AUTHOR=Wang Xian , He Xiaoning , Qi Fang , Liu Jia , Wu Jing
TITLE=Different Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor for Patients With Diabetic Macular Edema: A Network Meta-Analysis
JOURNAL=Frontiers in Pharmacology
VOLUME=13
YEAR=2022
URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2022.876386
DOI=10.3389/fphar.2022.876386
ISSN=1663-9812
ABSTRACT=Background: Antiangiogenic therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is commonly used to treat diabetic macular edema (DME), which can reduce edema, improve vision, and prevent further visual loss. There is little head-to-head trial data to guide the selection of an individual VEGF inhibitor. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of anti-VEGF for patients with DME and to assess the differences between clinically relevant options by using network meta-analysis (NMA).
Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Wanfang, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and VIP databases were searched for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from their inception to November 2020. We included RCTs of anti-VEGF drugs (intravitreal aflibercept (IVT-AFL), intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR), and intravitreal conbercept (IVC)) treating adult patients who were diagnosed with DME, regardless of stage or duration of the disease. We estimated summary odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) using a Bayesian NMA. This study’s registration number is CRD42021259335.
Results: We identified 43 RCTs comprising 8,234 patients. Beneficial effects were observed in patients who used IVT-AFL compared with those who used other anti-VEGF therapies at 1-year follow-up on corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improvements (all patients: versus IVR: MD 2.83, 95% CrIs 1.64, 4.01, versus IVC: MD 2.41, 95% CrIs −0.52, 5.32; patients with worse baseline visual acuity (VA): versus IVR: MD 3.39, 95% CrIs 1.89, 4.9, versus IVC: MD 3.49, 95% CrIs 0.49, 6.44) and the proportion of patients with a gain of at least 15 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters (all patients: versus IVR: OR 1.55, 95% CrIs 1.11, 2.17, versus IVC: OR 2.78, 95% CrIs 1.23, 6.04; patients with worse baseline VA: versus IVR: OR 2.05, 95% CrIs 1.18, 3.58, versus IVC: OR 2.85, 95% CrIs 1.24, 6.41). The effect of improvement in BCVA was identified for IVT-AFL compared to intravitreal bevacizumab. Based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), IVT-AFL had the highest probability of being the most effective option (99.9% and 99.5% in terms of the two primary outcomes, respectively). At the 2-year follow-up, numerical differences were identified favoring IVT-AFL; however, they did not reach statistical significance when comparing IVT-AFL to IVR. In the analysis of adverse events, IVT-AFL showed a lower risk of incidence of ocular adverse events compared to other anti-VEGF therapies at 1-year follow-up (versus IVR: OR 0.45, 95% CrIs 0.28, 0.7; versus IVC: OR 0.36, 95% CrIs 0.21, 0.63).
Conclusion: IVT-AFL resulted in greater beneficial effects on BCVA and a higher proportion of patients with a gain of at least 15 ETDRS letters compared to IVR or IVC one year after treatment (especially in DME patients with worse baseline VA). In addition, fewer ocular adverse events occurred in the IVT-AFL group compared to the IVR or IVC groups. After two years, there was insufficient evidence to identify which anti-VEGF has superior efficacy or safety.
Clinical Trial Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, PROSPERO; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021259335, CRD42021259335