Braithwaite Tasanee, Nanji Afshan A, Lindsley Kristina, Greenberg Paul B
Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, 162 City Road, London, UK, EC1V 2PD.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 May 1;2014(5):CD007325. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007325.pub3.
Central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) is a relatively common retinal vascular disorder in which macular oedema may develop, with a consequent reduction in visual acuity. Until recently there has been no treatment of proven benefit, but growing evidence supports the use of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents.
To investigate the effectiveness and safety of anti-VEGF therapies for the treatment of macular oedema secondary to CRVO.
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE (January 1950 to October 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to October 2013), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to October 2013), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (January 1937 to October 2013), OpenGrey, OpenSIGLE (January 1950 to October 2013), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en) and Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S). There were no language or date restrictions in the electronic search for trials. The electronic databases and clinical trials registers were last searched on 29th October 2013.
We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared intravitreal anti-VEGF agents of any dose or duration to sham injection or no treatment. We focused on studies that included individuals of any age or gender and a minimum of six months follow-up.
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with a gain in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline of greater than or equal to 15 letters (3 lines) on the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of participants with a loss of 15 letters or more of BCVA, the mean change from baseline BCVA, the mean change in central retinal thickness (CRT), the number and type of complications or adverse outcomes, and the number of additional interventions administered. Where available, we also presented quality of life and economic data.
We found six RCTs that met the inclusion criteria after independent and duplicate review of the search results. These RCTs included 937 participants and compared outcomes at six months to sham injection for four anti-VEGF agents: aflibercept (VEGF Trap-Eye, Eylea), bevacizumab (Avastin), pegaptanib sodium (Macugen) and ranibizumab (Lucentis). Three trials were conducted in Norway, Sweden and the USA, and three trials were multicentre, one including centres in the USA, Canada, India, Israel, Argentina and Columbia, a second including centres in the USA, Australia, France, Germany, Israel, and Spain, and a third including centres in Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Australia, Japan, Singapore and South Korea. We performed meta-analysis on three key visual outcomes, using data from up to six trials. High-quality evidence from six trials revealed that participants receiving intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment were 2.71 times more likely to gain at least 15 letters of visual acuity at six months compared to participants treated with sham injections (risk ratio (RR) 2.71; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 2.10 to 3.49). High-quality evidence from five trials suggested anti-VEGF treatment was associated with an 80% lower risk of losing at least 15 letters of visual acuity at six months compared to sham injection (RR 0.20; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.34). Moderate-quality evidence from three trials (481 participants) revealed that the mean reduction from baseline to six months in central retinal thickness was 267.4 µm (95% CI 211.4 µm to 323.4 µm) greater in participants treated with anti-VEGF than in participants treated with sham. The meta-analyses demonstrate that treatment with anti-VEGF is associated with a clinically meaningful gain in vision at six months. One trial demonstrated sustained benefit at 12 months compared to sham. No significant ocular or systemic safety concerns were identified in this time period.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to no treatment, repeated intravitreal injection of anti-VEGF agents in eyes with CRVO macular oedema improved visual outcomes at six months. All agents were relatively well tolerated with a low incidence of adverse effects in the short term. Future trials should address the relative efficacy and safety of the anti-VEGF agents and other treatments, including intravitreal corticosteroids, for longer-term outcomes.
视网膜中央静脉阻塞(CRVO)是一种相对常见的视网膜血管疾病,可导致黄斑水肿,进而导致视力下降。直到最近,尚无经证实有效的治疗方法,但越来越多的证据支持使用抗血管内皮生长因子(anti-VEGF)药物。
研究抗VEGF疗法治疗CRVO继发黄斑水肿的有效性和安全性。
我们检索了Cochrane系统评价数据库(CENTRAL,其中包含Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)和Cochrane眼科与视觉组试验注册库)(2013年第10期《Cochrane图书馆》)、Ovid MEDLINE(1950年1月至2013年10月)、EMBASE(1980年1月至2013年10月)、拉丁美洲和加勒比健康科学文献数据库(LILACS)(1982年1月至2013年10月)、护理学与健康相关学科累积索引数据库(CINAHL)(1937年1月至2013年10月)、OpenGrey、OpenSIGLE(1950年1月至2013年10月)、对照试验元注册库(mRCT)(www.controlled-trials.com)、ClinicalTrials.gov(www.clinicaltrials.gov)、世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)(www.who.int/ictrp/search/en)以及科学网会议论文被引频次索引数据库(CPCI-S)。电子检索试验时无语言或日期限制。电子数据库和临床试验注册库的最后检索时间为2013年10月29日。
我们纳入了比较任何剂量或疗程的玻璃体内注射抗VEGF药物与假注射或不治疗的随机对照试验(RCT)。我们重点关注纳入任何年龄或性别的个体且随访至少6个月的研究。
两位综述作者独立评估试验质量并提取数据。主要结局是在糖尿病视网膜病变早期治疗研究(ETDRS)视力表上,最佳矫正视力(BCVA)较基线提高大于或等于15个字母(3行)的参与者比例。次要结局包括BCVA下降15个字母或更多的参与者比例、BCVA较基线的平均变化、视网膜中央厚度(CRT)的平均变化、并发症或不良结局的数量及类型,以及额外干预措施的实施数量。如有可用数据,我们还呈现了生活质量和经济数据。
在对检索结果进行独立和重复审查后发现6项符合纳入标准的RCT。这些RCT共纳入937名参与者,比较了4种抗VEGF药物(阿柏西普(VEGF Trap-Eye,Eylea)、贝伐单抗(Avastin)、聚乙二醇化重组人血管内皮抑制素(Macugen)和雷珠单抗(Lucentis))与假注射在6个月时的结局。3项试验在挪威、瑞典和美国进行,3项试验为多中心试验,一项包括美国、加拿大、印度、以色列、阿根廷和哥伦比亚的中心,第二项包括美国、澳大利亚、法国、德国、以色列和西班牙的中心,第三项包括奥地利、法国、德国、匈牙利、意大利、拉脱维亚、澳大利亚、日本、新加坡和韩国的中心。我们对三项关键视力结局进行了荟萃分析,使用了多达六项试验的数据。六项试验的高质量证据表明,与接受假注射治疗的参与者相比,接受玻璃体内抗VEGF治疗的参与者在6个月时视力至少提高15个字母的可能性高2.71倍(风险比(RR)2.71;95%置信区间(CI)2.10至3.49)。五项试验的高质量证据表明,与假注射相比,抗VEGF治疗在6个月时视力至少下降15个字母的风险降低80%(RR 0.20;95%CI 0.12至0.34)。三项试验(481名参与者)的中等质量证据表明,与接受假注射治疗的参与者相比,接受抗VEGF治疗的参与者从基线到六个月视网膜中央厚度的平均减少量多267.4 µm(95%CI 211.4 µm至323.4 µm)。荟萃分析表明,抗VEGF治疗与6个月时临床上有意义的视力改善相关。一项试验表明,与假注射相比,12个月时仍有持续获益。在此期间未发现明显的眼部或全身安全性问题。
与不治疗相比,在患有CRVO黄斑水肿的眼中反复玻璃体内注射抗VEGF药物可改善6个月时的视力结局。所有药物耐受性相对良好,短期内不良反应发生率较低。未来的试验应探讨抗VEGF药物与其他治疗方法(包括玻璃体内注射皮质类固醇)在长期结局方面的相对疗效和安全性。