Wang Wei, Zhang Xiulan
Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
PLoS One. 2014 Oct 16;9(10):e109744. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109744. eCollection 2014.
To assess whether the incidence of systemic adverse events differs between those who used bevacizumab and those who used ranibizumab in the treatment of age-related macular degeneration (AMD).
A systematic literature search was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of intravitreal bevacizumab with the use of ranibizumab in AMD patients. Results were expressed as risk ratios (RRs) with accompanying 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The data were pooled using the fixed-effect or random-effect model according to the heterogeneity present.
Four RCTs were included in the final meta-analysis. Overall, the quality of the evidence was high. There were 2,613 treated patients: 1,291 treated with bevacizumab and 1,322 treated with ranibicizumab. No significant differences between bevacizumab use and ranizumab use were found in terms of the incidence of death from all causes, arteriothrombotic events, stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, vascular death, venous thrombotic events, and hypertension, with the pooled RRs being 1.11 (0.77, 1.61), 1.03 (0.69,1.55), 0.84 (0.39,1.80), 0.97 (0.48, 1.96), 1.24 (0.63, 2.44), 2.38 (0.94, 6.04), and 1.02 (0.29, 3.62), respectively.
The meta-analysis shows that both treatments are comparably safe. However, the findings from our study must be confirmed in future research via well-designed cohort or intervention studies because of the limited number of studies.
评估在治疗年龄相关性黄斑变性(AMD)时,使用贝伐单抗的患者与使用雷珠单抗的患者全身不良事件的发生率是否存在差异。
进行系统的文献检索,以确定比较玻璃体内注射贝伐单抗与雷珠单抗治疗AMD患者的随机对照试验(RCT)。结果以风险比(RR)及相应的95%置信区间(CI)表示。根据存在的异质性,使用固定效应或随机效应模型对数据进行汇总。
四项RCT纳入最终的荟萃分析。总体而言,证据质量较高。共有2613例接受治疗的患者:1291例接受贝伐单抗治疗,1322例接受雷珠单抗治疗。在全因死亡、动脉血栓形成事件、中风、非致命性心肌梗死、血管性死亡、静脉血栓形成事件和高血压的发生率方面,贝伐单抗组与雷珠单抗组之间未发现显著差异,汇总RR分别为1.11(0.77,1.61)、1.03(0.69,1.55)、0.84(0.39,1.80)、0.97(0.48,1.96)、1.24(0.63,2.44)、2.38(0.94,6.04)和1.02(0.29,3.62)。
荟萃分析表明两种治疗方法安全性相当。然而,由于研究数量有限,本研究结果必须在未来通过精心设计的队列研究或干预研究加以证实。