Biorheological features of some soft tissues under a surgical tissue expansion procedure.

G. Fu,Y. Zeng,Z. Xia,J. Lee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-355X(98)00005-5

1997-07-01

Biorheology

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for proliferative diabetic retinopathy

Maria José Martinez-Zapata,Ignacio Salvador,Arturo J Martí-Carvajal,José I Pijoan,José A Cordero,Dmitry Ponomarev,Ashleigh Kernohan,Ivan Solà,Gianni Virgili

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008721.pub3

2023-03-20

Abstract:Background: Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) is an advanced complication of diabetic retinopathy that can cause blindness. It consists of the presence of new vessels in the retina and vitreous haemorrhage. Although panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) is the treatment of choice for PDR, it has secondary effects that can affect vision. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF), which produces an inhibition of vascular proliferation, could improve the vision of people with PDR. Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and safety of anti-VEGFs for PDR and summarise any relevant economic evaluations of their use. Search methods: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2022, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP. We did not use any date or language restrictions. We last searched the electronic databases on 1 June 2022. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anti-VEGFs to another active treatment, sham treatment, or no treatment for people with PDR. We also included studies that assessed the combination of anti-VEGFs with other treatments. We excluded studies that used anti-VEGFs in people undergoing vitrectomy. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias (RoB) for all included trials. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or the mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. Main results: We included 15 new studies in this update, bringing the total to 23 RCTs with 1755 participants (2334 eyes). Forty-five per cent of participants were women and 55% were men, with a mean age of 56 years (range 48 to 77 years). The mean glycosylated haemoglobin (Hb1Ac) was 8.45% for the PRP group and 8.25% for people receiving anti-VEGFs alone or in combination. Twelve studies included people with PDR, and participants in 11 studies had high-risk PDR (HRPDR). Twelve studies were of bevacizumab, seven of ranibizumab, one of conbercept, two of pegaptanib, and one of aflibercept. The mean number of participants per RCT was 76 (ranging from 15 to 305). Most studies had an unclear or high RoB, mainly in the blinding of interventions and outcome assessors. A few studies had selective reporting and attrition bias. No study reported loss or gain of 3 or more lines of visual acuity (VA) at 12 months. Anti-VEGFs ± PRP probably increase VA compared with PRP alone (mean difference (MD) -0.08 logMAR, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.04; I2 = 28%; 10 RCTS, 1172 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGFs ± PRP may increase regression of new vessels (MD -4.14 mm2, 95% CI -6.84 to -1.43; I2 = 75%; 4 RCTS, 189 eyes; low-certainty evidence) and probably increase a complete regression of new vessels (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.24; I2 = 46%; 5 RCTS, 405 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGFs ± PRP probably reduce vitreous haemorrhage (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.90; I2 = 0%; 6 RCTS, 1008 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGFs ± PRP may reduce the need for vitrectomy compared with eyes that received PRP alone (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.93; I2 = 43%; 8 RCTs, 1248 eyes; low-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGFs ± PRP may result in little to no difference in the quality of life compared with PRP alone (MD 0.62, 95% CI -3.99 to 5.23; I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 382 participants; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if anti-VEGFs ± PRP compared with PRP alone had an impact on adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). We did not find differences in visual acuity in subgroup analyses comparing the type of anti-VEGFs, the severity of the disease (PDR versus HRPDR), time to follow-up (< 12 months versus 12 or more months), and treatment with anti-VEGFs + PRP versus anti-VEGFs alone. The main reasons for downgrading the certainty of evidence included a high RoB, imprecision, and inconsistency of effect estimates. Authors' conclusions: Anti-VEGFs ± PRP compared with PRP alone probably increase visual acuity, but the degree of improvement is not clinically meaningful. Regarding secondary outcomes, anti-VEGFs ± PRP produce a regression of new vessels, reduce vitreous haemorrhage, and may reduce the need for vitrectomy compared with eyes that received PRP alone. We do not know if anti-VEGFs ± PRP have an impact on the incidence of adverse events and they may have little or no effect on patients' quality of life. Carefully designed and conducted clinical trials are required, assessing the optimal schedule of anti-VEGFs alone compared with PRP, and with a longer follow-up.
Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy as an Alternative or Adjunct to Pan-Retinal Photocoagulation in Treating Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Shuang Gao,Zhongjing Lin,Xi Shen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2020.00849

IF: 5.6

2020-06-05

Frontiers in Pharmacology

Abstract:Aim: To compare anti-vascular growth factor (anti-VEGF) pharmacotherapy with pan-retinal photocoagulation (PRP) for proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR).Method: PubMed, Embase, Medline, the ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were reviewed systemically. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) on anti-VEGF therapy versus PRP or anti-VEGF agent combined with PRP versus PRP for PDR are eligible to be included. Outcome measures were regression and recurrence of neovascularization, change in best corrected vision acuity, development of vitreous hemorrhage, and need for vitrectomy. A meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, United Kingdom).Results: Twelve RCTs with a total of 1026 eyes were identified. The meta-analysis results showed that regression of neovascularization did not vary significantly among different treatment regimens (P=0.06), whereas the recurrence of new vessels was significantly lower in PRP monotherapy (P < 0.00001). The best corrected visual acuity was significantly improved with anti-VEGF monotherapy or in the combined group than in the PRP groups (P < 0.00001, P=0.04, respectively). Odds ratio for post-treatment vitreous hemorrhage and vitrectomy rate between anti-VEGF therapy and PRP were 0.65 (95% confidence interval, 0.45–0.95; P = 0.03), and 0.24 (95% confidence interval, 0.12–0.48; P < 0.0001).Conclusion: Our meta-analysis indicates that anti-VEGF pharmacotherapy is associated with superior visual acuity outcomes and less PDR-related complications. However, there is insufficient evidence to suggest anti-VEGF therapy as an alternative to PRP.

pharmacology & pharmacy
Regression of Neovascularization after Panretinal Photocoagulation Combined with Anti-VEGF Injection for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy—A Review

Maciej Gawęcki,Krzysztof Kiciński,Lorenzo Bianco,Maurizio Battaglia Parodi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14010031

IF: 3.6

2023-12-23

Diagnostics

Abstract:Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) poses a significant therapeutic problem that often results in severe visual loss. Panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) has long been a mainstay treatment for this condition. Conversely, intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy has served as an alternative treatment for PDR. This review aimed to evaluate the effects of PRP combined with anti-VEGF therapy on the regression of neovascularization (NV), including functional outcomes and incidence of complications. The MEDLINE database was searched for articles evaluating regression of NV using a combination of the following terms: "proliferative diabetic retinopathy", "anti-VEGF", "panretinal photocoagulation", and "combined treatment". The search yielded a total of 22 articles. The analysis of their results indicated PRP combined with ant-VEGF therapy as superior over PRP alone in the management of PDR. Combination treatment yields better and faster regression of NV and a lower incidence of serious complications, such as vitreous hemorrhage and the need for pars plana vitrectomy. Nevertheless, complete regression of NV is not achieved in a significant proportion of patients. Further research is needed to establish the most effective schedule for intravitreal injections as an adjunct to PRP. The current literature shows that in some cases, cessation of anti-VEGF injection in combination treatment for PDR can lead to relapse of NV.

medicine, general & internal
Evaluation of Anti-VEGF and Pan-Retinal Photocoagulation Laser Therapies in Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy Patients: A Systematic Review

Namira Putri Imani,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7454/psr.v10i2.1304

2023-08-30

Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research

Abstract:Diabetic retinopathy is a complication of diabetes that is one of the top five causes of blindness in those over 50. The standard treatment is pan-retinal photocoagulation, which is effective but has established side effects. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy becomes an alternative to avoid the side effects caused by laser therapy. This systematic review aims to know the effectiveness of anti-VEGF therapy compared to the pan-retinal photocoagulation laser therapy in patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy. This review was carried out using a systematic review checklist on PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). The articles reviewed were randomized controlled trial articles that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, six articles were selected from a total of 215. Patients who received anti-VEGF medication had better visual acuity (positive values), whereas patients who received laser therapy had poorer visual acuity (negative values). Those results are because the laser directs light towards the retina, damaging photoreceptors and retinal cells as well as reducing visual acuity. On the contrary, anti-VEGF prevents damage to retinal endothelial cells and blood leaks in the vitreous by decreasing VEGF expression and thus resulting in improved visual acuity. Anti-VEGF proved to be a more practical alternative therapy in improving visual acuity than pan-retinal photocoagulation for patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy.
Review of Studies Comparing Panretinal Photocoagulation and Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy in the Treatment of Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy

Thiruvarasu Gunasekaran,Yuarrani Gunasekaran,Pua Tze Hui,Thiruvarasu Gunasekaran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.22471

2022-02-21

Cureus

Abstract:Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is among the leading causes of blindness at the global level. A review of studies between 2015 and 2018 found that about 1.7% of the general population with any type of diabetes mellitus suffered from proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). Since the 1960s, panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) has been the mainstay of treatment for PDR. During this period, PRP has been credited with a significant degree of success and a relatively low complication rate. However, the advent of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy with the beginning of the new millennium provided a treatment modality that was noninferior to PRP. A decade-long period of comparisons and debates between these two treatment modalities repeatedly favored anti-VEGF over PRP, as studies demonstrated that the former provided potentially superior outcomes to PRP. The aim of this review is to briefly discuss and compare the relevant studies and evidence supporting these two treatments.
Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Agents for the Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy: A Review of the Literature

Irini Chatziralli,Anat Loewenstein

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics13081137

IF: 6.525

2021-07-26

Pharmaceutics

Abstract:Background: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is the leading cause of blindness in the working-age population. The purpose of this review is to gather the existing literature regarding the use of the approved anti-vascular endothelial growth (anti-VEGF) agents in the treatment of DR. Methods: A comprehensive literature review in PubMed engine search was performed for articles written in English language up to 1 July 2021, using the keywords “diabetic retinopathy”, “ranibizumab”, “aflibercept”, and “anti-VEGF”. Emphasis was given on pivotal trials and recent robust studies. Results: Intravitreal anti-VEGF agents have been found to significantly improve visual acuity and reduce retinal thickness in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) in a long-term follow-up ranging from 1 to 5 years and are considered the standard-of-care in such patients. Regarding DR, intravitreal anti-VEGF agents provided ≥2-step improvement in DR severity on color fundus photography in about 30–35% of patients with NPDR at baseline, in the majority of clinical trials originally designed to evaluate the efficacy of intravitreal anti-VEGF agents in patients with DME. Protocol S and CLARITY study have firstly reported that intravitreal anti-VEGF agents are non-inferior to panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) in patients with proliferative DR (PDR). However, the use of new imaging modalities, such as optical coherence tomography-angiography and wide-field fluorescein angiography, reveals conflicting results about the impact of anti-VEGF agents on the regression of retinal non-perfusion in patients with DR. Furthermore, one should consider the high “loss to follow-up” rate and its devastating consequences especially in patients with PDR, when deciding to treat the latter with intravitreal anti-VEGF agents alone compared to PRP. In patients with PDR, combination of treatment of intravitreal anti-VEGF agents and PRP has been also supported. Moreover, in the specific case of vitreous hemorrhage or tractional retinal detachment as complications of PDR, intravitreal anti-VEGF agents have been found to be beneficial as an adjunct to pars plana vitrectomy (PPV), most commonly given 3–7 days before PPV, offering reduction in the recurrence of vitreous hemorrhage. Conclusions: There is no general consensus regarding the use of intravitreal anti-VEGF agents in patients with DR. Although anti-VEGF agents are the gold standard in the treatment of DME and seem to improve DR severity, challenges in their use exist and should be taken into account in the decision of treatment, based on an individualized approach.

pharmacology & pharmacy
Laser photocoagulation for proliferative diabetic retinopathy

Jennifer R Evans,Manuele Michelessi,Gianni Virgili

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011234.pub2

2014-11-24

Abstract:Background: Diabetic retinopathy is a complication of diabetes in which high blood sugar levels damage the blood vessels in the retina. Sometimes new blood vessels grow in the retina, and these can have harmful effects; this is known as proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Laser photocoagulation is an intervention that is commonly used to treat diabetic retinopathy, in which light energy is applied to the retina with the aim of stopping the growth and development of new blood vessels, and thereby preserving vision. Objectives: To assess the effects of laser photocoagulation for diabetic retinopathy compared to no treatment or deferred treatment. Search methods: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2014, Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to June 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to June 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 3 June 2014. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where people (or eyes) with diabetic retinopathy were randomly allocated to laser photocoagulation or no treatment or deferred treatment. We excluded trials of lasers that are no longer in routine use. Our primary outcome was the proportion of people who lost 15 or more letters (3 lines) of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) as measured on a logMAR chart at 12 months. We also looked at longer-term follow-up of the primary outcome at two to five years. Secondary outcomes included mean best corrected distance visual acuity, severe visual loss, mean near visual acuity, progression of diabetic retinopathy, quality of life, pain, loss of driving licence, vitreous haemorrhage and retinal detachment. Data collection and analysis: We used standard methods as expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. Two review authors selected studies and extracted data. Main results: We identified a large number of trials of laser photocoagulation of diabetic retinopathy (n = 83) but only five of these studies were eligible for inclusion in the review, i.e. they compared laser photocoagulation with currently available lasers to no (or deferred) treatment. Three studies were conducted in the USA, one study in the UK and one study in Japan. A total of 4786 people (9503 eyes) were included in these studies. The majority of participants in four of these trials were people with proliferative diabetic retinopathy; one trial recruited mainly people with non-proliferative retinopathy. Four of the studies evaluated panretinal photocoagulation with argon laser and one study investigated selective photocoagulation of non-perfusion areas. Three studies compared laser treatment to no treatment and two studies compared laser treatment to deferred laser treatment. All studies were at risk of performance bias because the treatment and control were different and no study attempted to produce a sham treatment. Three studies were considered to be at risk of attrition bias.At 12 months there was little difference between eyes that received laser photocoagulation and those allocated to no treatment (or deferred treatment), in terms of loss of 15 or more letters of visual acuity (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.11; 8926 eyes; 2 RCTs, low quality evidence). Longer term follow-up did not show a consistent pattern, but one study found a 20% reduction in risk of loss of 15 or more letters of visual acuity at five years with laser treatment. Treatment with laser reduced the risk of severe visual loss by over 50% at 12 months (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.86; 9276 eyes; 4 RCTs, moderate quality evidence). There was a beneficial effect on progression of diabetic retinopathy with treated eyes experiencing a 50% reduction in risk of progression of diabetic retinopathy (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.64; 8331 eyes; 4 RCTs, low quality evidence) and a similar reduction in risk of vitreous haemorrhage (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.85; 224 eyes; 2 RCTs, low quality evidence).None of the studies reported near visual acuity or patient-relevant outcomes such as quality of life, pain, loss of driving licence or adverse effects such as retinal detachment.We did not plan any subgroup analyses, but there was a difference in baseline risk in participants with non-proliferative retinopathy compared to those with proliferative retinopathy. With the small number of included studies we could not do a formal subgroup analysis comparing effect in proliferative and non-proliferative retinopathy. Authors' conclusions: This review provides evidence that laser photocoagulation is beneficial in treating proliferative diabetic retinopathy. We judged the evidence to be moderate or low, depending on the outcome. This is partly related to reporting of trials conducted many years ago, after which panretinal photocoagulation has become the mainstay of treatment of proliferative diabetic retinopathy.Future Cochrane Reviews on variations in the laser treatment protocol are planned. Future research on laser photocoagulation should investigate the combination of laser photocoagulation with newer treatments such as anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (anti-VEGFs).
Initial Therapy of Panretinal Photocoagulation vs Anti-VEGF Injection for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy

Amer F. Alsoudi,Karen M. Wai,Euna Koo,Ravi Parikh,Prithvi Mruthyunjaya,Ehsan Rahimy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2024.3283

IF: 8.253

2024-10-18

JAMA Ophthalmology

Abstract:Question How do outcomes differ for proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) treated with panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) first, then anti–vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), compared with anti-VEGF treatment first, followed by PRP? Findings In this cohort study of 1377 matched patients with PDR, risk of vitreous hemorrhage, tractional retinal detachment, or progression to pars plana vitrectomy was higher among those treated with PRP first, then anti-VEGF injections. Meaning While results may be biased by the design limitations of a retrospective cohort study, these findings support the hypothesis that the order of treatment with PRP and anti-VEGF injections should be considered when evaluating patients with PDR, although further studies are needed to investigate optimal treatment order. Importance While combined treatment of anti–vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections plus panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) is a common approach for treating proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) in the clinical practice setting, large randomized clinical trials typically use monotherapy. Subsequently, information is limited as to whether the order of treatment when combining PRP and anti-VEGF injections for PDR affects outcomes. Objective To compare outcomes of patients with PDR treated with PRP and subsequent anti-VEGF injections with outcomes of matched patients treated with anti-VEGF injections and subsequent PRP. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective cohort study used data from January 2003 to January 2024 in the TriNetX aggregated electronic health records network, with data analysis performed in January 2024. Patients with PDR treated with PRP and anti-VEGF injections were eligible for inclusion. Exposures Patients with new PDR diagnoses stratified by therapy with PRP and subsequent anti-VEGF injections or anti-VEGF injections and subsequent PRP. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was the need for pars plana vitrectomy (PPV), defined by Current Procedural Terminology codes 67040 or 67113. The secondary outcome included incidence of PPV, vitreous hemorrhage (VH), or tractional retinal detachment (TRD). Relative risk ratios, relative risk differences, and 95% CIs were all calculated for univariate comparison of the cohorts and the development of primary outcomes after matching. Results Before propensity score matching (PSM), which controlled for baseline demographic characteristics and medical comorbidities, 2167 patients with PDR treated with PRP first and subsequent anti-VEGF injections and 1549 patients with PDR treated with anti-VEGF injections and subsequent PRP were included. Post-PSM, mean (SD) participant age was 63.0 (13.1) years in cohort 1 (PRP and subsequent anti-VEGF injection) and 63.0 (12.4) years in cohort 2 (anti-VEGF injection and subsequent PRP). Of 1377 total participants in each cohort, 641 patients (46.6%) and 663 patients (48.1%) in cohorts 1 and 2 were female, respectively. Treatment with PRP first and subsequent anti-VEGF injection was associated with higher rates of PPV at 5 years compared with patients treated with anti-VEGF injection and subsequent PRP (relative risk [RR], 1.88; 95% CI, 1.55-2.27; risk difference [RD], 8.93%; 95% CI, 6.31%-11.55%; P < .001), with similar associations at 6 months, 1 year, and 3 years. Treatment with PRP and subsequent anti-VEGF injection was associated with higher rates of VH at 5 years (RR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.09-1.80; RD, 6.47%; 95% CI, 1.66%-11.29%; P < .001) and TRD at 5 years (RR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.35-2.53; RD, 4.31%; 95% CI, 2.10%-6.52%; P < .001), with similar findings at 6 months, 1 year, and 3 years compared with patients treated with anti-VEGF injection and subsequent PRP. Conclusions and Relevance In this retrospective cohort study, findings suggest that patients with PDR treated with PRP first then subsequent anti-VEGF injection are more likely to undergo PPV for VH and TRD compared with matched patients treated with anti-VEGF agents first, then PRP. These findings support the need for further investigations to determine if the order of PRP and anti-VEGF injections should be considered when treating patients with PDR.

ophthalmology
Aflibercept 5+PRN with retinal laser photocoagulation is more effective than retinal laser photocoagulation alone and aflibercept 3+PRN with retinal laser photocoagulation in patients with high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema: a 12-month clinical trial

Shuting Li,Yuan Tao,Mengyao Yang,Hui Zhao,Mingwei Si,Wenxuan Cui,Hong Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2024.1286736

IF: 6.055

2024-02-23

Frontiers in Endocrinology

Abstract:Objective: This study aimed to investigate and compare the efficacy and safety of retinal laser photocoagulation (PRP) alone, PRP with aflibercept 3+PRN, and PRP with aflibercept 5+PRN in patients with both high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) and diabetic macular edema (DME). Methods: Overall, 170 patients with high-risk PDR and DME (170 eyes from 170 patients) who visited our ophthalmology clinic from December 2018 to December 2020 were divided into the PRP (n=58), aflibercept 5+PRN with PRP (n=53), and aflibercept 3+PRN with PRP (n= 59) groups. General information, such as age, sex, and eye category, was obtained. Moreover, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), baseline central macular foveal thickness (CFT), microaneurysm (MA), area of neovascularization (NV), area of hard exudate (HE), and cytokine levels in atrial fluid before and after treatment, were assessed. The χ 2 test was used for comparison between groups for statistical data. Analysis of variance was used for the statistical description of measurement data, independent samples were analyzed using Student's t -test, and Student–Newman–Keuls test was used for group comparisons. Differences were considered statistically significant at P < 0.05. Results: After treatment, no significant improvement in the BCVA (logMAR) of patients in the PRP group was observed. The BCVA (log MAR) decreased from 0.72 ± 0.17 and 0.74 ± 0.17 to 0.50 ± 0.13 and 0.53 ± 0.17 in PRP with aflibercept 5+PRN and PRP with aflibercept 3+PRN groups, respectively, with a statistically significant difference compared to those in the PRP group (P 0.05). The CFT in the PRP-only group decreased slightly from 361.80 ± 36.70 μm to 353.86 ± 40.88 μm, with no statistically significant difference (P>0.05), whereas the CFT in the aflibercept 5+PRN with PRP and aflibercept 3+PRN with PRP groups decreased from 356.57 ± 37.57 μm and 358.17 ± 44.66 μm to 284.87 ± 31.52 μm and 303.19 ± 37.00 μm, respectively, with statistically significant differences before and after treatment (P<0.05 for both groups). Statistically significant differences were observed in CFT between the three groups after treatment (P<0.05 in all cases). The number of MA (pcs) in the PRP, aflibercept 5+PRN with PRP, and aflibercept 3+PRN with PRP groups decreased from 118.34 ± 27.96, 118.60 ± 33.34, and 116.59 ± 28.95 to 92.95 ± 29.04, 44.60 ± 20.73, and 54.26 ± 25.43, respectively. The two-way comparison of the three groups revealed statistically significant differences in MA (P<0.05 in all cases). In the three groups, NV decreased from 1.00 ± 0.21 mm2, 1.01 ± 0.18 mm2, and 0.98 ± 0.20 mm2 before treatment to 0.49 ± 0.17 mm2, 0.31 ± 0.16 mm2, and 0.38 ± 0.14 mm2, respectively, with statistically significant differences (P<0.05 in all cases). After 12 months of treatment, 13, 18, and 18 patients had reduced HE area in the PRP-only, aflibercept 5+PRN with PRP, and aflibercept 3+PRN with PRP groups, respectively, with statistically significant differences (P 0.05). Conclusion: Aflibercept 5+PRN combined with PRP was safe and effective in treating patients with high-risk PDR and DME, and was more effective than PRP-only and aflibercept 3+PRN with PRP in improving CFT and MA.

endocrinology & metabolism
Outcomes of intravitreal anti-VEGF injections and panretinal photocoagulation in preretinal hemorrhage secondary to proliferative diabetic retinopathy involving the fovea

Manpreet Brar,Mansi Sharma,Satinder Pal Singh Grewal,Mangat Dogra

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/ijo.ijo_2296_23

2024-02-23

Indian Journal of Ophthalmology

Abstract:Purpose: To evaluate the outcome of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections and panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) in fovea involving preretinal hemorrhage (PRH) secondary to proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). Methods: Retrospective non-comparative cross-sectional series of patients diagnosed with fovea involving PRH secondary to PDR at our institute from March 2019 to October 2021 who were treated with combination treatments of intravitreal anti-VEGF and PRP and have completed a minimum 6-month follow-up. The primary outcome measure was serial changes in the visual acuity (VA) and PRH regression from the fovea. Secondary outcome measures were the quantitative assessment of the size of PRH, its association with VA improvement and time to regression, and the proportion of patients who underwent surgery for poor response. Results: In total, 22 eyes of 21 patients showed regression of PRH from the foveal center at 33.6 days, and complete regression was seen at 140.7 days. The average number of anti-VEGF injections required for clearance of PRH from the fovea was 1.6. Mean LogMAR visual acuity improved from 0.54 at baseline to 0.32 at 4 weeks and 0.18 at 6 months ( P < 0.01). Three eyes (13.6%) required vitrectomy surgery during follow-up. The mean area of PRH as measured by Image J analysis was 14.78 mm 2 at baseline, 8.97 mm 2 at 4 weeks, and 1.25 mm 2 at 3 months ( P < 0.01). No statistically significant difference was seen between the size of PRH and PRH clearance time and VA improvement. No systemic side effects were observed following the intravitreal injections during follow-up. Conclusion: Intravitreal anti-VEGF injections and PRP were found to be effective and safe treatment methods for fovea involving PRH secondary to PDR. Long-term studies are warranted to assess the long-term efficacy.

ophthalmology
Mechanistic Evaluation of Panretinal Photocoagulation Versus Aflibercept in Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: CLARITY Substudy

Luke Nicholson,Roxanne Crosby-Nwaobi,Joana C Vasconcelos,A Toby Prevost,Jayashree Ramu,Amy Riddell,James W Bainbridge,Philip G Hykin,Sobha Sivaprasad

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.17-23509

2018-08-01

Abstract:Purpose: The purpose of this study was to study the effects of panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) and intravitreal aflibercept on retinal vessel oxygen saturations, area of retinal nonperfusion, and area of neovascularization in proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Methods: This is a prospective randomized single center study. Forty patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy were randomized to PRP or intravitreal aflibercept treatment for 52 weeks. Retinal oximetry and ultra-widefield angiography were performed at baseline and week 52. Ultra-widefield color fundus imaging was performed at baseline, week 12, and week 52. The outcomes were retinal arterio-venous oximetry differences (AVD), area of retinal nonperfusion, and area of neovascularization in disc areas (DA). Results: The AVD in the PRP group increased from 36.7% at baseline to 39.7%, whereas it decreased from 33.4% to 32.5% in the aflibercept group. The difference in AVD between groups at week 52 was 4.0% (95% confidence interval, -0.08, 8.8; P = 0.10). The baseline mean area of retinal nonperfusion of 125.1 DA and 131.2 DA in the PRP and aflibercept groups increased to 156.1 DA and 158.4 DA, respectively, at week 52 (P = 0.46). The median baseline area of neovascularization decreased from 0.98 DA to 0.68 DA in the PRP group and from 0.70 DA to 0 DA in the aflibercept group at week 12 (P = 0.019). At week 52, this measured 0.24 DA in the PRP group and 0 DA in the aflibercept group (P = 0.45). Conclusions: Intravitreal aflibercept achieved an earlier and complete regression of neovascularization in proliferative diabetic retinopathy compared with PRP. There were no significant differences in global change in intravascular oxygen saturation or areas of retinal nonperfusion between the two groups by 52 weeks.
Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for diabetic macular oedema: a network meta-analysis

Gianni Virgili,Katie Curran,Ersilia Lucenteforte,Tunde Peto,Mariacristina Parravano

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007419.pub7

2023-06-27

Abstract:Background: Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a common complication of diabetic retinopathy. Antiangiogenic therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) can reduce oedema, improve vision, and prevent further visual loss. These drugs have replaced laser photocoagulation as the standard of care for people with DMO. In the previous update of this review, we found moderate-quality evidence that, at 12 months, aflibercept was slightly more effective than ranibizumab and bevacizumab for improving vision in people with DMO, although the difference may have been clinically insignificant (less than 0.1 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), or five Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters, or one ETDRS line). Objectives: The objective of this updated review was to compare the effectiveness and safety of the different anti-VEGF drugs in RCTs at longer followup (24 months). Search methods: We searched various electronic databases on 8 July 2022. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any anti-angiogenic drug with an anti-VEGF mechanism of action versus another anti-VEGF drug, another treatment, sham, or no treatment in people with DMO. Data collection and analysis: We used standard Cochrane methods for pairwise meta-analysis and we augmented this evidence using network meta-analysis (NMA) methods. We used the Stata 'network' meta-analysis package for all analyses. We used the CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis) web application to grade the certainty of the evidence. Main results: We included 23 studies (13 with industry funding) that enrolled 3513 people with DMO (median central retinal thickness (CRT) 460 microns, interquartile range (IQR) 424 to 482) and moderate vision loss (median best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) 0.48 logMAR, IQR 0.42 to 0.55. One study that investigated ranibizumab versus sham and one study that mainly enrolled people with subclinical DMO and normal BCVA were not suitable for inclusion in the efficacy NMA. Consistent with the previous update of this review, we used ranibizumab as the reference drug for efficacy, and control (including laser, observation, and sham) as the reference for systemic safety. Eight trials provided data on the primary outcome (change in BCVA at 24 months, in logMAR: lower is better). We found no evidence of a difference between the following interventions and ranibizumab alone: aflibercept (mean difference (MD) -0.05 logMAR, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.12 to 0.02; moderate certainty); bevacizumab (MD -0.01 logMAR, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.10; low certainty), brolucizumab (MD 0.00 logMAR, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.07; low certainty), ranibizumab plus deferred laser (MD 0.00 logMAR, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.10; low certainty), and ranibizumab plus prompt laser (MD 0.03 logMAR, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.09; very low certainty). We also analysed BCVA change at 12 months, finding moderate-certainty evidence of increased efficacy with brolucizumab (MD -0.07 logMAR, 95%CI -0.10 to -0.03 logMAR), faricimab (MD -0.08 logMAR, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.05), and aflibercept (MD -0.07 logMAR, 95 % CI -0.10 to -0.04) compared to ranibizumab alone, but the difference could be clinically insignificant. Compared to ranibizumab alone, NMA of six trials showed no evidence of a difference with aflibercept (moderate certainty), bevacizumab (low certainty), or ranibizumab with prompt (very low certainty) or deferred laser (low certainty) regarding improvement by three or more ETDRS lines at 24 months. There was moderate-certainty evidence of greater CRT reduction at 24 months with brolucizumab (MD -23 microns, 95% CI -65 to -1 9) and aflibercept (MD -26 microns, 95% CI -53 to 0.9) compared to ranibizumab. There was moderate-certainty evidence of lesser CRT reduction with bevacizumab (MD 28 microns, 95% CI 0 to 56), ranibizumab plus deferred laser (MD 63 microns, 95% CI 18 to 109), and ranibizumab plus prompt laser (MD 72 microns, 95% CI 25 to 119) compared with ranibizumab alone. Regarding all-cause mortality at the longest available follow-up (20 trials), we found no evidence of increased risk of death for any drug compared to control, although effects were in the direction of an increase, and clinically relevant increases could not be ruled out. The certainty of this evidence was low for bevacizumab (risk ratio (RR) 2.10, 95% CI 0.75 to 5.88), brolucizumab (RR 2.92, 95% CI 0.68 to 12.58), faricimab (RR 1.91, 95% CI 0.45 to 8.00), ranibizumab (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.34), and very low for conbercept (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.81) and aflibercept (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.77). Estimates for Antiplatelet Trialists Collaboration arterial thromboembolic events at 24 months did not suggest an increase with any drug compared to control, but the NMA was overall incoherent and the evidence was of low or very low certainty. Ocular adverse events were rare and poorly reported and could not be assessed in NMAs. Authors' conclusions: There is limited evidence of the comparative efficacy and safety of anti-VEGF drugs beyond one year of follow-up. We found no clinically important differences in visual outcomes at 24 months in people with DMO, although there were differences in CRT change. We found no evidence that any drug increases all-cause mortality compared to control, but estimates were very imprecise. Evidence from RCTs may not apply to real-world practice, where people in need of antiangiogenic treatment are often under-treated, and the individuals exposed to these drugs may be less healthy than trial participants.
A Paradigm Shift in the Management Approaches of Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: Role of Anti-VEGF Therapy

Rajiv Raman,Kim Ramasamy,Utkarsh Shah

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S374165

2022-09-09

Clinical Ophthalmology

Abstract:Rajiv Raman, 1 Kim Ramasamy, 2 Utkarsh Shah 3 1 Shri Bhagwan Mahavir Vitreoretinal Services, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India; 2 Aravind Eye Hospital, Madurai, Tamil Nadu, India; 3 Novartis Healthcare Private Limited, Mumbai, India Correspondence: Rajiv Raman, Shri Bhagwan Mahavir Vitreoretinal Services, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India, Tel +91-9444288708, Email Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is considered one of the leading causes of vision loss globally. It principally causes upregulation of pro-angiogenic, proinflammatory, and vascular permeability factors such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), leading to neovascularisation. The advanced stage of DR or proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) is of more concern, as it leads to vitreous haemorrhage and traction retinal detachment. Various risk factors associated with PDR include hyperglycemia, hypertension, neuropathy, dyslipidemia, anaemia, nephropathy, and retinal complications of drugs used for diabetes. Current management approaches for PDR have been stratified and involve pan-retinal photocoagulation, vitrectomy, and anti-VEGF agents. Given the emerging role of anti-VEGF agents as a favourable adjunct or alternative therapy, they have a critical role in the management of PDR. The review emphasises current management approaches for PDR focusing on anti-VEGF therapy. The review also highlights the risk/benefit evaluation of the various approaches employed for PDR management in various clinical scenarios. Keywords: neovascularisation, diabetic retinopathy, pan-retinal photocoagulation, vitrectomy, anti-VEGF, PDR in India Diabetes mellitus (DM) is one of the most common noncommunicable diseases in the world. 1 According to International Diabetes Federation Atlas 2021, it was estimated that approximately 537 million individuals in the world had diabetes (types 1 and 2), aged between 20 and 79 years representing 10.5% of the world population. India ranks second in terms of disease burden globally with around 74.2 million individuals having diabetes. 2 The national survey conducted in India establishes the prevalence of DM to be 11.2%. 3 It was established that diabetic retinopathy (DR) is one of the major diabetes-related complication having vision loss as a global concern, leading to substantial financial implications. 4 The global prevalence of DR was observed to be ranging between 22% and 35% in patients with diabetes as reported in different studies. 5–7 In 2020, the individuals affected with DR is estimated to be 103.12 million which is projected to increase to 160.50 million by 2045. 6 However, a disproportionate representation of DR is observed across geography where maximum prevalence is observed in Middle East and North Africa and the Western Pacific. 6 Additionally, no significant inter-gender difference was observed in the DR prevalence (females: 25.93%; males: 28.95%). 7 Sight-threatening DR or vision-threatening DR is defined as "presence of severe non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR), proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) and/or macular oedema in at least one eye". 8 The incidence of sight-threatening DR is more in type 1 when compared with type 2 DM. 9 Advanced DR or PDR represents angiogenic response of the retina to extensive ischaemia from capillary closure. 10 The characteristics of PDR include retinal neovascularisation (NV), serum leakage, haemorrhage, and fibrovascular proliferation in the vitreous retinal interface. The characteristic clinical feature of PDR is growth of new vessels arising at the interface of perfused or nonperfused retina, viz. new vessels on the disc (NVD) or new vessels elsewhere (NVE). All these characteristics ultimately lead to vitreous haemorrhage (VH) and traction retinal detachment (TRD). 11 In some instances, new vessels on the iris (NVI) and iridocorneal angle (NVA) also develop owing to advanced posterior segment ischaemic changes. 12 Experimentally, it has been observed that elevated levels of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) induce NV in mouse models and also that large amounts of miR-410 efficiently downregulates vascular endothelial growth factor expression, suppressing retinal NV. 13 Additionally, inhibition of intraocular VEGF was noted to prevent NVI in nonhuman primates. 14 It has also been reported that elevated levels of VEGF are found in the vitreous humour of patients with PDR. 15 Elevated levels of angiogenic factors are associated with endothelial cell proliferation and migration and disruption of tight junctions, which lead to new vessel formation and increased vascular permeability. Molecular studies have shown that VEGF-A encourages the process o -Abstract Truncated-
Update on the Management of Diabetic Retinopathy: Anti-VEGF Agents for the Prevention of Complications and Progression of Nonproliferative and Proliferative Retinopathy

Tyler A. Bahr,Sophie J. Bakri

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/life13051098

2023-04-28

Life

Abstract:Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a microvascular disease caused by poorly controlled blood glucose, and it is a leading cause of vision loss in people with diabetes. In this review we discuss the current management of DR with particular focus on the use of intraocular anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents. Intraocular anti-VEGF agents were first studied in the 1990s, and now several of these agents are either FDA approved or used off-label as first-line treatments for DR. Recent evidence shows that anti-VEGF agents can halt the progression of markers of DR severity, reduce the risk of DR worsening, and reduce the onset of new macular edema. These significant benefits have been demonstrated in patients with proliferative DR and the milder nonproliferative DR (NPDR). A wealth of evidence from recent trials and meta-analyses has detailed the intraoperative and postoperative benefits of adjunctive anti-VEGF therapy prior to pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for proliferative DR with vitreous hemorrhage. In this review, we also discuss literature comparing various anti-VEGF injection regimens including monthly, quarterly, as-needed, and treat and extend protocols. Combination protocols with panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) or PPV are also discussed. Current evidence suggests that anti-VEGF therapies are effective therapy for NPDR and PDR and may also provide significant benefits when used adjunctively with other DR treatment modalities such as PRP or PPV.

biology
Brachydactyly type A1 associated with unusual radiological findings and a novel Arg158Cys mutation in the Indian hedgehog (IHH) gene.

Eva-Lena Stattin,B. Lindén,T. Lönnerholm,J. Schuster,N. Dahl

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmg.2009.05.008

IF: 2.465

2009-09-01

European Journal of Medical Genetics

Abstract:
VEGF-targeting drugs for the treatment of retinal neovascularization in diabetic retinopathy

Alessandro Arrigo,Emanuela Aragona,Francesco Bandello

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2022.2064541

IF: 5.348

2022-04-22

Annals of Medicine

Abstract:Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is the most common microangiopathic complication of diabetes mellitus, representing a major cause of visual impairment in developed countries. Proliferative DR (PDR) represents the last stage of this extremely complex retinal disease, characterized by the development of neovascularization induced by the abnormal production and release of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). The term VEGF includes different isoforms; VEGF-A represents one of the most important pathogenic factors of DR. Anti-VEGF intravitreal therapies radically changed the outcome of DR, due to combined anti-angiogenic and anti-edematous activities. Nowadays, several anti-VEGF molecules exist, characterized by different pharmacological features and duration. With respect to PDR, although anti-VEGF treatments represented a fundamental step forward in the management of this dramatic complication, a big debate is present in the literature regarding the role of anti-VEGF as substitute of panretinal photocoagulation or if these two approaches may be used in combination. In the present review, we provided an update on VEGF isoforms and their role in DR pathogenesis, on current anti-VEGF molecules and emerging new drugs, and on the current management strategies of PDR. There is an overall agreement regarding the relative advantage provided by anti-VEGF, especially looking at the management of PDR patients requiring vitrectomy, with respect to laser. Based on the current data, laser approaches might be avoided when a perfectly planned anti-VEGF therapeutic strategy can be adopted. Conversely, laser treatment may have a role for those patients unable to guarantee enough compliance to anti-VEGF injections.VEGF increased production, stimulated by retinal hypoperfusion and ischaemia, is a major pathogenic factor of neovascular complication onset in diabetic retinopathy and of DR stages progression.Nowadays, several anti-VEGF molecules are available in clinical practice and other molecules are currently under investigation. Each anti-VEGF molecule is characterized by different targets and may interact with multiple biochemical pathways within the eye.All the data agreed in considering anti-VEGF molecules as a first line choice for the management of diabetic retinopathy. Laser treatments may have a role in selected advanced cases and for those patients unable to guarantee enough compliance to intravitreal treatments schemes.

medicine, general & internal
Intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor, laser photocoagulation, or combined therapy for diabetic macular edema: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Jiasheng Chen,Haowei Wang,Weiqiang Qiu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2023.1096105

IF: 6.055

2023-01-01

Frontiers in Endocrinology

Abstract:Purpose: To conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) comparing the efficacy of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy alone versus laser photocoagulation (LP) therapy alone or anti-VEGF therapy combined with LP therapy for diabetic macular edema (DME).Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched for studies comparing anti-VEGF therapy alone versus LP therapy alone or anti-VEGF therapy combined with LP therapy for DME. Primary outcomes were mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) change. Relevant data were collected and pooled using NMA.Results: A total of 13 randomized controlled trials were included in our NMA. Anti-VEGF therapy significantly improved BCVA the most compared to the combined (mean difference [MD] = 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.084, 2.7) and LP (MD = 6.3; 95% CI: 5.1, 7.6) therapies at six months, while there was no difference in reducing CMT at six months between the anti-VEGF and combined therapies (MD = -16; 95% CI: -46, 13). At 12 months, no significant difference was found between the anti-VEGF and combined therapy in terms of BCVA (MD = 0.1; 95% CI: -1.7, 1.5) and CMT (MD = 21; 95% CI: -3.0, 44).Conclusion: There was no significant difference between the anti-VEGF therapy and combined therapy. For the long-term treatment of patients with DME, combined therapy is recommended.
Efficacy and safety of intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy in diabetic retinopathy: what we have learned and what should we learn further?

Gunay Uludag,Muhammad Hassan,Wataru Matsumiya,Brandon Huy Pham,Sophaktra Chea,Ngoc Trong Tuong Than,Hien Luong Doan,Amir Akhavanrezayat,Muhammad Sohail Halim,Diana V Do,Quan Dong Nguyen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14712598.2022.2100694

2022-07-18

Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy

Abstract:Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is one of the most frequent microvascular complications of diabetes that can lead to blindness. Laser treatment has been the gold standard treatment for diabetic macular edema (DME) and proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) for many years. Recently, the role of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) has been established in the pathogenesis of DR, and the use of intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy has gained popularity for the management of DR. This review includes a brief overview of the efficacy and safety of currently available (bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept) and potential future (brolucizumab, faricimab, and KSI-301) anti-VEGF agents in patients with DR based mainly on publicly available data from phase 1, 2 and 3 clinical trials. Clinical trials investigating the efficacy of intravitreal bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept injections demonstrated favorable functional and anatomical outcomes in patients with DME. Moreover, the use of these anti-VEGF agents showed a significant improvement in the severity of DR. Recent clinical research for future anti-VEGF molecules aims to provide higher target-protein binding affinity and prolonged therapeutic effect. Brolucizumab, faricimab, and KSI-301 are three novel anti-VEGF agents that demonstrate promising data for the management of DME and potentially DR.

medicine, research & experimental,biotechnology & applied microbiology
Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy Regimens for Polypoidal Choroidal Vasculopathy: A Systematic Review

Andrew Mihalache,Amin Hatamnejad,Nikhil S Patil,Marko M Popovic,Rajeev H Muni,Peter J Kertes,David T Wong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000533529

Ophthalmologica

Abstract:Introduction: There are no guidelines on the optimal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) monotherapy regimen for patients with polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV). In this study, we aimed to assess the comparative safety and efficacy of different treatment regimens of anti-VEGF monotherapy for PCV. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library from January 2000 to May 2023 for comparative articles reporting on different treatment regimens of anti-VEGF agents in PCV. Our primary outcomes were the final best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and the change in BCVA from baseline. Secondary outcomes were the final retinal thickness (RT), the change in RT from baseline, the rate of polyp closure, and the incidence of adverse events. Results: A total of 10,440 studies were screened, and seven studies reporting on 636 eyes with PCV at baseline were included in this systematic review. One RCT of 53 eyes found a similar final BCVA, change in BCVA from baseline, final RT, and complete polyp closure rate between a treat-and-extend (T&E) regimen and a bimonthly fixed-dosing regimen of aflibercept. This trial also found superiority of T&E for change in RT from baseline. One observational study of 33 eyes found a similar BCVA at last study observation between a pro re nata (PRN) regimen and bimonthly fixed-dosing regimen of aflibercept. One observational study of 42 eyes found a similar change in BCVA from baseline and complete polyp closure rate between a PRN regimen and bimonthly fixed-dosing regimen of aflibercept. One RCT of 249 eyes found a similar change in BCVA and RT from baseline, as well as polyp closure, between a T&E regimen and fixed 12-week dosing regimen of conbercept. One observational study of 30 eyes found a superiority of T&E aflibercept for change in BCVA and risk of polyp recurrence, compared to a PRN regimen. Conclusion: Overall, there is a paucity of evidence comparing various treatment regimens of anti-VEGF therapy in patients with PCV. This limited evidence suggests that current treatment regimens are similarly efficacious, though T&E aflibercept achieved superior outcomes when compared to bimonthly dosing or PRN in some individual studies. Further trials are needed to confirm or refute these findings.
The Evolving Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy

Sam E Mansour,David J Browning,Keye Wong,Harry W Flynn,Abdhish R Bhavsar,Harry W Flynn Jr

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S236637

2020-03-05

Clinical Ophthalmology

Abstract:Sam E Mansour, 1, 2 David J Browning, 3 Keye Wong, 4 Harry W Flynn Jr, 5 Abdhish R Bhavsar 6 1 George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA; 2 Virginia Retina Center, Warrenton, VA, 20186, USA; 3 Charlotte Eye Ear Nose & Throat Associates, Charlotte, NC 28210, USA; 4 Retina Associates of Sarasota, Sarasota, FL 34233, USA; 5 Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami Health System, Miami, FL, USA; 6 Retina Center of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55404, USA Correspondence: Sam E Mansour Virginia Retina Center, 45 North Hill Drive, Suite 202, Warrenton, VA 20186, USA Tel +1 703 443-0015 Fax +1 703 738-7157 Email smansour@virginiaretina.com Purpose: To review the current therapeutic options for the management of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and diabetic macular edema (DME) and examine the evidence for integration of laser and pharmacotherapy. Methods: A review of the PubMed database was performed using the search terms diabetic retinopathy, diabetic macular edema, neovascularization, laser photocoagulation, intravitreal injection, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), vitrectomy, pars plana vitreous surgery, antiangiogenic therapy. With additional cross-referencing, this yielded 835 publications of which 301 were selected based on content and relevance. Results: Many recent studies have evaluated the pharmacological, laser and surgical therapeutic strategies for the treatment and prevention of DR and DME. Several newer diagnostic systems such as optical coherence tomography (OCT), microperimetry, and multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) are also assisting in further refinements in the staging and classification of DR and DME. Pharmacological therapies for both DR and DME include both systemic and ocular agents. Systemic agents that promote intensive glycemic control, control of dyslipidemia and antagonists of the renin-angiotensin system demonstrate beneficial effects for both DR and DME. Ocular therapies include anti-VEGF agents, corticosteroids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Laser therapy, both as panretinal and focal or grid applications continue to be employed in management of DR and DME. Refinements in laser devices have yielded more tissue-sparing (subthreshold) modes in which many of the benefits of conventional continuous wave (CW) lasers can be obtained without the adverse side effects. Recent attempts to lessen the burden of anti-VEGF injections by integrating laser therapy have met with mixed results. Increasingly, vitreoretinal surgical techniques are employed for less advanced stages of DR and DME. The development and use of smaller gauge instrumentation and advanced anesthesia agents have been associated with a trend toward earlier surgical intervention for diabetic retinopathy. Several novel drug delivery strategies are currently being examined with the goal of decreasing the therapeutic burden of monthly intravitreal injections. These fall into one of the five categories: non-biodegradable polymeric drug delivery systems, biodegradable polymeric drug delivery systems, nanoparticle-based drug delivery systems, ocular injection devices and with sustained release refillable devices. At present, there remains no one single strategy for the management of the particular stages of DR and DME as there are many options that have not been rigorously tested through large, randomized, controlled clinical trials. Conclusion: Pharmacotherapy, both ocular and systemic, will be the primary mode of intervention in the management of DR and DME in many cases when cost and treatment burden are less constrained. Conventional laser therapy has become a secondary intervention in these instances, but remains a first-line option when cost and treatment burden are more constrained. Results with subthreshold laser appear promising but will require more rigorous study to establish its role as adjunctive therapy. Evidence to support an optimal integration of the various treatment options is lacking. Central to the widespread adoption of any therapeutic regimen for DR and DME is substantiation of safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness by a body of sound clinical trials. Keywords: diabetes, retina, diabetic retinopathy, diabetic macular edema, neovascularization, laser photocoagulation, intravitreal injection, vascular endothelial growth factor, vitrectomy pars plana vitreous surgery, antiangiogenic therapy

Biorheological features of some soft tissues under a surgical tissue expansion procedure.

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for proliferative diabetic retinopathy

Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy as an Alternative or Adjunct to Pan-Retinal Photocoagulation in Treating Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Regression of Neovascularization after Panretinal Photocoagulation Combined with Anti-VEGF Injection for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy—A Review

Evaluation of Anti-VEGF and Pan-Retinal Photocoagulation Laser Therapies in Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy Patients: A Systematic Review

Review of Studies Comparing Panretinal Photocoagulation and Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy in the Treatment of Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy

Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Agents for the Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy: A Review of the Literature

Laser photocoagulation for proliferative diabetic retinopathy

Initial Therapy of Panretinal Photocoagulation vs Anti-VEGF Injection for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy

Aflibercept 5+PRN with retinal laser photocoagulation is more effective than retinal laser photocoagulation alone and aflibercept 3+PRN with retinal laser photocoagulation in patients with high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema: a 12-month clinical trial

Outcomes of intravitreal anti-VEGF injections and panretinal photocoagulation in preretinal hemorrhage secondary to proliferative diabetic retinopathy involving the fovea

Mechanistic Evaluation of Panretinal Photocoagulation Versus Aflibercept in Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: CLARITY Substudy

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for diabetic macular oedema: a network meta-analysis

A Paradigm Shift in the Management Approaches of Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: Role of Anti-VEGF Therapy

Update on the Management of Diabetic Retinopathy: Anti-VEGF Agents for the Prevention of Complications and Progression of Nonproliferative and Proliferative Retinopathy

Brachydactyly type A1 associated with unusual radiological findings and a novel Arg158Cys mutation in the Indian hedgehog (IHH) gene.

VEGF-targeting drugs for the treatment of retinal neovascularization in diabetic retinopathy

Intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor, laser photocoagulation, or combined therapy for diabetic macular edema: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Efficacy and safety of intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy in diabetic retinopathy: what we have learned and what should we learn further?

Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy Regimens for Polypoidal Choroidal Vasculopathy: A Systematic Review

The Evolving Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy