Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor combined with intravitreal steroids for diabetic macular oedema

Efficacy and safety of dexamethasone or triamcinolone in combination with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy for diabetic macular edema: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

The clinical efficacy of anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (anti-VEGFs), corticosteroids, and their combined treatment for diabetic macular edema (DME) has been substantiated by numerous studies. However, it remains uncertain whether the therapeutic benefits of the combined treatment with corticosteroids and anti-VEGFs is superior to those of anti-VEGF monotherapy. Consequently, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of combined treatment with dexamethasone or triamcinolone and anti-VEGF versus anti-VEGF monotherapy in DME treatment.

METHODS

An exhaustive search of the literature was performed on February 23, 2024, scanning through the databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, with the aim of identifying all relevant studies. The combined results for efficacy and safety were analyzed using the standard mean difference (SMD) and relative risk (RR), both of which were presented with 95% confidence interval (CI). The assessment of heterogeneity was conducted via Cochran's Q test, I2 statistics, and the implementation of a 95% prediction interval (PI). All analyses were performed by R 4.3.1, Stata 12.0, and TSA v0.9.5.10 Beta software.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis incorporated 21 eligible studies. The overall analysis revealed that combined treatment of dexamethasone or triamcinolone with anti-VEGF agents did not demonstrate superiority over anti-VEGF monotherapy in improving best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) (Dexamethasone: SMD -0.266, 95% CI -1.001 to 0.468, 95% PI -2.878 to 2.346; Triamcinolone: SMD -0.340, 95% CI -1.230 to 0.550, 95% PI -3.554 to 2.874) and reducing central macular thickness (CMT) (Dexamethasone: SMD -1.255, 95% CI -2.861 to 0.350; Triamcinolone: SMD -0.207, 95% CI -0.895 to 0.481, 95% PI -2.629 to 2.215). However, the combination therapy significantly increased the risk of elevated intraocular pressure (RR 5.783, 95% CI 3.007 to 11.121, 95% PI 0.520 to 56.931) and ocular hypertension (RR 8.885, 95% CI 2.756 to 28.649, 95% PI 1.262 to 39.208). Subgroup analysis suggests that dexamethasone plus anti-VEGF therapy showed a greater reduction in central subfield thickness (SMD -0.440, 95% CI -0.755 to -0.126) compared to anti-VEGF monotherapy among patients with persistent DME.

CONCLUSION

Our study confirmed that dexamethasone or triamcinolone plus anti-VEGF therapy did not show superior efficacy in improving BCVA and reducing CMT in DME patients compared with anti-VEGF monotherapy. Clinicians should weigh the pros and cons comprehensively when implementing combined therapy.

Diabetic retinopathy: A review on its pathophysiology and novel treatment modalities

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a chronic metabolic non-communicable disease with the ability to cause serious microvascular and macrovascular complications throughout the body, including in the eye. Diabetic retinopathy (DR), present in one-third of patients with diabetes, is a vision-threatening complication caused by uncontrolled diabetes, which greatly affects the retinal blood vessels and the light-sensitive inner retina, eventually leading to blindness. Several epidemiological studies elucidate that DR can vary by age of onset, duration, types of diabetes, and ethnicity. Recent studies show that the pathogenesis of diabetic retinopathy has spread its roots beyond merely being the result of hyperglycemia. The complexity of its etiopathology and diagnosis makes therapeutic intervention challenging. This review throws light on the pathological processes behind DR, the cascade of events that follow it, as well as the available and emerging treatment options.

Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Combined with Ocular Steroid Therapy for Persistent Diabetic Macular Edema: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose: Our purpose was to appraise the efficacy and safety of intravitreous vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor (anti-VEGF) therapy combined with steroids for persistent diabetic macular edema. Methods: A systematic review was conducted of the research evaluating the combination therapy of anti-VEGF and steroids for persistent diabetic macular edema compared to anti-VEGF alone. A meta-analysis was performed using a protocol registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023476333). Continuous and binary variables were extracted. Results were expressed as the mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR). Results: A total of 9 trials with 537 eyes were included. The MDs of improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 1/2/3/6/9/12 months between the combined and monotherapy groups were 1.33 (95% CI [-1.31,3.96]), 3.03 (95% CI [0.01, 6.06]), -0.37 (95% CI [-4.74, 4.00]), -1.37 (95% CI [-4.65, 1.91]), 1.05 (95% CI [-3.68, 5.77]), and 1.70 (95% CI [-3.52, 6.93]). The MDs concerned with a central retinal thickness (CMT) decline in at 1/2/3/6/9/12 months between the two groups were -47.33, 95% CI [-94.35, -0.32]), -89.19 (95% CI [-114.38, -64.00]), -58.84 (95% CI [-96.93, -20.74]), -57.23 (95% CI [-102.62, -11.84]), -40.59 (95% CI [-80.59, -0.58]), and -38.89 (95% CI [-77.38, -0.40]), respectively. Furthermore, the combined group obtained higher relative risks of experiencing events with high intraocular pressure and progressed cataracts. Conclusions: Anti-VEGF combined with ocular steroids showed a significant advantage in improving the retinal anatomical structure compared to anti-VEGF monotherapy for persistent diabetic macular edema. However, as the treatment period extended, the combination treatment was no more effective than monotherapy after 2 months, with more severe side effects.

Anti-VEGF Monotherapy vs Anti-VEGF and Steroid Combination Therapy for Diabetic Macular Edema: A Meta-analysis

Introduction: To compare the safety and efficacy of antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) monotherapy vs anti-VEGF and steroid combination therapy in treatment-naïve and treatment-resistant patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted from January 2005 to December 2022. Sixteen randomized control trials (RCTs) published in English that reported the efficacy or safety of monotherapy and combination therapy in patients with DME were included. Results: The 16 RCTs included 1166 eyes. Monotherapy was associated with a significantly better best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at the final follow-up (weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.04 logMAR; 95% CI, -0.07 to -0.02; P = .002; I 2 = 0%). No significant differences were observed in the change in BCVA between groups at the final observation. Monotherapy was associated with a significantly smaller change in retinal thickness at the final follow-up (WMD, 37.63 μm; 95% CI, 11.67-63.60; P = .005; I 2 = 78%) and with a significantly lower risk for intraocular pressure-related adverse events (AEs) (risk ratio, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.15-0.46; P ≤ .001; I 2 = 0%). The risk for cataract-related AEs was not significantly different between groups (P = .06). The results in treatment-naïve patients were similar. In treatment-resistant patients, the change in retinal thickness at the final follow-up was similar between groups (P = .14) but the risk for cataract-related AEs was significantly lower in the monotherapy group in 2 RCTs (risk ratio, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.66; P = .02; I 2 = 0%). Conclusions: The changes in BCVA were similar despite combination therapy being associated with greater changes in retinal thickness. However, increased complications were seen with combination therapy. Most results in treatment-naïve patients and treatment-resistant patients were similar.

Switching to subtenon triamcinolone acetonide does not jeopardize the functional and anatomic outcomes of dexamethasone implant treated eyes with diabetic macular edema

BACKGROUND

Intraocular dexamethasone implant (DEXi) is an efficient treatment for diabetic macular edema (DME). However, it may be unavailable or contraindicated. Triamcinolone acetonide is another corticosteroid that has proved to be safe and effective in treating macular edema complicating various diseases including diabetes. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of a switch from DEXi to subtenon triamcinolone acetonide (STTA) and back, in eyes with DME.

METHODS

Retrospective study. DME eyes that had been treated with DEXi and switched to STTA between October 2018 and February 2019 (stock shortage of DEXi) were included. The functional and anatomical outcomes of the switch and switch-back were studied.

RESULTS

26 eyes of 17 patients (mean age 67.1 ± 8.2 years) were considered. The mean baseline visual acuity (VA) was 0.35 ± 0.17 decimals remaining stable after DEXi, STTA and switch-back to DEXi. The mean central macular thickness (CMT) was 492.7 ± 32.8 µm initially, decreasing to 294.3 ± 133.4 µm after DEXi, 369.9 ± 182.3 µm after STTA and 297.6 ± 72.0 µm after switching back to DEXi (all p < 0.05 versus baseline). Compared to baseline, the CMT reduction was numerically better after DEXi and switching back to DEXi than after STTA (mean reduction: -200.4 µm, -167.7 µm, and -95.08 µm respectively, p = 0.13). Intraocular pressure was comparable after DEXi and STTA.

CONCLUSION

DEXi is the steroid of choice in DME. However, STTA can be a cost-effective alternative when DEXi is unavailable or contraindicated. This study suggests that STTA may be used in the context of a step therapy in DME.

Comparison of three fundus inspection methods during phacoemulsification in diabetic white cataract

AIM

To investigate whether Wild Field Imaging System (WFIS SW-8000), 25G endoilluminator, and intraoperative optical coherence tomography (iOCT) can perform real-time screening and diagnosing in patients with suspicious diabetic retinopathy (DR) during phacoemulsification, especially in cases of white cataract.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was carried out. A total of 204 dense diabetic cataractous eyes of 204 patients with suspected DR treated from April 2020 to March 2021 were included. Phacoemulsification combined with intraocular lens implantation was performed. Following the removal of the lens opacity, the 25G endo-illuminator, fundus photography, and iOCT were performed successively. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) and/or fundus fluorescein angiography (FFA) were used to verify the fundus findings postoperatively. Intraoperative and postoperative results were compared to verify the accuracy of intraoperative diagnosis in each group.

RESULTS

Intraoperative and postoperative examinations revealed 58 and 62 eyes with DR, respectively (positive rate, 28.43% and 30.39%, respectively). During the phacoemulsification, WFIS SW-8000 detected 44 eyes with DR (the detection rate, 70.97%); 25G endo-illuminator found 56 eyes with DR (the detection rate, 90.32%); iOCT found 46 eyes with DR (the detection rate, 74.19%); and 58 eyes with DR were found by combining the three methods (the detection rate, 93.55%). There were statistically significant differences in the diagnostic sensitivity for DR among the methods (χ2=16.36, P=0.001).

CONCLUSION

WFIS SW-8000, 25G endo-illuminator, iOCT, and especially their combination can be used to inspect the fundus and detect DR intraoperatively; they are helpful for the timely diagnosis and treatment of DR in patients with dense cataract.

From randomised controlled trials to real-world data: Clinical evidence to guide management of diabetic macular oedema

Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) are generally considered the gold-standard for providing scientific evidence for treatments' effectiveness and safety but their findings may not always be generalisable to the broader population treated in routine clinical practice. RCTs include highly selected patient populations that fit specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Although they may have a lower level of certainty than RCTs on the evidence hierarchy, real-world data (RWD), such as observational studies, registries and databases, provide real-world evidence (RWE) that can complement RCTs. For example, RWE may help satisfy requirements for a new indication of an already approved drug and help us better understand long-term treatment effectiveness, safety and patterns of use in clinical practice. Many countries have set up registries, observational studies and databases containing information on patients with retinal diseases, such as diabetic macular oedema (DMO). These DMO RWD have produced significant clinical evidence in the past decade that has changed the management of DMO. RWD and medico-administrative databases are a useful resource to identify low frequency safety signals. They often have long-term follow-up with a large number of patients and minimal exclusion criteria. We will discuss improvements in healthcare information exchange technologies, such as blockchain technology and FHIR (Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources), which will connect and extend databases already available. These registries can be linked with existing or emerging retinal imaging modalities using artificial intelligence to aid diagnosis, treatment decisions and provide prognostic information. The results of RCTs and RWE are combined to provide evidence-based guidelines.

Deep Learning Classification of Drusen, Choroidal Neovascularization, and Diabetic Macular Edema in Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) Images

Background Age-related macular degeneration (AMD), diabetic retinopathy (DR), drusen, choroidal neovascularization (CNV), and diabetic macular edema (DME) are significant causes of visual impairment globally. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging has emerged as a valuable diagnostic tool for these ocular conditions. However, subjective interpretation and inter-observer variability highlight the need for standardized diagnostic approaches. Methods This study aimed to develop a robust deep learning model using artificial intelligence (AI) techniques for the automated detection of drusen, CNV, and DME in OCT images. A diverse dataset of 1,528 OCT images from Kaggle.com was used for model training. The performance metrics, including precision, recall, sensitivity, specificity, F1 score, and overall accuracy, were assessed to evaluate the model's effectiveness. Results The developed model achieved high precision (0.99), recall (0.962), sensitivity (0.985), specificity (0.987), F1 score (0.971), and overall accuracy (0.987) in classifying diseased and healthy OCT images. These results demonstrate the efficacy and efficiency of the model in distinguishing between retinal pathologies. Conclusion The study concludes that the developed deep learning model using AI techniques is highly effective in the automated detection of drusen, CNV, and DME in OCT images. Further validation studies and research efforts are necessary to evaluate the generalizability and integration of the model into clinical practice. Collaboration between clinicians, policymakers, and researchers is essential for advancing diagnostic tools and management strategies for AMD and DR. Integrating this technology into clinical workflows can positively impact patient care, particularly in settings with limited access to ophthalmologists. Future research should focus on collecting independent datasets, addressing potential biases, and assessing real-world effectiveness. Overall, the use of machine learning algorithms in conjunction with OCT imaging holds great potential for improving the detection and management of drusen, CNV, and DME, leading to enhanced patient outcomes and vision preservation.

Diabetic Macular Oedema Guidelines: An Australian Perspective

The number of people living with diabetes is expected to rise to 578 million by 2030 and to 700 million by 2045, exacting a severe socioeconomic burden on healthcare systems around the globe. This is also reflected in the increasing numbers of people with ocular complications of diabetes (namely, diabetic macular oedema (DMO) and diabetic retinopathy (DR)). In one study examining the global prevalence of DR, 35% of people with diabetes had some form of DR, 7% had PDR, 7% had DMO, and 10% were affected by these vision-threatening stages. In many regions of the world (Australia included), DR is one of the top three leading causes of vision loss amongst working age adults (20-74 years). In the management of DMO, the landmark ETDRS study demonstrated that moderate visual loss, defined as doubling of the visual angle, can be reduced by 50% or more by focal/grid laser photocoagulation. However, over the last 20 years, antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and corticosteroid therapies have emerged as alternative options for the management of DMO and provided patients with choices that have higher chances of improving vision than laser alone. In Australia, since the 2008 NHMRC guidelines, there have been significant developments in both the treatment options and treatment schedules for DMO. This working group was therefore assembled to review and address the current management options available in Australia.

Short- and Long-Term Visual Outcomes in Patients Receiving Intravitreal Injections: The Impact of the Coronavirus 2019 Disease (COVID-19)-Related Lockdown

Purpose: To investigate the short- and long-term impact of COVID-19—related lockdown on the vision of patients requiring intravitreal injections (IVI) for neovascular Age-related Macular degeneration (nvAMD), diabetic retinopathy (DR), central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO), or branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). Methods: This is a retrospective study from the Retina department of three Mass Eye and Ear centers. Charts of patients age of ≥ 18 years with any of the abovementioned diagnoses who had a scheduled appointment anytime between 17 March 2020 until 18 May 2020 (lockdown period in Boston, Massachusetts) were reviewed at baseline (up to 12 weeks before the lockdown), at first available follow-up (=actual f/u) during or after the lockdown period, at 3 months, 6 months, and at last available completed appointment of 2020. Results: A total of 1001 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of those patients, 479 (47.9%) completed their intended f/u appointment, while 522 missed it (canceled and “no show”). The delay in care of those who missed it was 59.15 days [standard deviation (SD) ± 49.6]. In these patients, significant loss of vision was noted at actual f/u [Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in LogMAR (Logarithm of the Minimum Angle of Resolution)—mean (±SD)—completed: 0.45 (±0.46), missed: 0.53 (±0.55); p = 0.01], which was more prominent in the DR group [Visual acuity (VA) change in LogMAR—mean (±SD); completed: 0.04 (±0.28), missed: 0.18 (±0.44); p = 0.02] and CRVO [completed: −0.06 (±0.27), missed: 0.11 (±0.35); p = <0.001] groups followed by nvAMD [completed: 0.006 (±0.16), missed: 0.06 (±0.27); p = 0.004] and BRVO [completed: −0.02 (±0.1), missed: 0.03 (±0.14); p = 0.02] ones. Overall, a higher percent of people who missed their intended f/u experienced vision loss of more than 15 letters at last f/u compared to those who completed it [missed vs. completed; 13.4% vs. 7.4% in nvAMD (p = 0.72), 7.8% vs. 6.3% in DR (0.84), 15.5% vs. 9.9% in CRVO (p < 0.001) and 9.6% vs. 2% in BRVO (p = 0.48)]. Conclusions: Delay in care of about 8.45 weeks can lead to loss of vision in patients who receive IVI with DR and CRVO patients being more vulnerable in the short-term, whereas in the long-term, CRVO patients followed by the nvAMD patients demonstrating the least vision recovery. BRVO patients were less likely to be affected by the delay in care. Adherence to treatment is key for maintaining and improving visual outcomes in patients who require IVI.

Therapeutic effect of simultaneous intravitreal dexamethasone and aflibercept on diabetic macular edema

AIMS

To report the effect of simultaneous intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) and aflibercept for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

This retrospective analysis of an open-label, multicenter, consecutive case series included 102 eyes of 81 patients with DME. Patients were selected into two groups. The control group consisted of 50 eyes treated with aflibercept alone, and the combination group consisted of 52 eyes treated with simultaneous DEX implant and aflibercept injection. The primary endpoints were changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) from baseline to month 6. The secondary endpoint was the interval of retreatment.

RESULTS

Baseline BCVA increased and CRT decreased at 6 months in both groups. Pseudophakic eyes in the combination group exhibited significantly greater BCVA improvement compared with phakic eyes (p = 0.031). Fewer intravitreal treatments were required for eyes treated with combination therapy than for those treated with aflibercept alone (1.56 ± 0.54 vs. 4.04 ± 1.26, p < .0001), with a mean retreatment interval of 3.66 ± 0.69 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Simultaneous intravitreal DEX and aflibercept achieved non-inferior improvement of visual and anatomic outcomes compared with aflibercept alone for DME, but exhibited a significantly longer treatment interval and superior visual outcome in pseudophakic eyes. This therapeutic approach is considered a valid strategy for treating DME in the era of COVID-19.

Outcomes of Over 40,000 Eyes Treated for Diabetic Macula Edema in Routine Clinical Practice: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

We investigated effectiveness and safety outcomes of diabetic macula edema (DME) treatment in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted of peer-reviewed articles published from January 2011 to September 2021. Studies of DME treatment in real-world practice of at least 6 months with at least 50 eyes at baseline were included. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were excluded. The primary outcome for this meta-analysis was change in visual acuity (VA) 12 months after starting treatment.

RESULTS

Of 3034 initially identified studies, 138 met selection criteria, representing more than 40,000 eyes. The mean 12-month VA gain was 4.6 letters (95% CI 3.7, 5.4; baseline 58.6) for vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (anti-VEGF), 4.4 (2.5, 6.3; baseline 54.2) for steroids, and 2.1 (- 1.2, 5.3; baseline 63.6) for macular laser. Australian and New Zealand studies had better baseline VA when initiating treatment compared with Asia, Europe, and North America, translating to better VA at 12 months. Fewer anti-VEGF injections were delivered in real-world practice than registrational RCTs. Neither systemic nor ocular safety was consistently reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravitreal anti-VEGF or steroids for DME generally led to visual gains in real-world practice but these were less impressive than RCTs, with undertreatment and differences in baseline characteristics likely contributing factors.

Effect of Alternate Treatment with Intravitreal Corticosteroid and Anti-VEGF for Macular Edema Secondary to Retinal Vein Occlusion

Purpose

To evaluate whether treatment with intravitreal corticosteroid and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections alternately can improve treatment outcomes of macular edema (ME) caused by retinal vein occlusion (RVO).

Methods

This dual-center retrospective study included 112 eyes with treatment-naïve ME secondary to RVO that were alternately treated with intravitreal corticosteroid and anti-VEGF injections (33 eyes, alternate group) or treated only with intravitreal anti-VEGF injections (79 eyes, anti-VEGF group) on a pro re nata basis.

Results

During the 12-month follow-up period, the alternate group achieved a visual acuity gain of 0.39 logMAR, while the anti-VEGF group achieved a gain of 0.21 logMAR (P=0.042). The alternate group demonstrated a reduction in the central macular thickness of 229.9-μm, while the anti-VEGF group achieved a reduction of 220.1 μm (P=0.887). The alternate group required an average of 5.2 injections, while the anti-VEGF received 4.2 injections (P < 0.001). In a propensity score-matched cohort to compensate for the differences in the injection numbers between the two groups, the alternate group achieved a better visual acuity gain than the anti-VEGF group at month 12 (0.39 logMAR vs. 0.17 logMAR, P=0.048).

Conclusions

In ME secondary to RVO, treatment with intravitreal corticosteroid and anti-VEGF injections alternately resulted in a more favorable visual outcome compared with intravitreal anti-VEGF monotherapy.

Diabetic macular edema: Safe and effective treatment with intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (Taioftal)

Purpose

To suggest the safety and efficacy of preservative-free triamcinolone acetonide intravitreal injectable suspension (Taioftal) for the treatment of diabetic macular edema.

Methods

A prospective clinical study involved 49 patients (49 eyes), that were treated with Taioftal and followed-up for six months. Complete ophthalmic examination, including spectral domain optical coherence tomography, was performed at baseline, and at month 1, 3, 6 after the intravitreal injection. Accurate collection and analysis of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central foveal thickness (CFT), intraocular pressure (IOP), and adverse events (AEs) were carried out in order to evaluate visual function and macular morphology before and after treatment

Results

Median BCVA value chosen as comparing statistics was significantly improved at every follow-up time points (gain of 6 letters at month 1, 12 at month 3 –improvement up to 24% at month 3 with stabilization until month 6) compared to baseline, as certified by Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test (P<0.05). Median CFT significantly waned at each follow-up times (decrease of about 65 μm at month 1, 155 at month 3 –reduction up to 28% at month 3 keeping good outcome until month 6) compared to baseline (P<0.05). IOP elevation, with no severe increases, was the most common among spotted AEs (median of 23 mmHg at month 1, 20 at month 3).

Conclusion

Intravitreal injection of preservative-free triamcinolone (Taioftal) is an effective, safe and inexpensive drug used to improve visual acuity and reduce central foveal thickness in eyes affected by diabetic macular edema during an average time of 6 months. Temporary, never severe, elevation of IOP is totally manageable with topical medications. No serious vision-threatening complications are related to the use of intravitreal triamcinolone injections.

Rho-Kinase Inhibitors for the Treatment of Refractory Diabetic Macular Oedema

Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is one of the leading causes of vision loss associated with diabetic retinopathy (DR). New insights in managing this condition have changed the paradigm in its treatment, with intravitreal injections of antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) having become the standard therapy for DMO worldwide. However, there is no single standard therapy for all patients DMO refractory to anti-VEGF treatment; thus, further investigation is still needed. The key obstacles in developing suitable therapeutics for refractory DMO lie in its complex pathophysiology; therefore, there is an opportunity for further improvements in the progress and applications of new drugs. Previous studies have indicated that Rho-associated kinase (Rho-kinase/ROCK) is an essential molecule in the pathogenesis of DMO. This is why the Rho/ROCK signalling pathway has been proposed as a possible target for new treatments. The present review focuses on the recent progress on the possible role of ROCK and its therapeutic potential in DMO. A systematic literature search was performed, covering the years 1991 to 2021, using the following keywords: "rho-Associated Kinas-es", "Diabetic Retinopathy", "Macular Edema", "Ripasudil", "Fasudil" and "Netarsudil". Better insight into the pathological role of Rho-kinase/ROCK may lead to the development of new strategies for refractory DMO treatment and prevention.

Protective Role of microRNA-200a in Diabetic Retinopathy Through Downregulation of PDLIM1

Background

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a most common microvascular complication and regarded as the leading cause of blindness in the working age population. The involvement of miR-200a in various disorders has become recognized, and the objective of this study was to identify the protective effect of miR-200a in the development of DR.

Methods

The contents of miR-200a and its potential target gene, PDZ and LIM domain protein 1 (PDLIM1), were detected in both in-vivo and in-vitro DR models. Retinal leakage and inflammatory factor concentrations were detected after vitreous injections of miR-200a/PDLIM1 vectors in mice. The cellular viability, apoptosis and cellular migration were investigated using trypan blue staining, flow cytometry and transwell assay with human retinal microvascular endothelial cells (HRMECs). Besides, the prediction and confirmation of miR-200a targeting PDLIM1 were conducted with bioinformation analyses and dual-luciferase reporter assay.

Results

Lower miR-200a and higher PDLIM1 levels were detected in both in-vivo and in-vitro DR models. Besides, it was found that miR-200a treatment would significantly inhibit retinal permeability and inflammatory factors. Through targeting PDLIM1, it was found that miR-200a could improve cellular viability, remit apoptotic status and reduce cellular migration significantly in high glucose-treated HRMECs.

Conclusion

Our results demonstrated that miR-200a could be used as a potential therapy target through down-regulating PDLIM1 in DR.

Antiangiogenic Effect of Platelet P2Y12 Inhibitor in Ischemia-Induced Angiogenesis in Mice Hindlimb

PURPOSE

Postischemic inflammation induces angiogenesis, while platelet P2Y12 inhibitors can alleviate this inflammation. Therefore, we studied the potential effects of P2Y12 inhibitor, ticagrelor, on angiogenesis in a mouse model of hindlimb ischemia.

METHODS

Laser Doppler perfusion imaging and capillary density measurement were used for angiogenesis quantified. Immunofluorescence was used to detect the level of CD31. The mice muscle was harvested for enzyme-linked immunosorbent (ELISA) assay of interleukin- (IL) 10 activity and Western blot determination of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) production.

RESULTS

Ischemic hindlimb angiogenesis was sharply decreased in IL-10+/+ mice than IL-10-/- mice. Ticagrelor inhibited angiogenesis and blood reperfusion recovery significantly elevated the levels of IL-10 and decreased the expression of VEGF in the IL-10+/+ mouse ischemic hindlimb, which were abolished in IL-10-deficient (IL-10-/-) C57BL/6J mice.

CONCLUSION

The study underscores that the effect of ticagrelor antiangiogenic function is related with the higher IL-10 expression.

Effectiveness of interventions to increase uptake and completion of treatment for diabetic retinopathy in low- and middle-income countries: a rapid review protocol

BACKGROUND

Vision loss due to diabetic retinopathy can largely be prevented or delayed through treatment. Patients with vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy are typically offered laser or intravitreal injections which often require more than one treatment cycle. However, treatment is not always initiated, or it is not completed, resulting in poor visual outcomes. Interventions aimed at improving the uptake or completion of treatment for diabetic retinopathy can potentially help prevent or delay visual loss in people with diabetes.

METHODS

We will search MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health and Cochrane Register of Studies for studies reporting interventions to improve the uptake of treatment for diabetic retinopathy (DR) and/or diabetic macular oedema (DMO), compared with usual care, in adults with diabetes. The review will include studies published in the last 20 years in the English language. We will include any study design that measured any of the following outcomes in relation to treatment uptake and completion for DR and/or DMO: (1) proportion of patients initiating treatment for DR and/or DMO among those to whom it is recommended, (2) proportion of patients completing treatment for DR and/or DMO among those to whom it is recommended, (3) proportion of patients completing treatment for DR and/or DMO among those initiating treatment and (4) number and proportion of DR and/or DMO rounds of treatment completed per patient, as dictated by the treatment protocol. For included studies, we will also report any measures of cost-effectiveness when available. Two reviewers will screen search results independently. Risk of bias assessment will be done by two reviewers, and data extraction will be done by one reviewer with verification of 10% of the papers by a second reviewer. The results will be synthesised narratively.

DISCUSSION

This rapid review aims to identify and synthesise the peer-reviewed literature on the effectiveness of interventions to increase uptake and completion of treatment for DR and/or DMO in LMICs. The rapid review methodology was chosen in order to rapidly synthesise the available evidence to support programme implementers and policy-makers in designing evidence-based health programmes and public health policy and inform the allocation of resources.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

OSF osf.io/h5wgr.

Intravitreal steroids for macular edema in diabetes

BACKGROUND

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is secondary to leakage from diseased retinal capillaries with thickening of central retina, and is an important cause of poor central visual acuity in people with diabetic retinopathy. Intravitreal steroids have been used to reduce retinal thickness and improve vision in people with DME.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of intravitreal steroid therapy compared with other treatments for DME.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase on 15 May, 2019. We also searched reference lists, Science Citation Index, conference proceedings, and relevant trial registers. We conducted a top up search on 21 October, 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that evaluated any type of intravitreal steroids as monotherapy against any other intervention (e.g. observation, laser photocoagulation, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (antiVEGF) for DME.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 trials (4348 participants, 4505 eyes). These trials compared intravitreal steroid therapies versus other treatments, including intravitreal antiVEGF therapy, laser photocoagulation, and sham injection. Most trials had an overall unclear or high risk of bias. One trial (701 eyes ) compared intravitreal dexamethasone implant 0.7mg with sham. We found moderate-certainty evidence that dexamethasone leads to slightly more improvement of visual acuity than sham at 12 months (mean difference [MD] -0.08 logMAR, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.12 to -0.05 logMAR). Regarding improvement of three or more lines of visual acuity, there was moderate-certainty evidence in favor of dexamethasone at 12 months, but the CI covered the null value (risk ratio (RR) 1.39, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.12). Regarding adverse events, dexamethasone increased by about four times the risk of cataract progression and the risk of using intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering medications compared to sham (RR 3.89, 95% CI 2.75 to 5.50 and RR 4.54, 95% CI 3.19 to 6.46, respectively; moderate-certainty evidence); about 4 in 10 participants treated with dexamethasone needed IOP-lowering medications. Two trials (451 eyes) compared intravitreal dexamethasone implant 0.7mg with intravitreal antiVEGF (bevacizumab and ranibizumab). There was moderate-certainty evidence that visual acuity improved slightly less with dexamethasone compared with antiVEGF at 12 months (MD 0.07 logMAR, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.09 logMAR; 2 trials; 451 participants/eyes; I² = 0%). The RR of gain of three or more lines of visual acuity was inconsistent between trials, with one trial finding no evidence of a difference between dexamethasone and bevacizumab at 12 months (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.40; 1 trial; 88 eyes), and the other, larger trial finding the chances of vision gain were half with dexamethasone compared with ranibizumab (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.79; 1 trial; 432 participants). The certainty of evidence was low. Cataract progression and the need for IOP-lowering medications increased more than 4 times with dexamethasone implant compared to antiVEGF (moderate-certainty evidence). One trial (560 eyes) compared intravitreal fluocinolone implant 0.19mg with sham. There was moderate-certainty evidence that visual acuity improved slightly more with fluocinolone at 12 months (MD -0.04 logMAR, 95% CI -0.06 to -0.01 logMAR). There was moderate-certainty evidence that an improvement in visual acuity of three or more lines was more common with fluocinolone than with sham at 12 months (RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.78). Fluocinolone also increased the risk of cataract progression (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.35 to 1.97; participants = 335; moderate-certainty evidence), which occurred in about 8 in 10 participants, and the use of IOP-lowering medications (RR 2.72, 95% CI 1.87 to 3.98; participants = 558; moderate-certainty evidence), which were needed in 2 to 3 out of 10 participants. One small trial with 43 participants (69 eyes) compared intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection 4 mg with sham. There may be a benefit in visual acuity at 24 months (MD -0.11 logMAR, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.03 logMAR), but the certainty of evidence is low. Differences in adverse effects were poorly reported in this trial. Two trials (615 eyes) compared intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection 4mg with laser photocoagulation and reached discordant results. The smaller trial (31 eyes followed up to 9 months) found more visual acuity improvement with triamcinolone (MD -0.18 logMAR, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07 logMAR), but a larger, multicenter trial (584 eyes, 12-month follow-up) found no evidence of a difference regarding change in visual acuity (MD 0.02 logMAR, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.07 logMAR) or gain of three or more lines of visual acuity (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.30) (overall low-certainty evidence). Cataract progression was about three times more likely (RR 2.68, 95% CI 2.21 to 3.24; moderate-certainty evidence) and the use of IOP-lowering medications was about four times more likely (RR 3.92, 95% CI 2.59 to 5.96; participants = 627; studies = 2; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) with triamcinolone. About 1 in 3 participants needed IOP-lowering medication. One small trial (30 eyes) compared intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection 4mg with intravitreal antiVEGF (bevacizumab or ranibizumab). Visual acuity may be worse with triamcinolone at 12 months (MD 0.18 logMAR, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.26 logMAR); the certainty of evidence is low. Adverse effects were poorly reported in this trial. Four trials reported data on pseudophakic participants, for whom cataract is not a concern. These trials found no decrease in visual acuity in the second treatment year due to cataract progression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Intravitreal steroids may improve vision in people with DME compared to sham or control. Effects were small, about one line of vision or less in most comparisons. More evidence is available for dexamethasone or fluocinolone implants when compared to sham, and the evidence is limited and inconsistent for the comparison of dexamethasone with antiVEGF treatment. Any benefits should be weighed against IOP elevation, the use of IOP-lowering medication and, in phakic patients, the progression of cataract. The need for glaucoma surgery is also increased, but remains rare.

Differential response to intravitreal dexamethasone implant in naïve and previously treated diabetic macular edema eyes

Background

To identify different response patterns to intravitreal dexamethasone implants (IDI) in naïve and previously treated (PT) diabetic macular edema (DME) eyes in a real-life setting.

Methods

342 IDI injections (203 DME eyes) were included. Number of IDI injections, percentage (%) of eyes with 1, 2, 3 and ≥ 4 injections, time to reinjections, visual acuity (VA), intraocular pressure (IOP) and central retinal thickness (CRT) were evaluated for naïve and PT DME eyes over 24 months.

Results

Mean number of injections was significantly lower in naïve vs PT DME eyes (1.40 ± 0.9 vs 1.82 ± 0.9, p < 0.001). The percentage of eyes receiving 1 injection was significantly higher in naïve vs PT DME eyes (76.1 vs 47.7), (p < 0.001). However, it was significantly lower for 2 (16.4 vs 29.4), or 3 injections (1.4 vs 17.6) (both p < 0.001), with no differences in eyes receiving ≥4 injections (5.9 vs 5.1 respectively, p = 0.80). Mean time to reinjection was not significantly different between both groups for the second, third and fourth injection (9.6 ± 4.0 vs 10.0 ± 5.5, p = 0.75, 13.2 ± 4.0 vs 16.0 ± 3.5, p = 0.21 and 21.7 ± 3.8 vs 19.7 ± 5.8, p = 0.55). VA scores were consistently better in naïve vs PT DME eyes at all studied timepoints, with no significant differences in CRT reduction or adverse effect rates.

Conclusion

Naïve DME eyes received lower number of IDI injections and showed better VA levels than PT DME eyes for 24 months in a real-world setting. This data supports the IDI use in early DME stages and provide further evidence of better IDI response when used as first-line therapy.

The Role of Inflammation in Diabetic Retinopathy

Inflammation is central to pathogenic processes in diabetes mellitus and the metabolic syndrome and particularly implicates innate immunity in the development of complications. Inflammation is a primary event in Type 1 diabetes where infectious (viral) and/or autoimmune processes initiate disease; in contrast, chronic inflammation is typical in Type 2 diabetes and is considered a sequel to increasing insulin resistance and disturbed glucose metabolism. Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is perceived as a vascular and neurodegenerative disease which occurs after some years of poorly controlled diabetes. However, many of the clinical features of DR are late events and reflect the nature of the retinal architecture and its cellular composition. Retinal microvascular disease is, in fact, an early event pathogenetically, induced by low grade, persistent leukocyte activation which causes repeated episodes of capillary occlusion and, progressive, attritional retinal ischemia. The later, overt clinical signs of DR are a consequence of the retinal ischemia. Metabolic dysregulation involving both lipid and glucose metabolism may lead to leukocyte activation. On a molecular level, we have shown that macrophage-restricted protein tyrosine phosphatase 1B (PTP1B) is a key regulator of inflammation in the metabolic syndrome involving insulin resistance and it is possible that PTP1B dysregulation may underlie retinal microvascular disease. We have also shown that adherent CCR5⁺CD11b⁺ monocyte macrophages appear to be selectively involved in retinal microvascular occlusion. In this review, we discuss the relationship between early leukocyte activation and the later features of DR, common pathogenetic processes between diabetic microvascular disease and other vascular retinopathies, the mechanisms whereby leukocyte activation is induced in hyperglycemia and dyslipidemia, the signaling mechanisms involved in diabetic microvascular disease, and possible interventions which may prevent these retinopathies. We also address a possible role for adaptive immunity in DR. Although significant improvements in treatment of DR have been made with intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy, a sizeable proportion of patients, particularly with sight-threatening macular edema, fail to respond. Alternative therapies targeting inflammatory processes may offer an advantage.

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.

Corticosteroids for Diabetic Macular Edema

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a chronic condition with a multifactorial pathogenesis. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and several inflammatory mediators are upregulated in eyes with DME. VEGF inhibitors and corticosteroids have all been used successfully in the management of DME. Currently available corticosteroids include triamcinolone acetonide (TA), the dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implant, and the fluocinolone acetonide (FA) intravitreal implant. The response to treatment can vary substantially with each treatment modality. Some cases of DME are VEGF driven, and in others, inflammation plays a key role. Chronicity appears to favor corticosteroid treatment. There are no clear guidelines to guide switching from an anti-VEGF to a corticosteroid. Combination therapy of an anti-VEGF drug and a corticosteroid does not appear to provide additional benefit over monotherapy with either drug. The main advantage of corticosteroids over VEGF inhibitors is their longer duration of action. Vitrectomy does not affect the pharmacokinetics of the corticosteroid implants. Common adverse events of corticosteroids include cataract formation, cataract progression, and ocular hypertension. TA may cause a sterile endophthalmitis and pseudoendophthalmitis. Migration of the intravitreal DEX and FA implants into the anterior chamber can be problematic. Because of their less favorable safety profile, corticosteroids are generally used as a second-line treatment for DME. Advantages of using an intravitreal corticosteroid implant include the reduction of treatment burden and predictable pharmacokinetics even in vitrectomized eyes. Pseudophakic eyes, previously vitrectomized eyes and eyes with long-standing DME, particularly of patients who have difficulty in maintaining a monthly appointment, may benefit from primary treatment with a corticosteroid intravitreal implant.

The outcome of initial mitomycin C-augmented trabeculectomy with subconjunctival bevacizumab in the management of secondary glaucoma associated with Fuchs heterochromic iridocyclitis

PURPOSE

To investigate the outcome of mitomycin C (MMC)-augmented trabeculectomy with subconjunctival bevacizumab in the management of Fuchs heterochromic iridocyclitis (FHI)-related glaucoma in 1-year follow-up period.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 50 eyes with FHI-related glaucoma those had underwent initial trabeculectomy with MMC (0.2 mg/ml-3 min). Thirty-one of them had single-dose bevacizumab injection (1.25 mg/0.05 ml) into the bleb area just at the end of the surgery, while 19 eyes did not have. The intraocular pressure (IOP) and the mean number of anti-glaucomatous medications were evaluated. The IOP value ≤ 21 mmHg was defined as complete or qualified surgical success in terms of using medical anti-glaucomatous treatment. Bleb height and vascularity were evaluated with Indiana bleb grading system. Paired sample t test, t test, Chi-square and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The preoperative IOP values of bevacizumab and without bevacizumab groups were 32.8 ± 4.5 mmHg and 32.8 ± 4.5 mmHg, respectively, and they decreased to 17.5 ± 4.6 mmHg and 17 ± 5.2 mmHg at the final visit (p < 0.001 for all values). There were no significant differences in postoperative IOP and the number of medications between the groups at the final visit. In bevacizumab group, complete success was achieved in 100% within the third month but decreased to 22.5% (complete) and 74.1% (qualified) at the first year. In the other group (without bevacizumab group), complete success was achieved in 94.7% within the third month but decreased to 15.8% (complete) and 84.2% (qualified) at the first year.

CONCLUSION

Initial trabeculectomy with MMC and subconjunctival bevacizumab injection was found to have lower rates of complete success with relatively acceptable qualified success rates in the management of FHI-related glaucoma. Subconjunctival bevacizumab was not found to have additional effect to improve the surgical success.

Translating evidence into practice: recommendations by a UK expert panel on the use of aflibercept in diabetic macular oedema

Objectives

This paper describes recommendations from a panel of UK retina experts on aflibercept in diabetic macular oedema (DMO).

Methods

A roundtable meeting was held in London, UK in March 2018. The meeting was sponsored by Bayer.

Results

Recommendations are based on clinical experience and level 1 evidence. Clinical experience supports the evidence base, reinforcing that aflibercept should be initiated with intensive proactive dosing at 2 mg every 4 weeks. Most panel members use six initial 4-weekly doses as in Protocol T, rather than five initial monthly doses as recommended in the Summary of product characteristics (SmPC). After intensive proactive dosing, patients with a good response (meet Protocol T ‘improvement’ criteria ≥5-letter improvement in visual acuity [VA] and/or ≥10% improvement in central subfield thickness [CST] from baseline) but who are not yet stable should continue with 4-weekly aflibercept until stability is reached. Patients with a good response and stability should initiate monitor-and-extend (not in line with SmPC). Those with a sub-optimal response (meet ‘improvement’ criteria but with additional concerns e.g. fluid worsening on macular volume map) should continue with 4-weekly aflibercept but additional treatments should be considered (aflibercept is not licensed for combination treatment). For patients with no response (no change, or meeting Protocol T ‘worsening’ criteria [≥5-letter decrease in VA and/or ≥ 10% increase in CST] from baseline), switching to a non-anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment should be considered.

Conclusions

Clinical experience reinforces that, when using aflibercept in DMO, the licensed posology or Protocol T regimens achieve the best outcomes.

OMICs approaches-assisted identification of macrophages-derived MIP-1γ as the therapeutic target of botanical products TNTL in diabetic retinopathy

BACKGROUND

Inflammatory reaction in the dysfunction of retinal endotheliocytes has been considered to play a vital role in diabetic retinopathy (DR). Anti-inflammatory therapy so far gains poor outcome as DR treatment. This study aims to identify a novel therapeutic target of DR from the OMICs studies of a traditional anti-DR botanical products TNTL.

METHODS

Hyperglycemic mice were treated with TNTL. The anti-hyperglycemic effect of TNTL was validated to confirm the biological consistency of the herbal products from batches. Improvement of DR by TNTL was examined by various assays on the retina. Next-generation transcriptome sequencing and cytokine array was used to identify the therapeutic targets. In vitro study was performed to validate the target.

RESULTS

We observed that TNTL at its high doses possessed anti-hyperglycemic effect in murine type I diabetic model, while at its doses without reducing blood glucose, it suppressed DR incidence. TNTL restored the blood-retina barrier integrity, suppressed retinal neovascularization, and attenuated the retinal ganglion cell degeneration. Transcriptomic analysis on the retina tissue of hyperglycemic mice with or without TNTL revealed that the inflammatory retina microenvironment was significantly repressed. TNTL treatment suppressed pro-inflammatory macrophages in the retina, which resulted in the inactivation of endothelial cell migration, restoration of endothelial cell monolayer integrity, and prevention of leakage. Cytokine array analysis suggested that TNTL could significantly inhibit the secretion of MIP1γ from pro-inflammatory macrophages. Prevention of endothelial dysfunction by TNTL may be mediated by the inhibition of MIP1γ/CCR1 axis. More specifically, TNTL suppressed MIP1γ release from pro-inflammatory macrophages, which in turn inhibited the activation of CCR1-associated signaling pathways in endothelial cells.

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrated that TNTL might be an alternative treatment to DR, and the primary source of potential drug candidates against DR targeting MIP1γ/CCR1 axis in the retinal microenvironment.

Statins and/or fibrates for diabetic retinopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Evidence from observational studies have found a relationship between serum cholesterol and diabetic retinopathy (DR). Apart of the assumption that cholesterolemic control has benefits for patients with diabetes with or without retinopathy, the effects of lipid-lowering drugs have not been properly mapped and critically assessed so far. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of statins and/or fibrates on prevention and progression of DR. We conducted a Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and reported in accordance to PRISMA Statement. GRADE approach was used to summarize the certainty of the evidence. Eight RCTs that fulfilled our eligibility criteria were included, assessing the effects of fibrates (n = 4), statins (n = 3) and fibrate plus statins (n = 1) for therapy (n = 8) or prevention (n = 4) of DR. Overall, the main concern regarding risk of bias assessment was due to incomplete outcome data because high rate of losses in five RCTs. Furthermore, the risk of reporting bias was rated unclear due the lack of previously published protocol in seven RCTs. Fibrates seemed to be associated with a 45% risk reduction of macular edema incidence (Relative Risk 0.55, 95% confidence interval of 0.38 to 0.81, 1309 participants, 2 RCTs, I² = 0%, low certainty of the evidence). The certainty of evidence for other outcomes was also very low or low, and we are uncertain regarding the effects of fibrates for DR. Overall, adverse events seemed to be similar between fibrate and placebo, but again based on the width of the confidence intervals, an important increase of adverse events cannot be rule out. The combination statin/fibrate did not seem to have benefit for visual acuity but is likely that further studies can modify this estimate since the current evidence is limited. Adverse events and quality of life were not measured or reported. Concluding, this study found eight RCTs, with limited methodological quality, that assessed the effects of fibrates and/or statins for DR. Based on these findings, we are uncertain about the effects of statins for DR. Fibrates seemed to reduce the incidence of macular edema (low certainty evidence) without increase adverse events (low to very low certainty evidence). Number of Protocol registration PROSPERO CRD42016029746.

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor combined with intravitreal steroids for diabetic macular oedema

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.