抗血管内皮生长因子药物与激光光凝术治疗增殖性糖尿病视网膜病变的比较:一项系统评价和个体参与者数据荟萃分析

Anti-VEGF drugs compared with laser photocoagulation for the treatment of proliferative diabetic retinopathy: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

作者信息

Simmonds Mark, Llewellyn Alexis, Walker Ruth, Fulbright Helen, Walton Matthew, Hodgson Rob, Bojke Laura, Stewart Lesley, Dias Sofia, Rush Thomas, Figueira João Pereira, Sivaprasad Sobha, Lawrenson John G, Peto Tunde, Steel David

机构信息

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.

Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.

出版信息

Health Technol Assess. 2025 Apr 2:1-75. doi: 10.3310/MJYP6578.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Proliferative diabetic retinopathy is a major cause of sight loss in people with diabetes, with a high risk of vitreous haemorrhage, tractional retinal detachment and other complications. Panretinal photocoagulation is the primary established treatment for proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drugs are used to treat various eye conditions and may be beneficial for people with proliferative diabetic retinopathy.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy and safety of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy for the treatment of proliferative diabetic retinopathy when compared to panretinal photocoagulation.

METHODS

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (alone or in combination) to panretinal photocoagulation in people with proliferative diabetic retinopathy. The database searches were updated in May 2023. Trials where the primary focus was treatment of macular oedema or vitreous haemorrhage were excluded. Key outcomes were best corrected visual acuity, diabetic macular oedema and vitreous haemorrhage. Individual participant data were obtained and analysed for three large, high-quality trials in combination with published data from other trials. Network meta-analyses of best corrected visual acuity and meta-analyses of other outcomes combined individual participant data with published data from other trials; regression analyses against patient covariates used just the individual participant data.

RESULTS

Twelve trials were included: one of aflibercept, five of bevacizumab and six of ranibizumab. Individual participant data were available from 1 aflibercept and 2 ranibizumab trials, representing 624 patients (33% of the total). When considered together, anti-vascular endothelial growth factors produced a modest, but not clinically meaningful, benefit over panretinal photocoagulation in best corrected visual acuity, after 1 year of follow-up (mean difference in logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution -0.116, 95% credible interval -0.183 to -0.038). There was no clear evidence of a difference in effectiveness between the anti-vascular endothelial growth factors. The benefit of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor appears to decline over time. Analysis of the individual participant data trials suggested that anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy may be more effective in people with poorer visual acuity, in those who have vitreous haemorrhage and, possibly, in people with poorer vision generally. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor was superior to panretinal photocoagulation at preventing macular oedema after 1 year (relative risk 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.28 to 0.83) and possibly at preventing vitreous haemorrhage (relative risk 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.47 to 1.10). Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor reduced the incidence of retinal detachment when compared to panretinal photocoagulation (relative risk 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.22 to 0.77). Data on other adverse events were generally too limited to identify any differences between anti-vascular endothelial growth factor and panretinal photocoagulation.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor has no clinically meaningful benefit over panretinal photocoagulation for preserving visual acuity. However, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy appears to delay or prevent progression to macular oedema and vitreous haemorrhage. The possibility that anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy may be more effective in patients with poorer health and poorer vision merits further clinical investigation. The long-term effectiveness and safety of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment are unclear, particularly as additional panretinal photocoagulation and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment will be required over time.

FUNDING

This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR132948.

摘要

背景

增殖性糖尿病视网膜病变是糖尿病患者视力丧失的主要原因,具有玻璃体积血、牵拉性视网膜脱离和其他并发症的高风险。全视网膜光凝是增殖性糖尿病视网膜病变的主要既定治疗方法。抗血管内皮生长因子药物用于治疗各种眼部疾病,可能对增殖性糖尿病视网膜病变患者有益。

目的

探讨与全视网膜光凝相比,抗血管内皮生长因子治疗增殖性糖尿病视网膜病变的疗效和安全性。

方法

对比较抗血管内皮生长因子(单独或联合使用)与全视网膜光凝治疗增殖性糖尿病视网膜病变患者的随机对照试验进行系统评价和网状Meta分析。数据库检索于2023年5月更新。排除主要关注黄斑水肿或玻璃体积血治疗的试验。关键结局为最佳矫正视力、糖尿病性黄斑水肿和玻璃体积血。获取并分析了三项大型高质量试验的个体参与者数据,并结合其他试验的已发表数据。最佳矫正视力的网状Meta分析和其他结局的Meta分析将个体参与者数据与其他试验的已发表数据相结合;针对患者协变量的回归分析仅使用个体参与者数据。

结果

纳入12项试验:1项阿柏西普试验、5项贝伐单抗试验和6项雷珠单抗试验。可获得1项阿柏西普试验和2项雷珠单抗试验的个体参与者数据,共624例患者(占总数的33%)。综合考虑,随访1年后,抗血管内皮生长因子在最佳矫正视力方面比全视网膜光凝产生了适度但无临床意义的益处(最小分辨角对数的平均差异为-0.116,95%可信区间为-0.183至-0.038)。没有明确证据表明抗血管内皮生长因子之间在有效性上存在差异。抗血管内皮生长因子的益处似乎随时间下降。个体参与者数据试验的分析表明,抗血管内皮生长因子治疗可能对视力较差、有玻璃体积血的患者以及一般视力较差的患者更有效。抗血管内皮生长因子在预防1年后黄斑水肿方面优于全视网膜光凝(相对危险度0.48,95%置信区间0.28至0.83)。在预防玻璃体积血方面可能也更优(相对危险度0.72,95%置信区间0.47至1.10)。与全视网膜光凝相比,抗血管内皮生长因子降低了视网膜脱离的发生率(相对危险度0.41,95%置信区间0.22至0.77)。关于其他不良事件的数据通常过于有限,无法确定抗血管内皮生长因子与全视网膜光凝之间的任何差异。

结论

在保留视力方面,抗血管内皮生长因子与全视网膜光凝相比没有临床意义上的益处。然而,抗血管内皮生长因子治疗似乎可延迟或预防进展为黄斑水肿和玻璃体积血。抗血管内皮生长因子治疗在健康状况较差和视力较差的患者中可能更有效的可能性值得进一步临床研究。抗血管内皮生长因子治疗的长期有效性和安全性尚不清楚,特别是随着时间的推移需要额外的全视网膜光凝和抗血管内皮生长因子治疗。

资助

本文介绍了由英国国家卫生与保健研究所(NIHR)卫生技术评估计划资助的独立研究,资助编号为NIHR132948。

本文引用的文献

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索