AIM: To compare the efficacy of the sole intravitreal triamcinolone (IVT) versus intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) alone or IVB combined with IVT in the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME). METHODS: Pertinent publications were identified through systematic searches of database and manually searching. Methodological quality of the literatures was valuated according to the Jadad Score. RevMan 5.1.0 was used to do the meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was determined and sensitivity was conducted. RESULTS: Six studies were ultimately included in the meta-analysis. The results of our analysis showed IVT had a statistically significant improvement in vision over the IVB at 1 month and 3 months (P<0.01). However, the reduction was not significant regarding central macular thickness (CMT) during the earlier (1 month and 3 months) follow-up period (P=0.12, P=0.41, respectively). At later visit (6 months), IVT had a significant decrease in CMT when compared to IVB (P<0.01) while no significant improvement in visual acuity (VA) was observed (P=0.14). The incidence of intraocular hypertension was 13/102 in IVT group during follow-up period while 0/103 in IVB group. The difference was significant (P<0.01). With regards to IVT versus IVB combined with IVT, there were no significant differences in CMT at 1 month (P=0.86) and 3 months (P=0.06). The incidence of intraocular hypertension was 6/67 in IVT group during follow-up period while 4/66 in IVB+IVT group. But the difference was not significant (P=0.53). CONCLUSION: Current evidence shows IVT is superior in improving VA at earlier follow-up (1 month and 3 months) and in reducing CMT at later follow-up (6 months) for DME. At other time, it is in favor of IVT treatment but there are no statistically significances. However, IVT has the side-effect of ocular hypertension. There is no adequate evidence of the benefit adding IVB to IVT in contrast to IVT alone.
AIM: To compare the efficacy of the sole intravitreal triamcinolone (IVT) versus intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) alone or IVB combined with IVT in the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME). METHODS: Pertinent publications were identified through systematic searches of database and manually searching. Methodological quality of the literatures was valuated according to the Jadad Score. RevMan 5.1.0 was used to do the meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was determined and sensitivity was conducted. RESULTS: Six studies were ultimately included in the meta-analysis. The results of our analysis showed IVT had a statistically significant improvement in vision over the IVB at 1 month and 3 months (P<0.01). However, the reduction was not significant regarding central macular thickness (CMT) during the earlier (1 month and 3 months) follow-up period (P=0.12, P=0.41, respectively). At later visit (6 months), IVT had a significant decrease in CMT when compared to IVB (P<0.01) while no significant improvement in visual acuity (VA) was observed (P=0.14). The incidence of intraocular hypertension was 13/102 in IVT group during follow-up period while 0/103 in IVB group. The difference was significant (P<0.01). With regards to IVT versus IVB combined with IVT, there were no significant differences in CMT at 1 month (P=0.86) and 3 months (P=0.06). The incidence of intraocular hypertension was 6/67 in IVT group during follow-up period while 4/66 in IVB+IVT group. But the difference was not significant (P=0.53). CONCLUSION: Current evidence shows IVT is superior in improving VA at earlier follow-up (1 month and 3 months) and in reducing CMT at later follow-up (6 months) for DME. At other time, it is in favor of IVT treatment but there are no statistically significances. However, IVT has the side-effect of ocular hypertension. There is no adequate evidence of the benefit adding IVB to IVT in contrast to IVT alone.
Authors: Ingrid U Scott; Allison R Edwards; Roy W Beck; Neil M Bressler; Clement K Chan; Michael J Elman; Scott M Friedman; Craig Michael Greven; Raj K Maturi; Dante J Pieramici; Michel Shami; Lawrence J Singerman; Cynthia R Stockdale Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2007-08-15 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Michael J Elman; Neil M Bressler; Haijing Qin; Roy W Beck; Frederick L Ferris; Scott M Friedman; Adam R Glassman; Ingrid U Scott; Cynthia R Stockdale; Jennifer K Sun Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Ranjan Rajendram; Samantha Fraser-Bell; Andrew Kaines; Michel Michaelides; Robin D Hamilton; Simona Degli Esposti; Tunde Peto; Catherine Egan; Catey Bunce; Richard David Leslie; Philip G Hykin Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2012-08