Cargando…

A meta-analysis of the effect of a dexamethasone intravitreal implant versus intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment for diabetic macular edema

BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness and safety of dexamethasone (DEX) implant and intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment for diabetic macular edema (DME). METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov website and Cochrane Library databases were...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: He, Ye, Ren, Xin-jun, Hu, Bo-jie, Lam, Wai-Ching, Li, Xiao-rong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5963018/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29784048
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-018-0779-1
_version_ 1783324972401295360
author He, Ye
Ren, Xin-jun
Hu, Bo-jie
Lam, Wai-Ching
Li, Xiao-rong
author_facet He, Ye
Ren, Xin-jun
Hu, Bo-jie
Lam, Wai-Ching
Li, Xiao-rong
author_sort He, Ye
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness and safety of dexamethasone (DEX) implant and intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment for diabetic macular edema (DME). METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov website and Cochrane Library databases were comprehensively searched for studies comparing DEX implant with anti-VEGF in patients with DME. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central subfield thickness (CST) and adverse events were extracted from the final eligible studies. Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3 for Mac was used to analyze the data and GRADE profiler were used to access the quality of outcomes. RESULTS: Based on four randomized clinical trials assessing a total of 521 eyes, the DEX implant can achieve visual acuity improvement for DME at rates similar to those achieved via anti-VEGF treatment (mean difference [MD] = − 0.43, P = 0.35), with superior anatomic outcomes at 6 months (MD = − 86.71 μm, P = 0.02), while requiring fewer injections, in comparison to anti-VEGF treatment. Although the mean reduction in CST did not showed significant difference at 12 months (MD = − 33.77 μm, P = 0.21), the significant in BCVA from baseline to 12 months supported the anti-VEGF treatment (MD = − 3.26, P < 0.00001). No statistically significant differences in terms of the serious adverse events. However, use of the DEX implant has higher risk of intraocular pressure elevation and cataract than anti-VEGF treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with anti-VEGF, DEX implant improved anatomical outcomes significantly. However, this did not translate to improved visual acuity, which may be due to the progression of cataract. Therefore, the DEX implant may be recommended as a first chioce for select cases, such as for pseudophakic eyes, anti-VEGF-resistant eyes, or patients reluctant to receive intravitreal injections frequently. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12886-018-0779-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5963018
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59630182018-06-25 A meta-analysis of the effect of a dexamethasone intravitreal implant versus intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment for diabetic macular edema He, Ye Ren, Xin-jun Hu, Bo-jie Lam, Wai-Ching Li, Xiao-rong BMC Ophthalmol Research Article BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness and safety of dexamethasone (DEX) implant and intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment for diabetic macular edema (DME). METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov website and Cochrane Library databases were comprehensively searched for studies comparing DEX implant with anti-VEGF in patients with DME. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central subfield thickness (CST) and adverse events were extracted from the final eligible studies. Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3 for Mac was used to analyze the data and GRADE profiler were used to access the quality of outcomes. RESULTS: Based on four randomized clinical trials assessing a total of 521 eyes, the DEX implant can achieve visual acuity improvement for DME at rates similar to those achieved via anti-VEGF treatment (mean difference [MD] = − 0.43, P = 0.35), with superior anatomic outcomes at 6 months (MD = − 86.71 μm, P = 0.02), while requiring fewer injections, in comparison to anti-VEGF treatment. Although the mean reduction in CST did not showed significant difference at 12 months (MD = − 33.77 μm, P = 0.21), the significant in BCVA from baseline to 12 months supported the anti-VEGF treatment (MD = − 3.26, P < 0.00001). No statistically significant differences in terms of the serious adverse events. However, use of the DEX implant has higher risk of intraocular pressure elevation and cataract than anti-VEGF treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with anti-VEGF, DEX implant improved anatomical outcomes significantly. However, this did not translate to improved visual acuity, which may be due to the progression of cataract. Therefore, the DEX implant may be recommended as a first chioce for select cases, such as for pseudophakic eyes, anti-VEGF-resistant eyes, or patients reluctant to receive intravitreal injections frequently. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12886-018-0779-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-05-21 /pmc/articles/PMC5963018/ /pubmed/29784048 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-018-0779-1 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
He, Ye
Ren, Xin-jun
Hu, Bo-jie
Lam, Wai-Ching
Li, Xiao-rong
A meta-analysis of the effect of a dexamethasone intravitreal implant versus intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment for diabetic macular edema
title A meta-analysis of the effect of a dexamethasone intravitreal implant versus intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment for diabetic macular edema
title_full A meta-analysis of the effect of a dexamethasone intravitreal implant versus intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment for diabetic macular edema
title_fullStr A meta-analysis of the effect of a dexamethasone intravitreal implant versus intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment for diabetic macular edema
title_full_unstemmed A meta-analysis of the effect of a dexamethasone intravitreal implant versus intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment for diabetic macular edema
title_short A meta-analysis of the effect of a dexamethasone intravitreal implant versus intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment for diabetic macular edema
title_sort meta-analysis of the effect of a dexamethasone intravitreal implant versus intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment for diabetic macular edema
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5963018/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29784048
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-018-0779-1
work_keys_str_mv AT heye ametaanalysisoftheeffectofadexamethasoneintravitrealimplantversusintravitrealantivascularendothelialgrowthfactortreatmentfordiabeticmacularedema
AT renxinjun ametaanalysisoftheeffectofadexamethasoneintravitrealimplantversusintravitrealantivascularendothelialgrowthfactortreatmentfordiabeticmacularedema
AT hubojie ametaanalysisoftheeffectofadexamethasoneintravitrealimplantversusintravitrealantivascularendothelialgrowthfactortreatmentfordiabeticmacularedema
AT lamwaiching ametaanalysisoftheeffectofadexamethasoneintravitrealimplantversusintravitrealantivascularendothelialgrowthfactortreatmentfordiabeticmacularedema
AT lixiaorong ametaanalysisoftheeffectofadexamethasoneintravitrealimplantversusintravitrealantivascularendothelialgrowthfactortreatmentfordiabeticmacularedema
AT heye metaanalysisoftheeffectofadexamethasoneintravitrealimplantversusintravitrealantivascularendothelialgrowthfactortreatmentfordiabeticmacularedema
AT renxinjun metaanalysisoftheeffectofadexamethasoneintravitrealimplantversusintravitrealantivascularendothelialgrowthfactortreatmentfordiabeticmacularedema
AT hubojie metaanalysisoftheeffectofadexamethasoneintravitrealimplantversusintravitrealantivascularendothelialgrowthfactortreatmentfordiabeticmacularedema
AT lamwaiching metaanalysisoftheeffectofadexamethasoneintravitrealimplantversusintravitrealantivascularendothelialgrowthfactortreatmentfordiabeticmacularedema
AT lixiaorong metaanalysisoftheeffectofadexamethasoneintravitrealimplantversusintravitrealantivascularendothelialgrowthfactortreatmentfordiabeticmacularedema