Search

Background: The comparative safety and efficacy of different doses of intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA) for diabetic macular edema (DME) and macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is unclear., Objectives: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of different doses of IVTA in this setting., Methods: A systematic literature search for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) was conducted on Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, and EMBASE from January 2005 to May 2022. Studies that reported on patients with DME or ME secondary to RVO that received treatment with different doses of IVTA were included. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Cochrane's Risk of Bias Tool 2 was used to assess the risk of bias, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines were used to assess certainty of evidence., Results: Five RCTs reporting on 1,041 eyes at baseline were included in this meta-analysis. In eyes with ME secondary to RVO, high-dose (4 mg) IVTA achieved a significantly better change in best-corrected visual acuity (WMD = -4.75 ETDRS letters, 95% CI = [-7.73, -1.78], p = 0.002) and reduction in retinal thickness (WMD = -93.02 μm, 95% CI = [-153.23, -32.82], p = 0.002) at months 4-6 compared to low-dose (1-2 mg) IVTA. However, high-dose IVTA had a higher risk of intraocular pressure-related adverse events (RR = 2.99, 95% CI = [1.05, 8.50], p = 0.04) and cataract surgery (RR = 5.67, 95% CI = [3.09, 10.41], p < 0.00001) than low-dose IVTA in eyes with ME secondary to RVO. These efficacy and safety differences in high-dose and low-dose IVTA were not observed in DME eyes., Conclusions: The RCT evidence in this setting is limited. High-dose IVTA achieved greater improvements in visual acuity and reductions in retinal thickness than low-dose IVTA at months 4-6. However, high-dose IVTA had a less favorable safety profile than low-dose IVTA. The significance of these outcomes was based on patients with ME secondary to RVO, but not DME., (© 2023 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Topic: Diabetic macular edema (DME) can be treated with either intravitreal anti-VEGF injections or intravitreal corticosteroid injections., Clinical Relevance: We provide an updated meta-analysis of the comparative efficacy and safety of intravitreal steroids and anti-VEGF agents for DME., Methods: A systematic search was performed on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials from January 2005 to November 2021. Inclusion criteria included published randomized clinical trial data comparing the efficacy and safety of intravitreal steroids versus anti-VEGF agents for DME. Nonrandomized, noncomparative, and non-English studies were excluded., Results: Fourteen randomized clinical trials reporting on 827 eyes were included. Between these 2 treatments, our analysis revealed no significant difference in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) outcomes at 3 months (P = 0.11), 6 months (P = 0.21), 12 months (P = 0.24), and final follow-up (P = 0.91). Retinal thickness was significantly lower with steroid treatment at 3 months (P = 0.04), 6 months (P < 0.00001), and final follow-up (weighted mean difference = 39.99 μm; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 14.58,65.41; P = 0.002); however, there was no significant difference at 12 months (P = 0.18). Intravitreal anti-VEGF agents were associated with a lower incidence of intraocular pressure-related adverse events (risk ratio = 0.13; 95% CI = 0.05, 0.34; P < 0.00001). There was no significant difference between comparators for other adverse events, including cataract-related adverse events (P = 0.22)., Conclusions: Overall, intravitreal steroid treatment for DME was associated with no significant differences in BCVA, a significantly lower retinal thickness, and a higher risk of intraocular pressure-related events. The certainty of evidence ranged from low to moderate and the analysis was limited by heterogeneity. Our results reinforce the importance of a continual reevaluation of the role of intravitreal steroids in DME management., Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references., (Copyright © 2022 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

[Box: see text] Background and Objective: This meta-analysis evaluates treat-and-extend regimens relative to monthly and as-needed (prn) regimens using anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents for diabetic macular edema and macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion., Materials and Methods: Comparative studies evaluating a treat-and-extend regimen relative to a monthly or prn regimen with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy for diabetic macular edema or macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion were included following a systematic literature search., Results: Seven studies of 984 eyes were included. Relative to a monthly regimen, treat-and-extend was similar for change in best-corrected visual acuity at final follow-up ( P = .59) and had a lower number of injections ( P < .00001). Relative to a prn regimen, treat-and-extend was similar for change in best-corrected visual acuity at final follow-up ( P = .84) and was associated with a higher number of injections ( P = .02)., Conclusion: This meta-analysis found that a treat-and extend regimen was nonsignificantly different compared to monthly and prn regimens in efficacy and safety end points. [ Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2023;54(3):131-138.] .

The association between residual retinal fluid and visual acuity for diabetic macular edema (DME) and macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is not well established. We conducted a systematic literature search for peer-reviewed articles reporting on visual acuity stratified by subretinal fluid (SRF), intraretinal fluid (IRF), or any retinal fluid at final follow-up after intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy injection for treatment of DME or ME secondary to RVO. Two observational studies on ME secondary to RVO and one study for DME found no significant differences between eyes with and without residual retinal fluid for final BCVA. One randomized controlled trial (RCT) found that eyes with residual retinal fluid had significantly worse final best-corrected visual acuity in ME secondary to RVO, whereas another RCT found no significant difference for DME. There is a paucity of evidence examining the impact of residual retinal fluid on visual acuity in DME and ME secondary to RVO. The limited evidence suggests that aggressive fluid resolution is worthwhile. [ Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2023;54:50-58.] .