Comparison of intravitreal bevacizumab with macular photocoagulation for treatment of diabetic macular edema: a systemic review and Meta-analysis

Alone laser versus bevacizumab plus laser for diffuse diabetic macular edema (ALBA randomized trial)

Purpose:

To report the 12-month results of laser (treatment G1) versus intravitreal bevacizumab combined with laser (treatment G2) in patients with diffuse diabetic macular edema (DME).

Methods:

In this single-center randomized independent controlled trial, 32 patients were randomized to G1 (n = 15) or G2 (n = 17). In G1, laser was given at baseline and then pro re nata (PRN). In G2, three intravitreal bevacizumab (1.25 mg) injections were given once every 6 weeks, then laser and then PRN. Analysis was performed by treatment as administered. This study was registered in clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01572350 and EU Clinical Trial Registry as 2009-014654-15.

Results:

G2 was superior to G1 improving best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) with respect baseline (+8.0 vs + 3.0; p < 0.01). At month 12, a significantly greater proportion of patients had a BCVA letter score >15 and >73 in G2 (3 of 15 (20%) and 8 of 15 (53%), respectively) versus G1 (1 of 17 (6%) and 4 of 18 (23%), respectively). Health-related quality of life, assessed through National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire, at 12 months was statistically indistinguishable between both groups.

Conclusion:

G2 provided superior visual acuity gains over G1 in patients with visual impairment due to center-involving diffuse DME, associated with significant gains in VFQ-25 scores.

Outcomes of intravitreal bevacizumab and macular photocoagulation for treatment of diabetic macular edema in a tertiary care eye hospital, Karachi

OBJECTIVE

To study the outcomes of intravitreal injection of Bevacizumab and laser photocoagulation in the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

Seventy-two eyes of 59 patients with diabetic macular edema were divided into two groups of 41 eyes (Group-A) and 31 eyes (Group-B). Subjects in group-A were treated with three intravitreal injections of Bevacizumab (IVB), and that of group-B with macular photocoagulation. Duration of study was 9 months. Follow up pattern for both groups was1, 2, 3 and 6 months. Best Corrected Visual acuity on log MAR (BCVA) for distance as well as near in each visitwas recorded. Retinal OCT for central macular thickness (CMT) was performed on baseline. SPSS version 20.0 was used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Mean age of the patients was 53.76 ± 8.82 ranging to 36-71 years. Out of 59 patients, 40 (67.8%) were male and 19 (32.2%) female. It was observed that the difference of results among both groups was not significant. Fig.2 documents visual acuity recorded as Improved; Stable and Worse.

CONCLUSION

The improvement in BCVA was significant at 6 months in both treatments. The final improvements in BCVA has been almost similar between both the treatment groups although it was noted that IVB group showed early improvement in BCVA at follow-ups of 1 and 3 months. A long term follow-up is required in these cases to see the effect of both these treatment strategies.

Clinical Characteristics of Patients with Newly Diagnosed Diabetic Macular Edema in Turkey: A Real-Life Registry Study-TURK-DEM

Purpose. To evaluate the clinical and diagnostic characteristics of patients with newly diagnosed diabetic macular edema (DME) in Turkey in a real-life setting. Methods. A total of 945 consecutive patients (mean (SD) age: 61.3 (9.9) years, 55.2% male) with newly diagnosed DME were included. Data on patient demographics, comorbidities, ocular history, ophthalmic examination findings including type of DME, central macular thickness (CMT) via time domain (TD) and spectral domain (SD) optical coherence tomography (OCT), and planned treatments were recorded. Results. OCT (98.8%) and fundoscopy (92.9%) were the two most common diagnostic methods. Diffuse and focal DMEs were detected in 39.2% and 36.9% of cases, respectively. Laser photocoagulation (32.1%) and antivascular endothelial growth factors (anti-VEGF; 31.8%) were the most commonly planned treatments. The median CMT in the right eye was significantly greater in untreated than in treated patients [376.5 μm (range: 160–840) versus 342 μm (range: 146–999) (p = 0.002)] and in the left eye [370 μm (range: 201–780) versus 329 μm (range: 148–999) (p < 0.001)]. Conclusions. This study is the first large-scale real-life registry of DME patients in Turkey. SD-OCT and fundoscopy were the most common diagnostic methods. Laser photocoagulation and anti-VEGF therapy were the most common treatments.

Novel strategies for the treatment of diabetic macular edema

Macular edema such as diabetic macular edema (DME) and diabetic retinopathy are devastating back-of-the-eye retinal diseases leading to loss of vision. This area is receiving considerable medical attention. Posterior ocular diseases are challenging to treat due to complex ocular physiology and barrier properties. Major ocular barriers are static (corneal epithelium, corneal stroma, and blood-aqueous barrier) and dynamic barriers (blood-retinal barrier, conjunctival blood flow, lymph flow, and tear drainage). Moreover, metabolic barriers impede posterior ocular drug delivery and treatment. To overcome such barriers and treat back-of-the-eye diseases, several strategies have been recently developed which include vitreal drainage, laser photocoagulation and treatment with biologics and/or small molecule drugs. In this article, we have provided an overview of several emerging novel strategies including nanotechnology based drug delivery approach for posterior ocular drug delivery and treatment with an emphasis on DME.

Macular laser photocoagulation with or without intravitreal triamcinolone pretreatment for diabetic macular edema: a result from five randomized controlled trials

AIM

To assess possible benefits of intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA) injection as pretreatment for macular laser photocoagulation (MLP) in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

Published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning MLP with or without IVTA pretreatment for DME were retrieved from databases CNKI, Medline, EMbase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. A Meta-analysis on eligible studies was conducted using RevMan 5.0 software. Two investigators independently assessed the quality of the trials and extracted data. Main outcome measures included the change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), difference in central macular thickness (CMT) and adverse events reporting in particular elevated intraocular pressure within the follow-up period. The results were pooled using weight mean difference (WMD) or odds risk (OR) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). A fixed- or random-effect model was employed depending on the heterogeneity of the inclusion trials.

RESULTS

Finally, five independent RCTs were identified and used for comparing MLP with IVTA pretreatment (131 eyes) with MLP alone (133 eyes, control group). The overall study quality was relatively higher according to the modified Jadad scale. The Meta-analysis showed that MLP with IVTA pretreatment significantly reduced CMT at one, three and six months (P=0.002, 0.0003 and 0.04, respectively), compared with MLP alone. The IVTA pretreatment group showed statistically significant improvements in BCVA at the one-month follow up as compared with the control group (P=0.03). At three- and six-month follow up, there was a beneficial trend towards improving visual acuity in the IVTA pretreatment group without statistical significance between groups (P=0.06 and 0.20, respectively). The incidence of elevation of intraocular pressure was significantly higher in the IVTA pretreatment group than in the control group (P<0.0001). No evidence of publication bias was present according to Begg's test and Egger's test. There was a low level of heterogeneity in the included studies.

CONCLUSION

This Meta-analysis indicates that MLP with IVTA pretreatment has a better therapeutic effect in terms of CMT reduction and earlier (1mo) visual improvement for patients with DME as compared with MLP alone. Further confirmation with rigorously well-designed multi-center trials is needed.