Back to Search Start Over

Intravitreal anti‐vascular endothelial growth factors, panretinal photocoagulation and combined treatment for proliferative diabetic retinopathy: a systematic review and network meta‐analysis.

Authors :
Fallico, Matteo
Maugeri, Andrea
Lotery, Andrew
Longo, Antonio
Bonfiglio, Vincenza
Russo, Andrea
Avitabile, Teresio
Pulvirenti, Alfredo
Furino, Claudio
Cennamo, Gilda
Barchitta, Martina
Agodi, Antonella
Reibaldi, Michele
Source :
Acta Ophthalmologica (1755375X); Sep2021, Vol. 99 Issue 6, pe795-e805, 11p
Publication Year :
2021

Abstract

Purpose: To conduct a systematic review with network meta‐analysis (NMA) of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) versus anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment alone or in combination with PRP, for proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). Methods: PubMed, Medline and Embase databases were searched for RCTs comparing PRP versus intravitreal anti‐VEGF therapy and/or combined PRP and intravitreal anti‐VEGF for PDR. The primary outcome measures were the mean best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) change and the regression of neovascularization. Mean change of central macular thickness (CMT), the subgroup analyses of patients without diabetic macular oedema (DME) and the rate of vitreous haemorrhage and vitrectomy were secondary outcomes. Frequentist NMAs were performed. Results: Twelve RCTs were included. For the 12‐month mean BCVA change, NMA showed a better visual outcome in both the anti‐VEGF group and combined group compared to PRP [anti‐VEGF vs PRP, mean difference (MD) = 3.42; standard error (SE) = 1.5; combined vs PRP, MD = 3.92; SE = 1.65], with no difference between combined group and anti‐VEGF (MD = −0.50; SE = 1.87). No difference in neovascularization regression was found between PRP and anti‐VEGF alone or in combination with PRP, but there was significant inconsistency (p = 0.016). Subgroup analyses in patients without DME yielded no difference for the 12‐month visual outcome between the three interventions, but with significant inconsistency (p = 0.005). Conclusion: This NMA showed limited evidence of comparable efficacy in terms of neovascularization regression between PRP and anti‐VEGF therapy alone or in combination with PRP, but better visual outcomes were associated with anti‐VEGF use. Intravitreal anti‐VEGF therapy could be a valid therapeutic option in association with PRP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1755375X
Volume :
99
Issue :
6
Database :
Complementary Index
Journal :
Acta Ophthalmologica (1755375X)
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
152421423
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.14681