Ranibizumab versus bevacizumab for ophthalmic diseases related to neovascularisation: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Systemic Arterial and Venous Thrombotic Events Associated With Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Injections: A Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the risk of systemic arteriovenous thrombotic events between intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) and sham injections.

DESIGN

Random-effects meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed on OVID MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library from January 2005 to August 2023. Our inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on systemic arteriovenous events for standard dose intravitreal anti-VEGF agents for any indication.

RESULTS

A total of 20 RCTs reporting on 12,833 eyes were included. There was no significant difference in the risk of any thrombotic event between bevacizumab 1.25 mg and ranibizumab 0.5 mg (Risk ratio (RR) = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.52-1.75, P = .89). There was no significant difference between bevacizumab and ranibizumab when restricting to arterial thrombotic events (RR= 0.88, 95% CI = 0.60-1.30, P = .53) or venous thrombotic events (RR = 1.99, 95% CI =86 0.68-5.82], P = .21). The risk of arterial thrombotic events was similar between aflibercept and bevacizumab (RR = 1.11, 95% CI = 0.60-2.07, P = .74), between aflibercept and ranibizumab (RR= 0.77, 95% CI = 0.49-1.21, P = .26), between brolucizumab and aflibercept (RR= 0.67, 95% CI = 0.32-1.38, P = .27), and between aflibercept and faricimab (RR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.43-2.17, P = .93). Compared to sham, neither dose of ranibizumab (0.5 mg or 0.3 mg) showed a higher risk of arterial thrombotic events.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a similar risk of systemic arteriovenous thrombotic adverse events between anti-VEGF agents and between ranibizumab and sham injections.

Real-World Treatment Intensity and Patterns in Patients With Myopic Choroidal Neovascularization: Common Data Model in Ophthalmology

BACKGROUND

A paucity of data addressing real-world treatment of myopic choroidal neovascularization (mCNV) in the era of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) drugs led us to investigate real-world treatment intensity and treatment patterns in patients with mCNV.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, observational study using the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership-Common Data Model database of treatment-naïve patients with mCNV over the 18-year study period (2003-2020). Outcomes were treatment intensity (time trends of total/average number of prescriptions, mean number of prescriptions in the first year and the second year after initiating treatment, proportion of patients with no treatment in the second year) and treatment patterns (subsequent patterns of treatment according to the initial treatment).

RESULTS

Our final cohort included 94 patients with at-least 1-year observation period. Overall, 96.8% of patients received anti-VEGF drugs as first-line treatment, with most of injections from bevacizumab. The number of anti-VEGF injections in each calendar year showed an increasing trend over time; however, there was a drop in the mean number of injections in the second year compared to the first year from 2.09 to 0.47. About 77% of patients did not receive any treatment in their second year of treatment regardless of drugs. Most of patients (86.2%) followed non-switching monotherapy only and bevacizumab was the most popular choice either in the first-line (68.1%) or in the second-line (53.8%) of treatment. Aflibercept was increasingly used as the first-line treatment for patients with mCNV.

CONCLUSION

Anti-VEGF drugs have become the treatment of choice and second-line treatment for mCNV over the past decade. Anti-VEGF drugs are effective for the treatment of mCNV as the non-switching monotherapy is the main treatment regimen in most cases and the number of treatments decreases significantly in the second year of treatment.

ANTIVASCULAR ENDOTHELIAL GROWTH FACTOR DOSING AND EXPECTED ACUITY OUTCOME AT 1 YEAR

PURPOSE

To determine the dose-response characteristics of the antivascular endothelial growth factor agents ranibizumab and aflibercept in neovascular age-related macular degeneration using published randomized trials and observational series.

METHODS

Literature review of published series from 2006 to 2018 as determined from electronic searches of PubMed and the Cochrane Library. Data extracted included treatment strategy, frequency, and first year visual acuity response. Monthly or bimonthly treatment schedules were classified as Fixed, pro re nata studies as PRN, treat and extend as TE, and when no strategy was listed, as Variable.

RESULTS

Of 2062 citations retrieved, 96 were deemed eligible; these 96 citations provided 120 data points of dose frequency versus visual acuity change in Year 1 of treatment. The dose-response curve was nonlinear, but a log transform of the number of injections per year yielded a linear relationship defined by the expression, Letters of Improvement = -6.66 + 15.7*log (number of injections Year 1). After accounting for the number of injections neither the drug used (ranibizumab or aflibercept) nor the strategy used (Fixed, pro re nata, treat and extend, or Variable) were significant predictors of acuity change. As a group, studies using the pro re nata approach had the lowest number of injections and the worst acuity improvements as a treatment strategy.

CONCLUSION

There seems to be a predictable, mathematically defined relationship between dose frequency and visual acuity change at 1 year in neovascular age-related macular degeneration. The performance of current treatment efforts, as suggested by reported series and Medicare claims data, seems to be substandard.

Appraising the Quality of Systematic Reviews for Age-Related Macular Degeneration Interventions: A Systematic Review

Importance

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a leading cause of vision impairment. It is imperative that AMD care is timely, appropriate, and evidence-based. It is thus essential that AMD systematic reviews are robust; however, little is known about the quality of this literature.

Objectives

To investigate the methodological quality of systematic reviews of AMD intervention studies, and to evaluate their use for guiding evidence-based care.

Evidence Review

This systematic review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. All studies that self-identified as a systematic review in their title or abstract or were categorized as a systematic review from a medical subject heading and investigated the safety, efficacy and/or effectiveness of an AMD intervention were included. Comprehensive electronic searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to March 2017. Two reviewers independently assessed titles and abstracts, then full-texts for eligibility. Quality was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Study characteristics (publication year, type of intervention, journal, citation rate, and funding source) were extracted.

Findings

Of 983 citations retrieved, 71 studies (7.6%) were deemed eligible. The first systematic review relating to an AMD intervention was published in 2003. More than half were published since 2014. Methodological quality was highly variable. The mean (SD) AMSTAR score was 5.8 (3.2) of 11.0, with no significant improvement over time (r = -0.03; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.21; P = .83). Cochrane systematic reviews were overall of higher quality than reviews in other journals (mean [SD] AMSTAR score, 9.9 [1.2], n = 15 vs 4.7 [2.2], n = 56; P < .001). Overall, there was poor adherence to referring to an a priori design (22 articles [31%]) and reporting conflicts of interest in both the review and included studies (16 articles [23%]). Reviews funded by government grants and/or institutions were generally of higher quality than industry-sponsored reviews or where the funding source was not reported.

Conclusions and Relevance

There are gaps in the conduct of systematic reviews in the field of AMD. Enhanced endorsement of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement by refereed journals may improve review quality and improve the dissemination of reliable evidence relating to AMD interventions to clinicians.