Justino Leonardo B, Justino Gustavo B, Graffunder Fabrissio P, Binotti William W, Khodor Ali, Caranfa Jonathan T
Division of Medicine, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil.
Division of Ophthalmology, Governador Celso Ramos Hospital, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil.
Clin Ophthalmol. 2024 Dec 10;18:3679-3690. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S487055. eCollection 2024.
To assess efficacy and safety of brolucizumab versus aflibercept in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME).
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis (TSA). We searched Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and PubMed databases from inception to February 16, 2024 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing brolucizumab with aflibercept in patients with DME and reporting any of the visual, anatomical and safety outcomes of interest. We conducted a TSA of safety outcomes to assess the risk of statistical errors.
1253 patients (1253 eyes) from 3 RCTs were included, of whom 57% received brolucizumab and 43% received aflibercept. Mean follow-up ranged from 52 to 100 weeks. Brolucizumab was non-inferior to aflibercept when comparing the mean change of best-corrected visual acuity from baseline (least squares mean difference [LSMD] 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.37 to 1.95; p = 0.73). Change in central subfield thickness was significantly greater in the brolucizumab group compared with aflibercept (LSMD -24.5 μm; 95% CI -48.2 to -0.7 μm; p < 0.05). Incidence of adverse events of special interest (AESIs) (risk ratio [RR] 1.7; p = 0.08) and incidence of ≥1 ocular adverse events (AEs) (RR 0.95; p = 0.45) were not significantly different between groups.
Brolucizumab was non-inferior in functional outcomes and was superior to aflibercept in anatomical parameters. Ocular AEs and AESIs were numerically low and not statistically significant. Our findings underscore the importance of new RCTs powered to assess safety outcomes in order to suggest brolucizumab as an alternative to the treatment of DME.
评估布罗卢izumab与阿柏西普治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿(DME)患者的疗效和安全性。
我们进行了一项采用序贯试验分析(TSA)的系统评价和荟萃分析。我们检索了Embase、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库和PubMed数据库,从数据库建立至2024年2月16日,以查找比较布罗卢izumab与阿柏西普治疗DME患者的随机对照试验(RCT),并报告任何感兴趣的视力、解剖学和安全性结果。我们对安全性结果进行了TSA,以评估统计误差风险。
纳入了来自3项RCT的1253例患者(1253只眼),其中57%接受布罗卢izumab治疗,43%接受阿柏西普治疗。平均随访时间为52至100周。比较最佳矫正视力从基线的平均变化时,布罗卢izumab不劣于阿柏西普(最小二乘均值差[LSMD]0.29;95%置信区间[CI]-1.37至1.95;p = 0.73)。与阿柏西普相比,布罗卢izumab组中心子野厚度的变化显著更大(LSMD -24.5μm;95%CI -48.2至-0.7μm;p < 0.05)。特殊关注不良事件(AESIs)的发生率(风险比[RR]1.7;p = 0.08)和≥1次眼部不良事件(AEs)的发生率(RR 0.95;p = 0.45)在两组之间无显著差异。
布罗卢izumab在功能结局方面不劣于阿柏西普,在解剖学参数方面优于阿柏西普。眼部AEs和AESIs的数值较低且无统计学意义。我们的研究结果强调了开展有足够效力评估安全性结果的新RCT的重要性,以便将布罗卢izumab作为DME治疗的替代方案。