Comparative efficacy and safety of approved treatments for macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion: a network meta-analysis

BMJ Open. 2015 Jun 5;5(6):e007527. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007527.

Abstract

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of approved treatments for macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).

Design: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of approved treatments for macular oedema secondary to BRVO were identified from an updated systematic review.

Setting: A Bayesian network meta-analysis of RCTs of treatments for macular oedema secondary to BRVO.

Interventions: Ranibizumab 0.5 mg pro re nata, aflibercept 2 mg monthly (2q4), dexamethasone 0.7 mg implant, laser photocoagulation, ranibizumab+laser, or sham intervention. Bevacizumab and triamcinolone were excluded.

Outcome measures: Efficacy outcomes were mean change in best corrected visual acuity (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study scale) and the percentage of patients gaining ≥ 15 letters. Safety outcome was the percentage of patients with increased intraocular pressure (IOP)/ocular hypertension (OH).

Results: 8 RCTs were identified for inclusion with 1743 adult patients. The probability of being the most efficacious treatment at month 6 or 12 based on letters gained was 54% for ranibizumab monotherapy, 30% for aflibercept, 16% for ranibizumab plus laser (adjunctive or prompt), and 0% for dexamethasone implant, laser or sham. The probability of being the most efficacious treatment for patients gaining ≥ 15 letters was 39% for aflibercept, 35% for ranibizumab monotherapy, 24% for ranibizumab plus laser, 2% for dexamethasone implant, and less than 1% for laser or sham. There was no statistical difference between ranibizumab monotherapy and aflibercept for letters gained (+1.4 letters for ranibizumab vs aflibercept with 95% credible interval (CrI) of -5.2 to +8.5 letters) or the OR for gaining ≥ 15 letters: 1.06 (95% CrI 0.16 to 8.94)). Dexamethasone implant was associated with significantly higher IOP/OH than antivascular endothelial growth factor agents (OR 13.1 (95% CrI 1.7 to 116.9)).

Conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference between ranibizumab and aflibercept.

Keywords: OPHTHALMOLOGY.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Meta-Analysis
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
  • Review
  • Systematic Review

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Dexamethasone / administration & dosage
  • Dexamethasone / adverse effects
  • Humans
  • Laser Coagulation / adverse effects
  • Laser Coagulation / methods
  • Macular Edema / etiology
  • Macular Edema / therapy*
  • Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
  • Ranibizumab / administration & dosage
  • Ranibizumab / adverse effects
  • Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor / administration & dosage
  • Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor / adverse effects
  • Recombinant Fusion Proteins / administration & dosage
  • Recombinant Fusion Proteins / adverse effects
  • Retinal Vein Occlusion / complications*
  • Treatment Outcome

Substances

  • Recombinant Fusion Proteins
  • aflibercept
  • Dexamethasone
  • Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor
  • Ranibizumab