The 12- and 24-Month Effects of Intravitreal Ranibizumab, Aflibercept, and Bevacizumab on Intraocular Pressure: A Network Meta-Analysis

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.

Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of retinal vein occlusion

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

To assess the methodological quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) for the diagnosis and management of Retinal Vein Occlusion (RVO).

METHODS

A systematic review of CPGs for the diagnosis and management of RVO was carried out with a search in databases, metasearch engines, CPG development institutions, ophthalmology associations and CPG repositories until April 2022. Search update was performed on April 2023, with no new record available. Five CPGs published in the last 10 years in English/Spanish were selected, and 5 authors evaluated them independently, using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE-II) instrument. An individual assessment of each CPG by domain (AGREE-II), an overall assessment of the guide, and its use with or without modifications were performed. Additionally, a meta-synthesis of the recommendations for the most relevant outcomes was carried out.

RESULTS

The lowest score (mean 18.8%) was for domain 5 'applicability', and the highest score (mean 62%) was for domain 4 'clarity of presentation'. The 2019 American guideline (PPP) presented the best score (40.4%) in domain 3 'rigour of development'. When evaluating the overall quality of the CPGs analysed, all CPGs could be recommended with modifications. In the meta-synthesis, anti-VEGF therapy is the first-choice therapy for macular oedema associated with RVO, but there is no clear recommendation about the type of anti-VEGF therapy to choose. Recommendations for diagnosis and follow-up are similar among the CPGs appraised.

CONCLUSION

Most CPGs for the diagnosis and management of RVO have a low methodological quality assessed according to the AGREE-II. PPP has the higher score in the domain 'rigour of development'. Among the CPGs appraised, there is no clear recommendation on the type of anti-VEGF therapy to choose.

Understanding network meta-analysis methodology for the ophthalmologist

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Over the past decade, the number of studies published using network meta-analyses (NMAs) has rapidly increased, and there have been continued advancements to further advance this analysis approach. Due to the fast moving and changing landscape in the infancy of NMA methodology, there is a lack of consistency and standardization for this approach. This article aims to summarize the crucial components of an NMA for both future readers, and for potential NMA authors.

RECENT FINDINGS

Key components of NMAs include, but are not limited to, reporting the proposed analysis methods, assessment of risk of bias within the included studies, reporting the overall quality of the available evidence, and defining the parameters in which the results will be presented. Although NMA allows for a comprehensive evaluation of all available treatment options for a given condition, we believe that there is importance in ensuring clear understanding and appropriate interpretation of results to inform clinical practice.

SUMMARY

While many components of NMA mirror those of traditional pairwise meta-analysis, there are many novel methodologies that are specific to this approach. It is imperative that future NMAs follow guidance from key methodology groups, as these provide valuable tools for conducting and reporting NMAs.

VIVEX: A Formula for Calculating Individual Vitreous Volume: A New Approach Towards Tailored Patient Dosing Regime in Intravitreal Therapy

INTRODUCTION

Personalized medicine and patient-tailored drug dosing have been substantiated through thousands of clinical studies, demonstrating their safety and efficacy. The principle: "as much as necessary, as little as possible" is widely spread. Quantities and doses are therefore adjusted individually. This is not the case for intravitreal injections in the context of retinal diseases. Intravitreal injections are not adjusted in relation to the vitreous volume. The vitreous body is described as "approx. 4 cm3" in the literature.

METHODS

In this retrospective observational study, we included 72 eyes of patients who had undergone magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the orbit and biometry measurements of the anterior chamber depth (ACD) and axial length. After segmentation of the volume data, the vitreous volume was extracted by voxel integration, and a simple prediction model was derived to determine the vitreous volume from the axial length (AL) measurement with AL3·π/6·(0.76 + 0.012·(AL-24). This is the volume of a sphere AL3·π/6 and a correction term 0.76 + 0.012·(AL-24) to account for the portion of the vitreous in the entire globe and the proportional increase of the vitreous portion for long (myopic) eyes.

RESULTS

Emmetropic eyes with an axial length of 22.50-23.50 mm had a vitreous volume of around 4.5-5.5 cm3. Myopic eyes with an axial length of 30.00 mm had a calculated vitreous volume of 9.0-10.0 cm3. Hypermetropic eyes with an axial length of 20.00 mm showed a vitreous volume of 3.0-4.0 cm3.

CONCLUSIONS

By implementing the new calculation formula on the IOLCON website, it will be easy to get the exact individual vitreous volume. The data could be used by retinal surgeons prior to surgery. The knowledge of anatomical dimensions and exact individual vitreous volume seems to be important for gas and silicone oil fillings. With the newly derived knowledge, multicentric studies can evaluate the impact of the dose in intravitreal therapies. Patient-tailored dosing could prevent side effects and improve effectiveness.

Anti-VEGF combined with ocular corticosteroids therapy versus anti-VEGF monotherapy for diabetic macular edema focusing on drugs injection times and confounding factors of pseudophakic eyes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To assess the effectiveness and safety of combining intravitreal endothelial growth factor inhibitor (anti-VEGF) and ocular corticosteroids for diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

Articles concentrating on the efficacy and safety of combining anti-VEGF and ocular corticosteroids therapy for DME versus anti-VEGF monotherapy was screened systematically. Meta-analysis was conducted on the basis of a protocol registered in the PROSPERO (CRD42023408338) and performed on the extracted continuous variables and dichotomous variables. The outcome was expressed as weighted mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR).

RESULTS

Add up to 21 studies including 1468 eyes were enrolled in this study. The MD for best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improvement at 1/3/6/12-month between the combination therapy group and monotherapy group were 2.56 (95% CI [0.43, 4.70]), 2.46 (95% CI [-0.40, 5.32]), - 1.76 (95% CI [-3.18, -0.34]), - 1.94 (95% CI [-3.87, 0.00]), respectively. The MD for central retinal thickness (CMT) reduction at 1/3/6/12-month between two groups were - 66.27 (95% CI [-101.08, -31.47]), - 33.62 (95% CI [-57.55, -9.70]), - 4.54 (95% CI [-16.84, 7.76]), - 26.67 (95% CI [-41.52, -11.82]), respectively. Additionally, the combination group had higher relative risk of high intraocular pressure and cataract progression events.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-VEGF combined with ocular corticosteroids had a significant advantage over anti-VEGF monotherapy within 3 months of DME treatment, which reached the maximum with increasing anti-VEGF injection times to 3. However, with the prolongation of the treatment cycle, the effect of combined therapy after 6 months was no better than monotherapy, and the side effects of combined therapy were more severe.

Exploring the Relationship between Anti-VEGF Therapy and Glaucoma: Implications for Management Strategies

A short-term increase in intraocular pressure (IOP) is a common side effect after intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy, but a sustained increase in IOP with the development of secondary glaucoma has also been reported in some studies after repeated intravitreal anti-VEGF injections. The aim of this review is to present and discuss the possible pathophysiological mechanisms and factors contributing to a sustained rise in IOP, as well as treatment strategies for patients at risk. Close monitoring and adjustable IOP-lowering treatment are recommended for high-risk patients, including those with glaucoma, angle-closure anomalies, ocular hypertension or family history of glaucoma; patients receiving a high number of injections or at shorter intervals; and patients with capsulotomy. Strategies are needed to identify patients at risk in a timely manner and to prevent sustained elevation of IOP.

Glaucoma progression in patients receiving intravitreal anti‐VEGF treatment for neovascular age‐related macular degeneration

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate how often glaucoma and neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) occur in the same patient and to evaluate whether glaucoma progression is faster in eyes treated with intravitreal anti-VEGF medications for nAMD.

METHODS

This single-centre retrospective real-world data (RWD) consists of medical records of 6314 glaucoma and 2166 nAMD patients treated in 2008-2017 in Tays Eye Centre, Finland. To study glaucoma progression, changes in visual fields (mean deviation [MD], dB/year), IOP (mmHg/year) and fundus photographs (progression, yes/no) were compared in glaucoma eyes with and without anti-VEGF treatment for nAMD and ≥1 year follow-up.

RESULTS

During the 10-year period, 147 patients with glaucoma received intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment for nAMD corresponding to 2% of glaucoma and 7% of nAMD patients. The mean change in MD was -0.70 dB/year (SD 1.8) vs. -0.27 dB/year (SD 1.7) (p = 0.027) in glaucoma eyes with (n = 37) and without (n = 4304) anti-VEGF injections, respectively. In patients with bilateral glaucoma and unilateral nAMD treated with anti-VEGF injections (n = 20), MD declined at -0.62 dB/year (SD 1.9) vs 0.33 dB/year (SD 1.5) (p = 0.654), and glaucoma progression was detected in 14/20 vs 10/20 (p = 0.219) fundus photographs in eyes with anti-VEGF treatment compared with their untreated fellow eyes.

CONCLUSION

nAMD and glaucoma were found co-existing in the same eye at rates that were similar to the age-corrected prevalence of the two diseases in the general population. Our results suggest that intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment for nAMD may accelerate glaucoma progression.

Risk, Prevalence, and Progression of Glaucoma in Eyes With Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treated With Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Injections

PURPOSE

To examine the risk, prevalence, and progression of glaucoma development in age-related macular degeneration (AMD) eyes receiving intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections compared to controls.

DESIGN

Retrospective clinical cohort study.

METHODS

Retrospective review of eyes receiving intravitreal anti-VEGF injections from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2013, for exudative AMD. Age- and sex-matched control groups of eyes included eyes with nonexudative AMD (NEAMD) and no AMD. Eyes with a diagnosis of glaucoma or glaucoma suspect were reviewed for injection details, type and date of glaucoma diagnosis, glaucoma treatments, standard automated perimetry (SAP), and spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). Qualitative progression was determined by indication of glaucoma progression in provider notes. Quantitative progression was assessed based on change in mean deviation (MD) on SAP, retinal nerve fiber layer thickness on SD-OCT, and intraocular pressure (IOP).

RESULTS

There were 707 eyes of 504 patients treated with anti-VEGF injections and 1008 eyes in the NEAMD and no-AMD cohorts. There was no difference in glaucoma or suspect prevalence at initial presentation between eyes treated with injections and NEAMD (6.9% vs 9.7%, P = .22) or no-AMD controls (vs 8.5%, P = .55). There was no difference in cumulative 5-year probability of new glaucoma diagnosis after anti-VEGF injections compared to NEAMD (1.9% vs 1.0%, P = .69) or no-AMD controls (vs 1.6%, P = .88). There was no difference in qualitative progression of glaucoma in the injection cohort vs NEAMD (P = .19) or no-AMD controls (P = .61). The rate of MD change in injection eyes was similar to NEAMD eyes (P = .74) but greater than no-AMD eyes (P = .02). Eyes receiving injections required more topical glaucoma medications compared with NEAMD (P = .03) and more glaucoma laser treatments compared with no-AMD controls (P = .009). Eyes receiving injections did not require more frequent incisional glaucoma surgery compared with NEAMD (21.0% vs 15.0%, P = .95) or no-AMD controls (vs 10.0%, P = .10).

CONCLUSION

Eyes treated with intravitreal anti-VEGF injections for exudative AMD did not have increased risk of developing glaucoma compared with controls. Of those with a glaucoma diagnosis, exudative AMD eyes receiving injections required a greater number of topical glaucoma medications compared with NEAMD eyes and had a greater rate of MD loss than no-AMD controls.