糖尿病黄斑水肿的抗血管内皮生长因子单一疗法与抗血管内皮生长因子和类固醇联合疗法:一项 Meta 分析。

IF 0.5 Q4 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Justin Grad, Amin Hatamnejad, Rohan Dadak, Simrat Sodhi, Niveditha Pattathil, Netan Choudhry
{"title":"糖尿病黄斑水肿的抗血管内皮生长因子单一疗法与抗血管内皮生长因子和类固醇联合疗法:一项 Meta 分析。","authors":"Justin Grad, Amin Hatamnejad, Rohan Dadak, Simrat Sodhi, Niveditha Pattathil, Netan Choudhry","doi":"10.1177/24741264241280597","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> 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). <b>Methods</b>: 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. <b>Results:</b> 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; <i>P</i> = .002; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 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; <i>P</i> = .005; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 78%) and with a significantly lower risk for intraocular pressure-related adverse events (AEs) (risk ratio, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.15-0.46; <i>P</i> ≤ .001; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 0%). The risk for cataract-related AEs was not significantly different between groups (<i>P</i> = .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 (<i>P</i> = .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; <i>P</i> = .02; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 0%). <b>Conclusions:</b> 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":17919,"journal":{"name":"Journal of VitreoRetinal Diseases","volume":" ","pages":"24741264241280597"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11556321/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Anti-VEGF Monotherapy vs Anti-VEGF and Steroid Combination Therapy for Diabetic Macular Edema: A Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Justin Grad, Amin Hatamnejad, Rohan Dadak, Simrat Sodhi, Niveditha Pattathil, Netan Choudhry\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/24741264241280597\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> 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). <b>Methods</b>: 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. <b>Results:</b> 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; <i>P</i> = .002; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 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; <i>P</i> = .005; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 78%) and with a significantly lower risk for intraocular pressure-related adverse events (AEs) (risk ratio, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.15-0.46; <i>P</i> ≤ .001; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 0%). The risk for cataract-related AEs was not significantly different between groups (<i>P</i> = .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 (<i>P</i> = .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; <i>P</i> = .02; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 0%). <b>Conclusions:</b> 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17919,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of VitreoRetinal Diseases\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"24741264241280597\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11556321/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of VitreoRetinal Diseases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/24741264241280597\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of VitreoRetinal Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/24741264241280597","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介比较抗血管内皮生长因子(anti-VEGF)单一疗法与抗血管内皮生长因子和类固醇联合疗法对糖尿病黄斑水肿(DME)患者的安全性和有效性。方法:对2005年1月至2022年12月期间的文献进行了系统检索。纳入了 16 项用英语发表的随机对照试验 (RCT),这些试验报告了单一疗法和联合疗法对 DME 患者的疗效或安全性。结果:16项随机对照试验共纳入1166只眼睛。在最终随访时,单一疗法明显提高了最佳矫正视力(BCVA)(加权平均差 [WMD],-0.04 logMAR;95% CI,-0.07 至 -0.02;P = .002;I 2 = 0%)。最终观察结果显示,各组间的 BCVA 变化无明显差异。单药治疗与最终随访时视网膜厚度变化明显较小(WMD,37.63 μm;95% CI,11.67-63.60;P = .005;I 2 = 78%)和眼内压相关不良事件(AEs)风险明显较低(风险比,0.27;95% CI,0.15-0.46;P ≤ .001;I 2 = 0%)相关。白内障相关不良事件的风险在组间无明显差异(P = .06)。治疗无效患者的结果类似。在治疗耐药患者中,各组在最终随访时视网膜厚度的变化相似(P = .14),但在 2 项研究中,单一疗法组发生白内障相关不良反应的风险显著较低(风险比为 0.09;95% CI 为 0.01-0.66;P = .02;I 2 = 0%)。结论:尽管联合疗法与视网膜厚度的更大变化相关,但 BCVA 的变化相似。不过,联合疗法的并发症有所增加。治疗无效患者和治疗耐药患者的大多数结果相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信