduced by at least two thirds, the chance of gaining or losing three or more lines of vision (RR: 3.20, 95% CI 2.07 to 4.95 and RR: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.34, respectively). In meta-analyses, no significant subgroup difference could be demonstrated between bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept regarding our primary outcome, but, again, there was little power to detect a difference.Compared with grid laser photocoagulation alone, there was high quality evidence that ranibizumab plus photocoagulation (three studies, 783 participants) doubled and, respectively, at least halved, the chance of gaining or losing three or more lines of vision (RR: 2.11, 95% CI 1.67 to 2.67; RR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.55).Systemic and ocular adverse events were rare in the included studies. Meta-analyses conducted for all antiangiogenic drugs compared with either sham or photocoagulation (nine studies, 104 events in 2159 participants) did not show a significant difference regarding arterial thromboembolic events (RR: 0.85 (0.56 to 1.28). Similarly, no difference was suggested regarding overall mortality (53 events, RR: 0.95 (0.52 to 1.74), but clinically significant differences could not be ruled out.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate quality evidence that antiangiogenic drugs provide a definite, but small, benefit compared to current therapeutic options for DMO, i.e. grid laser photocoagulation, or no treatment when laser is not an option. The quality and quantity of the evidence was larger for ranibizumab, but there was little power to investigate drug differences. Most data were obtained at one year, and a long-term confirmation is needed, since DMO is a chronic condition. Safety of both drug and the intravitreal injection procedure were good in the trials, but further long-term data are needed to exclude small, but clinically important differences regarding systemic adverse events.