Article

Safety monitoring with ocular anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies

The British journal of ophthalmology (Impact Factor: 2.81). 01/2009; 92(12):1573-4. DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2008.137604
Source: PubMed
0 Followers
 · 
55 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Purpose: To assess the effect and safety of using single intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) versus intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA) and grid laser photocoagulation (GLP), or a combination of IVB and IVTA for treatment of retinal vein occlusion (RVO)-associated macular edema, mainly exploring its effects on visual acuity (VA) and central macular thickness (CMT). Methods: Eligible studies were identified via searching databases, including Medline (PubMed), Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, without status or other limits up to June 2012. Selection Criteria: We include randomized clinical control trials comparing 1.25 mg IVB injection with other treatment strategies, including a 4 mg IVTA injection or GLP or a combination of 1.25 mg IVB and 2 mg IVTA injection, for patients with RVO-associated macular edema. Eligible studies should report both VA and CMT outcomes, and with a minimum follow-up of 4 weeks. Results: Two authors assessed the trial quality and extracted data independently. Main Results: Four studies were included in this study. Comparing to IVTA and GLP, IVB was more effective in improving VA at 1 month (weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.10 to -0.05; P<0.00001), 3 months (WMD, -0.24; 95% CI, -0.28 to -0.20; P<0.00001), and 6 months during the follow-up (WMD, -0.17; 95% CI, -0.21 to -0.13; P<0.00001) in patients with RVO-associated macular edema. There was no statistical significance in reducing CMT values throughout the periods. Comparing to IVB/IVTA combination, VA improvement became statistically significant at 3 months of follow-up (WMD, -0.26; 95% CI, -0.29 to -0.23; P<0.00001), while no statistical significance was found in both VA value at 1 month of follow-up and CMT values throughout the periods. The occurrence of intraocular pressure (IOP) was much lower in IVB groups. Conclusions: IVB is effective in treating patients with RVO-associated macular edema; especially if it has distinct effects, of which, VA could be improved to the utmost extent as well as by the earliest of time. IVB is also effective in decreasing CMT, but without any significant advantages over IVTA or GLP. Furthermore, IVB seems to be safer than IVTA in consideration of IOP increase.
    Journal of ocular pharmacology and therapeutics: the official journal of the Association for Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics 06/2013; 29(8). DOI:10.1089/jop.2013.0023 · 1.42 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Purpose: To compare the effects of intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA) and intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) injections for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME). Methods: A literature search was conducted using PUBMED, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science and the Chinese Biomedical Database. Pooled mean differences (MDs) for changes in visual acuity (VA) and central macular thickness (CMT) were calculated between groups receiving a single TA (4 mg) and bevacizumab (1.25 or 1.5 mg) from baseline to 4, 8, 12 and 24 weeks after treatment, respectively. Changes in intraocular pressure (IOP) were calculated between the two groups from baseline to 4, 8 and 12 weeks after treatment. Results: Eight trials (n = 434 eyes) comparing the efficacy of IVTA with IVB were included in the meta-analysis. Patients in the IVTA group demonstrated significant post-treatment improvement in VA compared with those in the IVB group at 4 (MD = -0.08; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.12 to -0.03; p = 0.0008), 8 (MD = -0.15; 95% CI: -0.20 to -0.11; p < 0.00001), 12 (MD = -0.11; 95% CI: -0.15 to -0.06; p < 0.0001) and 24 (MD = -0.05; 95% CI: -0.10 to -0.01; p = 0.02) weeks. After receiving IVTA, MDs in CMT decreased significantly at 4 weeks (MD = -40.05 μm; 95% CI: -75.29 to -4.81; p = 0.03). No significant differences in CMT were seen between the two groups at 8, 12 and 24 weeks post-treatment. Fluctuations of IOP were within normal range for both groups throughout the entire observation period. Conclusions: Results of this meta-analysis suggest that IVTA is more effective for improving VA in DME. However, the CMT reduction with IVTA was unsustainable. Additional well-designed studies are needed to further investigate optimal interventions.
    Current eye research 02/2013; DOI:10.3109/02713683.2013.767351 · 1.66 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This systematic review assesses the effectiveness of intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) versus a comparison group in the treatment of branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO)-associated macular edema, and explores its effects on visual acuity (VA) and central macular thickness (CMT). The authors searched the following databases: Medline (1950-October week 3, 2011), The Cochrane Library (Issue 10, 2011), EMBASE (up to 24 October 2011), and the TRIP Database (up to 24 October 2011), using no language or other limits. Trials that were included consisted of patients with BRVO-associated macular edema, those comparing a 1.25 mg IVB injection with a comparison group, those reporting both VA and CMT outcomes, and those having a minimum follow-up of 4 weeks. In the four trials comparing IVB with a comparison group, IVB was effective in improving VA and CMT values in the long-term (12 weeks) in patients with BRVO-associated macular edema. Furthermore, statistically significant improvements in VA in the short-term (4 weeks) could also be seen. Clinicians should use this review as an indicator that IVB is effective in improving VA and CMT values in the long-term in patients with BRVO-associated macular edema. It is important to note, however, that statistically significant improvements in VA in the short term could be seen. This review's main aim was to serve as an evidence base for potentially using other modalities, such as IVB, which seems to be reserved for certain cases.
    Albrecht von Graæes Archiv für Ophthalmologie 04/2012; 250(6):787-93. DOI:10.1007/s00417-012-2016-6 · 2.33 Impact Factor