Ford John A, Shyangdan Deepson, Uthman Olalekan A, Lois Noemi, Waugh Norman
Department of Population Health and Primary Care, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Warwick Evidence, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
BMJ Open. 2014 Jul 23;4(7):e005292. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005292.
To indirectly compare aflibercept, bevacizumab, dexamethasone, ranibizumab and triamcinolone for treatment of macular oedema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion using a network meta-analysis (NMA).
The following databases were searched from January 2005 to March 2013: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-process, EMBASE; CDSR, DARE, HTA, NHSEED, CENTRAL; Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science.
Only randomised controlled trials assessing patients with macular oedema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion were included. Studies had to report either proportions of patients gaining ≥3 lines, losing ≥3 lines, or the mean change in best corrected visual acuity. Two authors screened titles and abstracts, extracted data and undertook risk of bias assessment. Bayesian NMA was used to compare the different interventions.
Seven studies, assessing five drugs, were judged to be sufficiently comparable for inclusion in the NMA. For the proportions of patients gaining ≥3 lines, triamcinolone 4 mg, ranibizumab 0.5 mg, bevacizumab 1.25 mg and aflibercept 2 mg had a higher probability of being more effective than sham and dexamethasone. A smaller proportion of patients treated with triamcinolone 4 mg, ranibizumab 0.5 mg or aflibercept 2 mg lost ≥3 lines of vision compared to those treated with sham. Patients treated with triamcinolone 4 mg, ranibizumab 0.5 mg, bevacizumab 1.25 mg and aflibercept 2 mg had a higher probability of improvement in the mean best corrected visual acuity compared to those treated with sham injections.
We found no evidence of differences between ranibizumab, aflibercept, bevacizumab and triamcinolone for improving vision. The antivascular endothelial growth factors (VEGFs) are likely to be favoured because they are not associated with steroid-induced cataract formation. Aflibercept may be preferred by clinicians because it might require fewer injections.
Not registered.
采用网状Meta分析(NMA)间接比较阿柏西普、贝伐单抗、地塞米松、雷珠单抗和曲安奈德治疗视网膜中央静脉阻塞继发黄斑水肿的疗效。
NMA。数据来源:检索了以下数据库,检索时间为2005年1月至2013年3月:MEDLINE、MEDLINE在研数据库、EMBASE;CDSR、DARE、HTA、NHSEED、CENTRAL;科学引文索引和会议论文引文索引 - 科学版。
仅纳入评估视网膜中央静脉阻塞继发黄斑水肿患者的随机对照试验。研究必须报告视力提高≥3行、视力下降≥3行的患者比例,或最佳矫正视力的平均变化。两位作者筛选标题和摘要,提取数据并进行偏倚风险评估。采用贝叶斯NMA比较不同干预措施。
七项评估五种药物的研究被判定具有足够的可比性,可纳入NMA。对于视力提高≥3行的患者比例,4mg曲安奈德、0.5mg雷珠单抗、1.25mg贝伐单抗和2mg阿柏西普比假手术和地塞米松更有效的可能性更高。与接受假手术治疗的患者相比,接受4mg曲安奈德、0.5mg雷珠单抗或2mg阿柏西普治疗的患者视力下降≥3行的比例更小。与接受假注射治疗的患者相比,接受4mg曲安奈德、0.5mg雷珠单抗、1.25mg贝伐单抗和2mg阿柏西普治疗的患者最佳矫正视力平均改善的可能性更高。
我们没有发现雷珠单抗、阿柏西普、贝伐单抗和曲安奈德在改善视力方面存在差异的证据。抗血管内皮生长因子(VEGF)可能更受青睐,因为它们与类固醇诱导的白内障形成无关。阿柏西普可能更受临床医生青睐,因为它可能需要更少的注射次数。
未注册。