贝伐单抗和雷珠单抗治疗渗出型老年性黄斑变性有效性meta分析

目的 系统评价贝伐单抗和雷珠单抗治疗渗出型老年性黄斑变性（AMD）的有效性。方法 计算机检索荷兰医学文摘数据库Embase、美国临床医学期刊全文数据库Ovid、美国国立医学图书馆医学数据库Pubmed、中国知网、万方数据库、维普中文期刊数据库。收集国内外公开发表的关于贝伐单抗和雷珠单抗治疗渗出型AMD的随机对照试验。检索时限截止至2013年11月。按照纳入与排除标准筛选文献、提取资料和进行质量评价。用RevMan 5.2.6软件进行统计分析。比较贝伐单抗和雷珠单抗治疗前与治疗后3、6、12个月渗出型AMD患者的视力和黄斑中心凹厚度。结果 最终纳入5个研究,共1954例渗出型AMD患者。其中,贝伐单抗治疗组967例,雷珠单抗治疗组987例。Meta分析结果显示,贝伐单抗治疗组与雷珠单抗治疗组视力提高值比较,差异无统计学意义［3个月：加权均数差（WMD）=0.32,95%可信区间（CI）为-0.84~1.49,P=0.59;6个月：WMD=0.47,95%CI为-0.67~1.62,P=0.42;12个月：WMD=0.84,95% CI为-0.23~1.90,P=0.12］;贝伐单抗治疗组与雷珠单抗治疗组黄斑中心凹厚度降低值比较,差异无统计学意义（3个月：WMD=6.21,95%CI为-6.23~18.65,P=0.33;6个月：WMD=4.06,95% CI为-6.16~14.27,P=0.44;12个月：WMD=-5.39,95%CI为-14.41~3.63,P=0.24）。结论 贝伐单抗与雷珠单抗治疗渗出型AMD具有相似的治疗效果。     

Efficiency and safety of laser photocoagulation with or without intravitreal ranibizumab for treatment of diabetic macular edema: a systematic review and Meta-analysis

AIM: To compare the therapeutic effect and safety of laser photocoagulation along with intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) versus laser therapy in treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME). METHODS: Pertinent publications were identified through comprehensive searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing IVR+laser to laser monotherapy in patients with DME. Therapeutic effect estimates were determined by weighted mean differences (WMD) of change from baseline in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) at 6, 12, or 24mo after initial treatment, and the risk ratios (RR) for the proportions of patients with at least 10 letters of improvement or reduction at 12mo. Data regarding major ocular and nonocular adverse events (AEs) were collected and analyzed. The Review Manager 5.3.5 was used. RESULTS: Six RCTs involving 2069 patients with DME were selected for this Meta-analysis. The results showed that IVR+laser significantly improved BCVA compared with laser at 6mo (WMD: 6.57; 95% CI: 4.37-8.77; P<0.00001), 12mo (WMD: 5.46; 95% CI: 4.35-6.58; P<0.00001), and 24mo (WMD: 3.42; 95% CI: 0.84-5.99; P=0.009) in patients with DME. IVR+laser was superior to laser in reducing CRT at 12mo from baseline with statistical significance (WMD: -63.46; 95% CI: -101.19 to -25.73; P=0.001). The pooled RR results showed that the proportions of patients with at least 10 letters of improvement or reduction were in favor of IVR+laser arms compared with laser (RR: 2.13; 95% CI: 1.77-2.57; P<0.00001 and RR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.22-0.62; P=0.0002, respectively). As for AEs, the pooled results showed that a significantly higher proportion of patients suffering from conjunctival hemorrhage (study eye) and diabetic retinal edema (fellow eye) in IVR+laser group compared to laser group (RR: 3.29; 95% CI: 1.53-7.09; P=0.002 and RR: 3.02; 95% CI: 1.24-7.32; P=0.01, respectively). The incidence of other ocular and nonocular AEs considered in this Meta-analysis had no statistical difference between IVR+laser and laser alone. CONCLUSION: The results of our analysis show that IVR+laser has better availability in functional (improving BCVA) and anatomic (reducing CRT) outcomes than laser monotherapy for the treatment of DME. However, the patients who received the treatment of IVR+laser may get a higher risk of suffering from conjunctival hemorrhage (study eye) and diabetic retinal edema (fellow eye).     

Comparison of intravitreal ranibizumab and bevacizumab for the treatment of macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion

AIM:To compare the efficacy of ranibizumab and bevacizumab for macular edema due to retinal vein occlusion (RVO).METHODS:A retrospective study was conducted at a single academic institution. Eighty-one patients na?ve to anti-VEGF therapy with RVO and macular edema were identified. Twenty-six eyes were treated with ranibizumab, 33 eyes with bevacizumab, and 22 eyes with bevacizumab then switched to ranibizumab (crossover). The main outcome was change in visual acuity at 3 months, 6 months, and final visit.RESULTS:The mean visual acuity improved from 20/80 to 20/40 in the ranibizumab (R) group and from 20/125 to 20/60 in the bevacizumab (B) group (P=0.66). The mean change in central subfield thickness (CST) was -186 and -212μm, respectively (P=0.69). Mean time between injections was 94±21.1d in the R group and 103.8±10.5d in the B group (P=0.78). In the crossover group, mean initial visual acuity was 20/125, reached 20/60 at crossover, and remained 20/60 at conclusion (P=0.91).CONCLUSION:Both ranibizumab and bevacizumab are effective for the treatment of RVO and appear to have similar visual and anatomic outcomes. Changing treatments from bevacizumab to ranibizumab did not result in further gains in visual acuity.      

Comparison of conbercept and ranibizumab for the treatment efficacy of diabetic macular edema: a Meta-analysis and systematic review

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of intravitreal injection of conbercept (IVC) and ranibizumab (IVR) in patients with diabetic macular edema. METHODS: Reviewers have searched 12 databases, including PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, Springer, ScienceDirect, OVID, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, cqVIP, WanFangdata and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), up to December 28, 2018. RevMan 5.3 (Cochrane Library Software, Oxford, UK) was employed for statistical analysis. Fixed and random effects models were applied to assess heterogeneity. Odds ratio (OR) was applied for dichotomous variables; weighted mean difference (WMD) was applied for continuous variables. The confidence interval (CI) was set at 95%. Central macular thickness (CMT) and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) were employed to analyze the improvement of DME patients. Inclusion criteria for picking out studies were retrospective studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared IVC and IVR for the treatment of diabetic macular edema. RESULTS: Four retrospective studies and five RCTs were included with a total of 609 patients. No statistically significant difference was observed in mean CMT and mean BCVA in the baseline parameters [BCVA (WMD: -0.48; 95%CI: -1.06 to 0.10; P=0.1), CMT (WMD: -0.83; 95%CI: -15.15 to 13.49; P=0.91). No significant difference was found in the improvement of BCVA and adverse event (AE) in IVC group, compared with IVR group after treatment of loading dosage [the 1st month BCVA (WMD: 0.01; 95%CI: -0.26 to 0.27; P=0.96), the 3rd month BCVA (WMD: -0.04; 95%CI: -0.14 to 0.06; P=0.46); the 6th month BCVA (WMD: -0.24; 95%CI: -1.62 to 1.14; P=0.73)], AE (OR: 0.84; 95%CI: 0.38 to 1.84; P=0.66)]. A slight difference was found in the effectiveness rate (OR: 1.70; 95%CI: 0.97 to 2.96; P=0.06), There were statistically significant differences between IVC and IVR treatment in terms of CMT [1st month CMT (WMD: -19.88; 95%CI: -27.94 to -11.82; P<0.001), 3rd month CMT (WMD: -23.31; 95%CI: -43.30 to -3.33; P=0.02), 6th month CMT (WMD: -74.74; 95%CI: -106.22 to -43.26; P<0.001)]. CONCLUSION: Pooled evidence suggests that both IVC and IVR are effective in the therapy of diabetic macular edema and affirms that IVC presents superiority over IVR therapy in regard of CMT in patients with diabetic macular edema, but no statistically significant difference with regard to visual improvement. Relevant RCTs with longer-term follow-up are necessary to back up our conclusion.     

Combination of ranibizumab with photodynamic therapy vs ranibizumab monotherapy in the treatment of age-related macular degeneration:a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM:To compare the efficacy and safety of combination of ranibizumab with photodynamic therapy (PDT) vs ranibizumab monotherapy in the treatment of age-related macular degeneration (AMD).METHODS:The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, Pubmed, and Embase were searched. There were no language or data restrictions in the search for trials. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Methodological quality of the literatures was evaluated according to the Jadad Score. RevMan 5.2.6 software was used to do the meta-analysis.RESULTS:Seven studies were included in our systematic review, among which four of them were included in quantitative analysis. The result shows that the ranibizumab monotherapy group had a better mean best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) change vs baseline at month 12 compared with that of the combination treatment group, and the statistical difference was significant (WMD, -2.61; 95% CI, -5.08 to -0.13; P=0.04). However, after the removal of one study, the difference between the two groups showed no significant difference (WMD, -2.29; 95% CI, -4.81 to 0.23; P=0.07). Meanwhile, no significant central retinal thickness (CRT) reduction was found in the combination treatment group and the ranibizumab monotherapy group at 12 months follow-up. Nevertheless, the combination group tended to have a greater reduction in CRT (WMD, -4.13μm; 95%CI, -25.88 to 17.63, P=0.71). The proportion of patients gaining more than 3 lines at month 12 in the ranibizumab group was higher than in the combination group and there was a significant difference (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.95; P=0.02). Whereas there was no significant difference for the proportion of patients gaining more than 0 line at month 12 between the two groups (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.15; P=0.52). The general tendency shows a reduction in ranibizumab retreatment number in the combination treatment group compared with the ranibizumab monotherapy group. As major adverse events, the differences in the number of eye pain, endophthalmitis, hypertension and arterial thromboembolic events were not significant between the two groups, and the incidence of serious adverse events in the two groups was very low.CONCLUSION:For the maintenance of vision, the comparison of the combination of ranibizumab with PDT vs ranibizumab monotherapy shows no apparent difference. Compared with the combination of ranibizumab and PDT, patients treated with ranibizumab monothearpy may gain more visual acuity (VA) improvement. The combination treatment group had a tendency to reduce the number of ranibizumab retreatment. Both the two treatment strategies were well tolerated.     

Overflow phenomenon in serum lutein after supplementation: a systematic review supported with SNPs analyses

Lutein, a type of carotenoids, is found to delay the onset and progression of age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Several lutein supplementation studies showed that after an initial increase, lutein serum levels demonstrated a subsequent decrease despite continuous supplementation. In this systematic literature review, this obscure phenomenon was tried to be explained. The subsequent drop in lutein levels was postulated due to down-regulation of lutein receptors scavenger receptor class B type I (SR-BI) in the gastrointestinal tract, upregulation of lutein degrading enzyme β-carotene dioxygenase (BCDO2), or perhaps a combination of both. Some single nucleotides polymorphisms (SNPs) that could have influence on the occurrence of this phenomenon. To date, an exact scientific explanation for this phenomenon has not been established. Further research is needed to investigate this phenomenon in depth to reach an irrefutable explanation, giving that lutein is proven to be effective in delaying the onset and progression of AMD and its metabolism in the human body becomes of equal importance.     

康柏西普与雷珠单抗治疗视网膜静脉阻塞继发黄斑水肿的Meta分析

目的:系统比较康柏西普和雷珠单抗治疗视网膜静脉阻塞继发黄斑水肿(RVO-ME)的疗效和安全性,为临床指导用药提供依据。方法:全网综合检索关于玻璃体腔内注射康柏西普和雷珠单抗治疗RVO-ME的临床随机对照试验文献,对纳入文献进行风险评估,并提取相关数据指标。采用RevMan 5.3软件进行数据分析,并采用Egger检验评价发表偏倚。结果:本研究纳入文献14篇,共计1 350眼。康柏西普组和雷珠单抗组患者最佳矫正视力(BCVA)在治疗后2wk,2、3、6mo无明显差异,但在治疗后1wk[WMD=-0.03,95%CI(-0.05,-0.02),P<0.0001]和1mo[WMD=-0.03,95%CI(-0.04,-0.01),P=0.001]康柏西普组患者BCVA相比雷珠单抗组较好。两组患者黄斑中心凹视网膜厚度(CMT)在治疗后1、2wk,1、2、3mo无明显差异,但在治疗后6mo[WMD=-28.77,95%CI(-54.23,-3.31),P=0.03]康柏西普组患者黄斑水肿减轻程度相比雷珠单抗组更明显。玻璃体腔内注射康柏西普和雷珠单抗产生的不良反应情况无差异[OR=0.95,95%CI(0.57,1.57),P=0.84],但康柏西普的平均注射次数较少。结论:康柏西普和雷珠单抗均可改善BCVA,降低CMT,二者在后期视力改善方面无差异,但康柏西普在改善CMT方面更具优势,且注射次数少,费用低。     

6-weekly bevacizumab versus 4-weekly ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a 2-year outcome

AIM: To compare visual acuity and central macular thickness (CMT) changes in neovascular age related macular degeneration patients treated with either 6 weekly bevacizumab regimen or 4 weekly ranibizumab on an as required basis. METHODS: Patients made an informed choice between bevacizumab 1.25 mg or ranibizumab 0.5 mg. The selected treatment was administered in the first 3 visits. Bevacizumab patients were followed-up 6 weekly and ranibizumab 4 weekly. Retreatment criteria was based on the reduction of >5 letters in the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), the presence of retinal fluid on optical coherence tomography (OCT) or new retinal haemorrhage. RESULTS: Visual acuity at 2y bevacizumab patients gained 7.0 letters and ranibizumab 9.2 (P=0.31, 95% CI -6.4 to 2.0). At 2y 86% of bevacizumab and 94% ranibizumab patients had not lost 15 letters or more (P=0.13). Mean CMT decreased at 2y bevacizumab by 146 µm, ranibizumab 160 µm (P=0.72). Mean number of injections was at 2y bevacizumzb 11.9, ranibizumab 10.3 (P=0.023). CONCLUSION: Bevacizumab 6 weekly on an as required basis was not demonstrably non-inferior to ranibizumab 4 weekly pro re nata (prn) in terms of BCVA and change in CMT. In the bevacizumab group, one more injection was required in the second year compared to the ranibizumab group.     

Comparison of outcomes after switching treatment from intravitreal bevacizumab to ranibizumab in neovascular age-related macular degeneration

ObjectiveTo compare visual acuity and central retinal thickness in patients initially treated with bevacizumab (Avastin) and switched to ranibizumab (Lucentis) for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD).DesignA retrospective chart review.ParticipantsThis study included 87 eyes from 80 patients over the age of 65 with neovascular AMD.MethodsPatients were initially treated with bevacizumab injections every 6 weeks and then switched to ranibizumab every 4 weeks when it became publicly funded by the Ontario government. Outcomes include comparison of visual acuity and central retinal thickness after bevacizumab treatment, and after switching to ranibizumab.ResultsVisual acuity improved significantly versus initial baseline values following a treatment course of 3 or more injections of bevacizumab (0.58 logMar, SD = 0.30 vs 0.73 logMar, SD = 0.41; p = 0.0007). Patients then showed a further significant improvement in visual acuity after switching and receiving a course of ranibizumab (0.51 logMar, SD = 0.32) (p = 0.0122). Mean central retinal thickness as measured by optical coherence tomography significantly decreased after a course of bevacizumab (p = 0.0158), and a further decrease was noted after a subsequent course of ranibizumab (p < 0.0001).ConclusionsThere was a significant improvement in visual acuity and central retinal thickness in patients with neovascular AMD initially treated with bevacizumab. When these patients were uniformly switched to ranibizumab there was a further significant improvement in visual acuity and a reduction of retinal thickness. It appears that ranibizumab can maintain, or improve the effect achieved after an initial course of bevacizumab.     

Rate of serious adverse effects in a series of bevacizumab and ranibizumab injections

ObjectiveTo compare the rate of serious ocular and systemic adverse effects of intravitreal bevacizumab and ranibizumab in the treatment of a variety of eye diseases.DesignRetrospective chart review.ParticipantsConsecutive series of intravitreal injections of bevacizumab (n = 693) and ranibizumab (n = 891).MethodsMedical records of all patients receiving injections in the series were retrieved. We considered the rate of both serious ocular adverse effects (e.g., acute intraocular inflammation, infectious endophthalmitis, retinal detachment, vitreous hemorrhage) and of arterial thromboembolic events that occurred within 1 month of injection.ResultsSubjects who received bevacizumab were 12 times more likely to develop severe intraocular inflammation following each injection than were those who received ranibizumab (OR = 11.71; 95% CI 1.5–93). The 1 case of acute intraocular inflammation following ranibizumab injection was mild and not associated with vision loss. No other serious ocular complications were noted. A trend was also noted toward an increased risk for arterial thromboembolic events in patients receiving bevacizumab, although the confidence interval was wide (OR = 4.26; 95% CI 0.44–41).ConclusionsSignificant concern still exists regarding the safety of off-label use of intravitreal bevacizumab. Patients receiving bevacizumab should be counselled regarding a possible increased risk for serious adverse events.     

Comparison of visual outcomes with implantation of trifocal versus bifocal intraocular lens after phacoemulsification: a Meta-analysis

AIM: To compare a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) and a bifocal IOL implantation in improving visual function after cataract surgery. METHODS: Eligible literatures were systematically searched through EMBASE and PubMed databases. The inclusion criteria were prospective comparative clinical trials on cataract surgery comparing trifocal IOL with bifocal IOL implantation that assessed visual acuity, contrast sensitivity and subjective vision quality. The effects were computed as standardized mean differences and pooled using fixed-effect or random-effect models. RESULTS: Four prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five cohorts provided data were included by a systematic review, comprising 265 eyes implanted with trifocal IOLs and 264 eyes implanted with bifocal IOLs. Monocular distance visual acuity (VA) showed a statistically significant but small difference that favored trifocal IOLs (MD=-0.06; 95%CI, -0.10 to -0.02; Z=2.90, P=0.004 for uncorrected distance VA, and MD= -0.02; 95%CI, -0.03 to -0.00; Z=2.02, P=0.04 for corrected distance VA), but the data did not suggest that the effect of trifocal IOL implantation would clinically outperform bifocal IOL implantation. There was no significant difference in monocular near VA (MD=-0.01; 95%CI, -0.07 to 0.04; Z=0.42, P=0.68 for distance-corrected near VA, and MD=-0.01; 95%CI, -0.06 to 0.03; Z=0.55, P=0.58 for corrected near VA) or refraction between two groups. Contrast sensitivity and subjective visual quality had no conclusive results. CONCLUSION: All results indicate that trifocal IOL and bifocal IOL had similar levels of monocular distance and near VA.     

康柏西普和雷珠单抗治疗黄斑水肿有效性的Meta分析

目的:运用循证医学系统评价与分析的研究方法,探讨康柏西普(conbercept)和雷珠单抗(ranibizumab)治疗黄斑水肿的有效性.方法:分别在Pubmed、EMbase、Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials(CENTRAL)、Google scholar、ClinicalTrials.gov、中国知网(CNKI)、维普数据库(VIP)和万方数据库(WanFang Database)中检索发表于2012-01-01/2017-07-01关于对比康柏西普和雷珠单抗治疗各种继发性黄斑水肿的临床疗效的文章,将视力(visual acuity,VA)的改善和黄斑中心凹视网膜厚度(central macular thickness,CMT)作为主要的结局指标进行Meta分析以评价药物的有效性.用Review Manager 5.3和Stata 12.0软件进行数据分析.结果:经过系统性文献检索,本Meta分析纳入11个临床随机对照研究(randomized controlled trial,RCT),共812眼,其中康柏西普组414眼,雷珠单抗组398眼,主要为老年性黄斑变性、糖尿病视网膜病变、视网膜静脉阻塞所致的黄斑水肿.统计分析结果发现,康柏西普和雷珠单抗对于短期内(治疗3mo)视力改善和CMT变化差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);在治疗不同原发病导致的黄斑水肿方面两种药物效果相当,但与雷珠单抗相比,康柏西普对于远期(治疗6mo)黄斑水肿的消退效果显著(OR=-58.50,95%CI:-108.04~-8.95,P=0.02).结论:康柏西普在治疗继发性黄斑水肿方面疗效优于雷珠单抗.     

ReZOOM与ReSTOR多焦点人工晶状体应用效果的Meta分析

目的：系统评价ReZOOM与ReSTOR两种多焦点人工晶状体（multifocal intraocular lens,MIOL）的临床应用效果。方法：计算机检索CENTRAL、MEDLINE、EMbase、万方医学网数据库、维普中文生物医学期刊全文数据库、中国生物医学文献数据库、中国期刊全文数据库,手工检索相关会议文献,纳入所有ReZOOM与ReSTOR对照的超声乳化白内障吸出联合IOL植入的随机对照试验。采用Cochrane系统评价方法,由两名评价员分别提取资料,评价方法学质量后,应用RevMan 5.2软件进行Meta分析。结果：共纳入7个随机对照试验（846眼）。结果显示：裸眼远视力：ReZOOM组与ReSTOR组间差异无统计学意义[WMD=-0.03,95% CI为（-0.06,0.01）,P=0.15]。裸眼中距视力：ReZOOM组与ReSTOR组间差异无统计学意义[WMD=-0.04,95% CI为（-0.09,0.01）,P=0.10]。裸眼近视力：ReZOOM组与ReSTOR组间差异有统计学意义[WMD =0.09,95% CI为（0.05,0.14）,P〈0.00001]。最佳矫正远视力：ReZOOM组与ReSTOR组间差异无统计学意义[WMD=-0.01,95% CI为（-0.04,0.02）,P=0.55]。最佳矫正远视下的中距视力：ReZOOM组与ReSTOR组间差异有统计学意义[WMD=-0.11,95% CI为（-0.16,-0.06）,P〈0.0001]。最佳矫正远视下的近视力：ReZOOM组与ReSTOR组间差异无统计学意义[WMD=0.06,95% CI为（-0.06,0.17）,P=0.32]。脱镜率：ReZOOM组与ReSTOR组间差异有统计学意义[WMD=2.62,95% CI为（1.76,3.91）,P〈0.00001]。光晕发生率：ReZOOM组与ReSTOR组间差异有统计学意义[WMD= 1.35,95% CI为（1.15,1.60）,P=0.0004]。眩光发生率：ReZOOM组与ReSTOR组间差异有统计学意义[WMD=1.29,95% CI为（1.09,1.53）,P=0.003]。结论：本研究表明,两种MIOL相比较,ReSTOR表现出更好的裸眼近视力,出现光晕、眩光等视觉不良反应的可能性更小,裸眼远视力及中距视力表现相同; 在戴镜矫正状况下,ReZOOM的中距视力表现更佳,两种MIOL的远、近视力无差别。     

贝伐单抗联合曲安奈德与单独贝伐单抗玻璃体腔内注射治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿的Meta分析

背景临床上贝伐单抗（bevacizumab）和曲安奈德（TA）已广泛用于糖尿病性黄斑水肿（DME）的治疗,但由于二者单独治疗都存在一些弊端,因此一些学者尝试二者联合治疗,但其疗效存在争议。目的系统评价玻璃体腔内注射bevacizumab联合TA与单独注射bevacizumab治疗DME短期疗效的差异。方法用循证医学方法检索美国国立医学图书馆、荷兰医学文摘、循证医学数据库、中国期刊全文数据库中有关bevacizumab联合TA与单独注射bevacizumab治疗DME短期疗效的随机对照临床试验（RCTs）文献进行二次分析,遵循Cochrane Handbook 5．0质量评价原则评价纳入研究的质量。分析的疗效结局指标包括中央黄斑厚度（CMT）及最佳矫正视力（BCVA）变化,安全性评价指标为局部和全身不良事件。连续变量的计量资料采用加权均数差（WMD）作为合并效应量,计数资料采用相对危险度（RR）为疗效分析统计量,采用Cochrane协作网的Revman 5．0软件对效应合并量进行统计学处理。结果共纳入9篇RCTs文献,共665眼。Meta分析结果显示,治疗后12周、18周时bevacizumab联合TA组CMT改善程度优于单独注射bevacizumab组,差异均有统计学意义（WMD=-44．69,95％CI：25．27～64．11,P〈0．000001;WMD=-66．86,95％CI：40．67—93．05,P〈0．000001）,而在治疗后6周及6个月时两组间差异无统计学意义（WMD=-15．40,95％CI：-4．04—34．85,P=0．12;WMD=-2．57,95％CI：-19．62—24．75,P=0．82）。治疗后6周时bevacizumab联合TA组BCVA（LogMAR值）的改善值优于单独注射bevacizumab组,差异有统计学意义（WMD=-0．04,95％CI：-0．08--0．00,P=0．05）,而在治疗后12周、18周及6个月时两组间差异均无统计学意义（WMD=-0．04,95％CI：-0．12～0．05,P：0．36;WMD=-0．04,95％CI：-0．11～0．03,P=0．28;WMD=0．03,95％CI：-0．05～0．12,P=0．45）。两种治疗方式间术后一过性前房反应的发生率差异无统计学意义（RR=0．89,95％CI：0．49～1．60,P=0．70）,bevacizumab联合TA组继发性高眼压的发生率为（30／327）,单独注射bevacizumab组治疗眼未发生继发性高眼压。结论Bevacizumab联合TA玻璃体腔内注射治疗DME在减轻黄斑水肿方面疗效明显优于单独注射bevacizumab组,但两种方法在改善BCVA方面效果无明显差异。Bevacizumab联合TA玻璃体腔内注射后发生继发性高眼压的风险高于单独注射bevacizumab应用组,但用降眼压药物后眼压能够控制。     

Bevacizumab and ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: an updated meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

Purpose

Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the main cause of central vision loss among individuals aged 50 years or older in developed countries. The aim of this study was to review systematically the effect of bevacizumab compared to ranibizumab in patients with AMD at 1 year.

Methods

A systematic review was performed on Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library and Trial registers to October 2013. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies were randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing bevacizumab with ranibizumab in patients with neovascular AMD. Odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) estimates were synthesized under fixed- and random-effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Q statistic and I².

Results

Five RCTs were included, representing 2,686 randomised patients. The meta-analysis confirmed the non-inferiority of bevacizumab compared to ranibizumab for change in visual acuity at 1 year (MD 0.57 letters, ?1.80 to 0.66, p?=?0.37, I²?=?0 %). Better anatomical results were found for ranibizumab. Bevacizumab was associated with a 34 % increase in the number of patients with at least one serious systemic adverse event (OR 1.34, 1.08 to 1.66, p?=?0.01, I²?=?0 %).

Conclusions

The pooled evidence confirmed that, compared with ranibizumab, bevacizumab was associated with equivalent effects on visual acuity at 1 year and with a higher risk of systemic serious adverse events. The current available data do not show which types of adverse events occur more frequently. In practice, bevacizumab should be used under a risk-management plan until further studies have been carried out to assess accurately the increased risk of systemic adverse events.     

Radial optic neurotomy in treating central retinal vein occlusion: a Meta-analysis

AIM: To assess the feasibility of radial optic neurotomy (RON) in central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) treatment with a Meta-analysis. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for comprehensive articles that compared efficacy of RON with that of other treatments in CRVO. Study quality was assessed and risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) with fix- or random-effects model were calculated according to the heterogeneity. RESULTS: A total of 200 eyes from 5 studies were included. The results indicated that no significant differences were found between groups with and without RON in improvement of visual acuity (VA) at 6mo follow-up (pooled RR 0.51, 95%CI 0.22 to 1.18, P=0.117) while improvement of VA showed significantly favourable in patients receiving RON treatment at 12mo follow-up (pooled RR 2.27, 95%CI 1.31 to 3.95, P=0.004). For complications, RON treatment was more effective in reducing neovascular glaucoma (pooled RR 0.45, 95%CI 0.21 to 0.97, P=0.042) but was comparable in retinal detachment (pooled RR 2.41, 95%CI 0.51 to 11.39, P=0.267) and vitreous hemorrhage (pooled RR 0.91, 95%CI 0.33 to 2.46, P=0.847). CONCLUSION: Compared with some certain treatment modalities, RON might offer better VA at 12mo and decrease the rate of neovascular glaucoma without changing the rate of retinal detachment and vitreous hemorrhage. Further studies are required considering the limitation of the research.     

Alternating Bi-Weekly Intravitreal Ranibizumab and Bevacizumab for Refractory Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration with Pigment Epithelial Detachment*

Objective: To describe visual and anatomical outcomes following bi-weekly intravitreal ranibizumab/bevacizumab injections in eyes with refractory neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and pigment epithelial detachment (PED). Design: Retrospective, consecutive, interventional case series. Participants: Eighteen patients diagnosed with neovascular AMD that were refractory to anti-VEGF therapy and received alternating biweekly ranibizumab/bevacizumab injections were included. Methods: Patients with neovascular AMD and PED that were refractory to at least 11 monthly ranibizumab or bevacizumab injections were included in this study at a large, single retina practice. Following inclusion, patients received four bi-weekly alternating ranibizumab/bevacizumab intravitreal injections. After completing a course of four bi-weekly injections, patients were treated with variable regimens of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy. The primary outcomes of the study included change in visual acuity (VA) and central foveal thickness (CFT) at eight weeks follow-up. Results: Study eyes had previously received a mean of 22 intravitreal anti-VEGF injections. At enrollment, mean VA was 20/95 and mean CFT was 455?µm. After four bi-weekly anti-VEGF injections, mean VA improved to 20/65 (p?p?=?0.029). In patients with PED, there was a mean 27.9% reduction in height (p?=?0.046) at eight weeks’ follow-up. Conclusions: Four injections of bi-weekly alternating ranibizumab/bevacizumab improved visual acuity and reduced macular thickness in a number of patients with refractory neovascular AMD and PED.     

【In Press】 Comparison of visual outcomes with implantation of trifocal versus bifocal intraocular lens after phacoemulsification: a Meta-analysis

AIM: To compare a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) and a bifocal IOL implantation in improving visual function after cataract surgery. METHODS: Eligible literatures were systematically searched through EMBSE and PubMed databases. The inclusion criteria were prospective comparative clinical trials on cataract surgery comparing trifocal IOL with bifocal IOL implantation that assessed visual acuity, contrast sensitivity and subjective vision quality. The effects were computed as standardized mean differences and pooled using fixed-effect or random-effect models. RESULTS: Four prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five cohorts provided data and were included by a systematic review, comprising 265 eyes implanted with trifocal IOLs and 264 eyes implanted with bifocal IOLs. Monocular distance visual acuity (VA) showed a statistically significant but small difference that favored trifocal IOLs (MD=-0.06; 95%CI, -0.10 to -0.02; Z=2.90, P=0.004 for UDVA and MD=-0.02; 95%CI, -0.03 to -0.00; Z=2.02, P=0.04 for CDVA), but the data did not suggest that the effect of trifocal IOL implantation would clinically outperform bifocal IOL implantation. There was no significant difference in monocular near VA (MD=-0.01; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.04; Z=0.42, P=0.68 for UNVA, and MD=-0.01; 95% CI, -0.06 to 0.03; Z=0.55, P=0.58 for DCNVA) or refraction between two groups. Contrast sensitivity and subjective visual quality had no conclusive results. CONCLUSION: All results indicate that trifocal IOL and bifocal IOL had similar levels of monocular distance and near visual acuities. Besides, contrast sensitivity and subjective visual quality have no conclusive results.     

非动脉炎性前部缺血性视神经病变视盘形态的Meta分析

目的 采用Meta分析的方法评价非动脉炎性前部缺血性视神经病变（Nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy,NAION）患者视盘形态特点。设计 系统综述。研究对象 检索万方全文数据库、EMBASE和Pubmed 数据库中有关NAION 患者视盘定量测量的临床研究文献。方法 依据纳入和排除标准筛选文献,对纳入的研究进行数据提取并进行meta分析,统计学采用Stata软件进行异质性检验、合并WMD和敏感性分析。主要指标 视盘形态学参数。结果 共7篇文献符合纳入标准。NAION患者对侧健眼与正常对照比较,视盘面积（WMD=-0.20,95%CI：-0.37~-0.03）、视杯面积（WMD=-0.36,95%CI：-0.58~-0.14）、杯盘面积比（WMD=-0.15,95%CI：-0.23~-0.06）、视杯容积（WMD=-0.08,95%CI：-0.12~-0.05）、平均视杯深度（WMD=-0.10,95%CI：-0.13~-0.06）、视杯形态测量（WMD=-0.03,95%CI：-0.05~-0.02）均小于正常对照组,差异有统计学意义;而盘沿面积（WMD=0.05,95%CI：-0.15~0.25）、盘沿容积（WMD=0.05,95%CI：-0.07~0.16）两组间差异无统计学意义。NAION患者患眼与对侧健眼比较,盘沿容积（WMD=-0.08,95%CI：-0.14~-0.02）较健眼小,视杯形态测量（WMD=0.03,95%CI：0.00~0.06）较健眼大,差异有统计学意义;视盘面积（WMD=0.08,95%CI：-0.04~0.19）、视杯面积（WMD=0.08,95%CI：-0.01~0.17）、盘沿面积（WMD=-0.05,95%CI：-0.17~0.08）、杯盘面积比（WMD=0.02,95%CI：-0.02~0.06）、视杯容积（WMD=0.01,95%CI：-0.02~0.03）、平均视杯深度（WMD=0.00,95%CI：-0.02~0.03）差异两组间无统计学意义。结论NAION患者具有小视盘、小视杯的特点;NAION发生后,视杯有扩大趋势。（眼科,2014, 23： 235-239）     

Ranibizumab for treatment of choroidal neovascularization secondary to age-related macular degeneration

PURPOSE: To evaluate the short-term outcomes after intravitreal ranibizumab (Lucentis; Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, CA) injection in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration. METHODS: A review of data for consecutive patients who received intravitreal ranibizumab injection was conducted. The main outcome measures were mean visual acuity and central macular thickness at 3 months compared with those at baseline. Response to ranibizumab therapy was evaluated with particular attention to prior treatment with bevacizumab (Avastin; Genentech, Inc.). RESULTS: Mean baseline visual acuity of 231 eyes of 231 patients was 20/152, and 189 patients (81.8%) had undergone prior treatment, with 153 (65.4%) having received intravitreal bevacizumab. Mean visual acuity at 3 months, available for 203 patients (88%), was 20/126 (P = 0.004). Mean visual acuity for 98 patients treated with bevacizumab within 3 months before ranibizumab injection was 20/100 at baseline and 20/98 at 3 months (P = 0.35). Mean baseline central macular thickness was 278 microm for all patients and improved to 211 microm at 3 months (P < 0.001). Macular thickness decrease was noted irrespective of previous bevacizumab therapy. CONCLUSION: Ranibizumab therapy was associated with significant improvements in mean visual acuity and central macular thickness for the group of all patients. Patients who had received bevacizumab treatment within 3 months before initiating ranibizumab treatment had stability of, but no improvement in, visual acuity.