-
1.
Comparison of efficacy between anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and laser treatment in Type-1 and threshold retinopathy of prematurity (ROP).
Li, Z, Zhang, Y, Liao, Y, Zeng, R, Zeng, P, Lan, Y
BMC ophthalmology. 2018;(1):19
Abstract
BACKGROUND Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) is one of the most common causes of childhood blindness worldwide. Comparisons of anti-VEGF and laser treatments in ROP are relatively lacking, and the data are scattered and limited. The objective of this meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy of both treatments in type-1 and threshold ROP. METHODS A comprehensive literature search on ROP treatment was conducted using PubMed and Embase up to March 2017 in all languages. Major evaluation indexes were extracted from the included studies by two authors. The fixed-effects and random-effects models were used to measure the pooled estimates. The test of heterogeneity was performed using the Q statistic. RESULTS Ten studies were included in this meta-analysis. Retreatment incidence was significantly increased for anti-VEGF (OR 2.52; 95% CI 1.37 to 4.66; P = 0.003) compared to the laser treatment, while the incidences of eye complications (OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.82; P = 0.02) and myopia were significantly decreased with anti-VEGF compared to the laser treatment. However, there was no difference in the recurrence incidence (OR 1.86; 95% CI 0.37 to 9.40; P = 0.45) and time between treatment and retreatment (WMD 7.54 weeks; 95% CI 2.00 to 17.08; P = 0.12). CONCLUSION This meta-analysis indicates that laser treatment may be more efficacious than anti-VEGF treatment. However, the results of this meta-analysis also suggest that laser treatment may cause more eye complications and increase myopia. Large-scale prospective RCTs should be performed to assess the efficacy and safety of anti-VEGF versus laser treatment in the future.
-
2.
Evolving multidimensional pharmacological approaches to CNV therapy in AMD.
Ehrenberg, M, Benny, O
Current eye research. 2018;(2):147-154
Abstract
PURPOSE The leading cause of severe visual loss world-wide is age-related macular degeneration. Although anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor agents have significantly led to the initial pharmacologic reversal of vision loss in many cases of exudative macular degeneration, there still has been recurrence of choroidal neovascularization, and/or the onset of chorioretinal atrophy with fibrosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS In this review we discuss the status of anti- Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor in age-related macular degeneration and describe different studies focused on new potential therapeutic targets beyond anti- Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor. RESULTS Further investigations have elicited that Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor is only one of many angiogenic, and pro-inflammatory factors that bring about the growth and leakage of active choroidal neovascularization. Various new multifaceted strategies, including inhibitors to down-stream targets of endothelial cell division, such as TNP-470, may lead to a more permanent inactivation of choroidal neovascularization. CONCLUSIONS Based on the accumulated results in the treatment of age-related macular degeneration, it is hoped that the appropriate combination of anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor agents with longer-acting and multidimensional pharmaceuticals, such as Methionine Aminopeptidase-2 inhibitors, will more effectively control choroidal neovascularization, prevent atrophy and fibrosis, and reduce the burden of frequent intraocular injections in age-related macular degeneration.
-
3.
Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for diabetic macular oedema: a network meta-analysis.
Virgili, G, Parravano, M, Evans, JR, Gordon, I, Lucenteforte, E
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2018;(10):CD007419
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
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.
-
4.
CLINICAL EVIDENCE OF THE MULTIFACTORIAL NATURE OF DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA.
Chakravarthy, U, Yang, Y, Lotery, A, Ghanchi, F, Bailey, C, Holz, FG, Downey, L, Weber, M, Eter, N, Dugel, PU
Retina (Philadelphia, Pa.). 2018;(2):343-351
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
PURPOSE To report functional and morphologic outcomes, based on diabetic macular edema (DME) chronicity and baseline best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), from a subanalysis of the fluocinolone acetonide for macular edema (FAME) trials. METHODS Patients were categorized by DME duration (nonchronic [ncDME] or chronic [cDME] DME) and three nonexclusive baseline vision strata. Anatomic and visual acuity VA outcomes of these cohorts were compared with treatment assignment. RESULTS For all patients with ncDME and cDME who received sham control, 27.8% and 13.4%, respectively, gained ≥15 BCVA letters, whereas 22.3% and 34.0% of 0.2 μg/day fluocinolone acetonide (FAc)-treated patients, respectively, gained ≥15 BCVA letters. Among patients with ncDME who received sham control, as baseline vision decreased, the percentage gaining ≥15 BCVA letters increased; however, among those with cDME, the percentage gaining ≥15 BCVA letters did not change as baseline vision decreased. Conversely, among 0.2 μg/day FAc-treated patients, the percentage gaining ≥15 BCVA letters increased with decreasing baseline vision, regardless of DME chronicity. Anatomical outcomes were similar within treatment arms, regardless of the DME duration. CONCLUSION Patients with cDME and poor baseline vision who were exposed to low-dose FAc experienced BCVA improvements that were not observed in a similar group from the sham-control arm. These data support the multifactorial pathogenesis of cDME.
-
5.
Comparative Analysis of Serum Proangiogenic Biomarkers between those with and without Diabetic Retinopathy.
Malik, TG, Ahmed, SS, Gul, R, Ayesha, E
Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons--Pakistan : JCPSP. 2018;(9):686-689
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To compare the serum proangiogenic biomarkers in diabetic patients suffering from with and without diabetic retinopathy (DR). STUDY DESIGN An observational study. PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY Arif Memorial Teaching Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan and Institute of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology/Centre for Research in Molecular Medicine, The University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan, from March to December 2017. METHODOLOGY Forty patients with DR were included in group A and 15 patients without retinopathy (controls) were included in group B. Twelve serum pro-angiogenic biomarkers [Angiopoietin 2, Human Growth Factor (HGF), Epidermal Growth Factor (EGF), Fibroblast Growth Factor (FGF), Placental Growth Factor (PLGF), Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor-A and C (VEGF-A and VEGF-C), Bone Morphogenetic Protein 9 (BMP9), Follistatin, Leptin, Interleukin-8 (IL8), Endothelin (ET)] were analysed by xMAP flow cytometry technique, results were compared between the two groups and statistical analysis was done using Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS Serum ET, Follistatin and EGF were significantly raised in group A as compared to group B having p-values of 0.001, <0.001, and 0.033, respectively. Serum BMP9, Leptin, HGF, FGF and VEGF-C had p <0.001, 0.023, 0.020, and 0.009, respectively and were higher in group B than group A. CONCLUSION Serum ET, Follistatin and EGF were significantly higher in DR patients as compared to those without DR and should be considered to be significant biomarkers of retinal complications in diabetes mellitus.
-
6.
VEGF overexpression is associated with optic nerve involvement and differentiation of retinoblastoma: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis.
Wu, Q, Sun, X, Zheng, G
Medicine. 2018;(51):e13753
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) plays an important role in the pathogenesis of cancer. Although numerous studies have investigated the association between VEGF expression and pathogenesis of retinoblastoma, the results remained inconsistent. To illuminate the association, we performed a meta-analysis study. METHODS According to the PRISMA guideline, eligible studies were searched in the Medicine, Embase, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases. Stata 14.0 software was used to calculate the relevant statistical parameters. RESULTS Seventeen studies with 296 controls and 470 patients with retinoblastoma were included from 17 eligible literatures. Overall, significant association between VEGF overexpression and susceptibility of retinoblastoma was observed in Chinese population (odds ratio [OR] = 21.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 13.96-33.62). Subgroup analysis based on control sample type showed that VEGF overexpression was significantly associated with the risk of retinoblastoma (Normal retina tissue, OR = 23.97, 95% CI = 9.67-59.42; retinoblastoma adjacent tissue, OR = 20.85, 95% CI = 12.64-34.37). Significant associations of VEGF overexpression with optic nerve involvement and differentiation of retinoblastoma were found (Optic nerve involvement, OR = 6.90, 95% CI = 4.01-11.88; Differentiation, OR = 0.18, 95% CI = 0.12-0.28). In addition, only 1 study was included to analyze the role of VEGF protein expression in the prognosis of retinoblastoma, and the result showed that VEGF expression was significantly associated with the prognosis of retinoblastoma, which should be verified in the future studies. CONCLUSIONS Our findings demonstrated that VEGF overexpression was significantly associated with the risk of retinoblastoma. Besides, the results suggested that VEGF overexpression might have a crucial effect on the optic nerve involvement and differentiation of retinoblastoma.
-
7.
The prognostic value of [123I]-vascular endothelial growth factor ([123I]-VEGF) in glioma.
Rainer, E, Wang, H, Traub-Weidinger, T, Widhalm, G, Fueger, B, Chang, J, Zhu, Z, Marosi, C, Haug, A, Hacker, M, et al
European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging. 2018;(13):2396-2403
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
PURPOSE Recent studies have shown that tumor vascular endothelial cells and various tumor cells overexpress receptors for vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic value of [123I]-VEGF scintigraphy in patients with histologically verified brain tumors. METHODS 23 consecutive patients (9 women and 14 men aged 30-83 years, mean age 56.6 ± 14.4 years) with histopathologically-verified primary brain tumors were included in the study. All patients had undergone [123I]-VEGF scintigraphy. SPECT examinations of brain were performed 30 min and 18 h after injection. Additional [11C]-methionine PET ([11C]-MET PET) was performed in eight of the 23 patients. Both [123I]-VEGF and [11C]-MET PET were evaluated visually and semiquantitatively by tumor-to-normal brain uptake ratio (T/N ratio). Thresholds of the T/N ratio were evaluated by analysis of receiver operating characteristics (ROC). Overall survival (OS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS World Health Organization (WHO) grade IV glioma lesions showed [123I]-VEGF uptake 18 h after the injection, whereas other brain tumors of grade II or III showed negative results. There was no significant difference in the tumor size between VEGF positive and VEGF negative tumors. Patients with [123I]-VEGF T/N ratio threshold <1.32 showed significantly longer survival than patients with T/N ratio ≥ 1.32 (2680 days vs 295 days; P < 0.05). In the subgroup of 16 grade IV glioma patients, significant OS differences were found using a T/N ratio of 1.75 as threshold (T/N ratio < 1.75: 720 days; T/N ≥ 1.75: 183 days; P < 0.05). Significant difference (P < 0.05) was also found in [11C]-MET PET T/N ratios between the grade IV glioma (mean T/N ratio: 3.71) and the grade II or III glioma (mean T/N ratio: 1.74). CONCLUSION Our results suggest that [123I]-VEGF scintigraphy may be useful for visualization of tumor angiogenesis. In addition, [123I]-VEGF may provide relevant prognostic information in patients with glioma.
-
8.
Management of VEGF-Targeted Therapy-Induced Hypertension.
Caletti, S, Paini, A, Coschignano, MA, De Ciuceis, C, Nardin, M, Zulli, R, Muiesan, ML, Salvetti, M, Rizzoni, D
Current hypertension reports. 2018;(8):68
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW From a physiological point of view, VEGFs (vascular endothelial growth factors) and their receptors (VEGFR) play a critical role in vascular development angiogenesis, endothelial function, and vascular tone. On the pathological side, VEGF-VEGFR signaling may induce dysregulated angiogenesis, which contributes to the growth and to the spread of tumors, being essential for neoplastic proliferation and invasion. RECENT FINDINGS Pharmacological inhibition of VEGF-VEGFR is now a cornerstone in the treatment of many malignancies; however, treatment with VEGF inhibitors is commonly associated with an increase in blood pressure values. This side effect is strictly connected with the mechanism of action of these medications and might represent an index of therapy efficacy. The optimal management of this form of hypertension is, at present, not clear. Calcium channel blockers and renin-angiotensin system inhibitors probably represent the most appropriate classes of hypertensive dugs for the treatment of this condition; however, no conclusive data are presently available.
-
9.
Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor combined with intravitreal steroids for diabetic macular oedema.
Mehta, H, Hennings, C, Gillies, MC, Nguyen, V, Campain, A, Fraser-Bell, S
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2018;(4):CD011599
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND The combination of steroid and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) intravitreal therapeutic agents could potentially have synergistic effects for treating diabetic macular oedema (DMO). On the one hand, if combined treatment is more effective than monotherapy, there would be significant implications for improving patient outcomes. Conversely, if there is no added benefit of combination therapy, then people could be potentially exposed to unnecessary local or systemic side effects. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of intravitreal agents that block vascular endothelial growth factor activity (anti-VEGF agents) plus intravitreal steroids versus monotherapy with macular laser, intravitreal steroids or intravitreal anti-VEGF agents for managing DMO. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2018, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the search was 21 February 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of intravitreal anti-VEGF combined with intravitreal steroids versus intravitreal anti-VEGF alone, intravitreal steroids alone or macular laser alone for managing DMO. We included people with DMO of all ages and both sexes. We also included trials where both eyes from one participant received different treatments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane.Two authors independently reviewed all the titles and abstracts identified from the electronic and manual searches against the inclusion criteria. Our primary outcome was change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between baseline and one year. Secondary outcomes included change in central macular thickness (CMT), economic data and quality of life. We considered adverse effects including intraocular inflammation, raised intraocular pressure (IOP) and development of cataract. MAIN RESULTS There were eight RCTs (703 participants, 817 eyes) that met our inclusion criteria with only three studies reporting outcomes at one year. The studies took place in Iran (3), USA (2), Brazil (1), Czech Republic (1) and South Korea (1). Seven studies used the unlicensed anti-VEGF agent bevacizumab and one study used licensed ranibizumab. The study that used licensed ranibizumab had a unique design compared with the other studies in that included eyes had persisting DMO after anti-VEGF monotherapy and received three monthly doses of ranibizumab prior to allocation. The anti-VEGF agent was combined with intravitreal triamcinolone in six studies and with an intravitreal dexamethasone implant in two studies. The comparator group was anti-VEGF alone in all studies; two studies had an additional steroid monotherapy arm, another study had an additional macular laser photocoagulation arm. Whilst we judged these studies to be at low risk of bias for most domains, at least one domain was at unclear risk in all studies.When comparing anti-VEGF/steroid with anti-VEGF monotherapy as primary therapy for DMO, we found no meaningful clinical difference in change in BCVA (mean difference (MD) -2.29 visual acuity (VA) letters, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.03 to 1.45; 3 RCTs; 188 eyes; low-certainty evidence) or change in CMT (MD 0.20 μm, 95% CI -37.14 to 37.53; 3 RCTs; 188 eyes; low-certainty evidence) at one year. There was very low-certainty evidence on intraocular inflammation from 8 studies, with one event in the anti-VEGF/steroid group (313 eyes) and two events in the anti-VEGF group (322 eyes). There was a greater risk of raised IOP (Peto odds ratio (OR) 8.13, 95% CI 4.67 to 14.16; 635 eyes; 8 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) and development of cataract (Peto OR 7.49, 95% CI 2.87 to 19.60; 635 eyes; 8 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) in eyes receiving anti-VEGF/steroid compared with anti-VEGF monotherapy. There was low-certainty evidence from one study of an increased risk of systemic adverse events in the anti-VEGF/steroid group compared with the anti-VEGF alone group (Peto OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.86; 103 eyes).One study compared anti-VEGF/steroid versus macular laser therapy. At one year investigators did not report a meaningful difference between the groups in change in BCVA (MD 4.00 VA letters 95% CI -2.70 to 10.70; 80 eyes; low-certainty evidence) or change in CMT (MD -16.00 μm, 95% CI -68.93 to 36.93; 80 eyes; low-certainty evidence). There was very low-certainty evidence suggesting an increased risk of cataract in the anti-VEGF/steroid group compared with the macular laser group (Peto OR 4.58, 95% 0.99 to 21.10, 100 eyes) and an increased risk of elevated IOP in the anti-VEGF/steroid group compared with the macular laser group (Peto OR 9.49, 95% CI 2.86 to 31.51; 100 eyes).One study provided very low-certainty evidence comparing anti-VEGF/steroid versus steroid monotherapy at one year. There was no evidence of a meaningful difference in BCVA between treatments at one year (MD 0 VA letters, 95% CI -6.1 to 6.1, low-certainty evidence). Likewise, there was no meaningful difference in the mean CMT at one year (MD - 9 μm, 95% CI -39.87μm to 21.87μm between the anti-VEGF/steroid group and the steroid group. There was very low-certainty evidence on raised IOP at one year comparing the anti-VEGF/steroid versus steroid groups (Peto OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.55).No included study reported impact of treatment on patients' quality of life or economic data. None of the studies reported any cases of endophthalmitis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Combination of intravitreal anti-VEGF plus intravitreal steroids does not appear to offer additional visual benefit compared with monotherapy for DMO; at present the evidence for this is of low-certainty. There was an increased rate of cataract development and raised intraocular pressure in eyes treated with anti-VEGF plus steroid versus anti-VEGF alone. Patients were exposed to potential side effects of both these agents without reported additional benefit. The majority of the evidence comes from studies of bevacizumab and triamcinolone used as primary therapy for DMO. There is limited evidence from studies using licensed intravitreal anti-VEGF agents plus licensed intravitreal steroid implants with at least one year follow-up. It is not known whether treatment response is different in eyes that are phakic and pseudophakic at baseline.
-
10.
Diabetic macular oedema treated with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor - 2-4 years follow-up of visual acuity and retinal thickness in 566 patients following Danish national guidelines.
Hodzic-Hadzibegovic, D, Sander, BA, Monberg, TJ, Larsen, M, Lund-Andersen, H
Acta ophthalmologica. 2018;(3):267-278
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
PURPOSE To investigate long-term functional and anatomical outcomes, discontinuation patterns, drug switching and rates of nonimprovement in patients treated with ranibizumab pro re nata (PRN) regimen for diabetic macular oedema (DME) according to the Danish national guidelines. METHODS Retrospective cohort study of 566 eyes in 566 patients with centre-involved DME who started intravitreal treatment with ranibizumab between January 2011 and December 2013 in the Greater Copenhagen region. Data were retrieved from a database and patient records between January 2011 and March 2016 and analysed using mixed-model statistics. RESULTS At the conclusion of follow-up, 24.6% were in active ranibizumab follow-up, 25.4% had switched to other intravitreal pharmacotherapy, 31.6% had been discontinued because of disease stability, 13.8% had been lost to follow-up, 1.4% had been discontinued because of low visual acuity (VA), and 3.2% had died. At baseline, mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and mean central subfield thickness (CST) were 64.9 (±15.0) letters and 400.2 (±120.3) μm. Mean change in BCVA and mean change in CST from baseline to 3, 12, 24, 36 and 48 months of follow-up were +3.9, +3.5, +2.7, +1.8, +2.3 letters and -97.4, -102.6, -106.9, -105.9, -131.6 μm, respectively. Mean number of injections was 6.1 in year 1 and 1.8 in year 4. In 93 patients, drug switching to aflibercept showed no difference between the two drugs on BCVA or CST. In 79 patients, CST decreased <10% compared to baseline during the first year. CONCLUSION In a single-centre clinical setting, 566 patients treated for DME with ranibizumab according to the Danish national guidelines were followed for up to 4 years. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) outcomes are in the low end of clinical studies, but studied on a wider population and achieved with fewer injections.