Matteo Fallico1, Andrea Maugeri2, Andrew Lotery3, Antonio Longo1, Vincenza Bonfiglio4, Andrea Russo1, Teresio Avitabile1, Alfredo Pulvirenti5, Claudio Furino6, Gilda Cennamo7, Martina Barchitta2, Antonella Agodi2, Michele Reibaldi8. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Catania, Catania, Italy. 2. Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Advanced Technologies "GF Ingrassia", University of Catania, Catania, Italy. 3. Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. 4. Department of Experimental Biomedicine and Clinical Neuroscience, Ophthalmology Section, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy. 5. Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Catania, Catania, Italy. 6. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Bari, Bari, Italy. 7. Department of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy. 8. Department of Surgical Sciences, Eye Clinic Section, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) versus anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment alone or in combination with PRP, for proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). METHODS: PubMed, Medline and Embase databases were searched for RCTs comparing PRP versus intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy and/or combined PRP and intravitreal anti-VEGF for PDR. The primary outcome measures were the mean best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) change and the regression of neovascularization. Mean change of central macular thickness (CMT), the subgroup analyses of patients without diabetic macular oedema (DME) and the rate of vitreous haemorrhage and vitrectomy were secondary outcomes. Frequentist NMAs were performed. RESULTS: Twelve RCTs were included. For the 12-month mean BCVA change, NMA showed a better visual outcome in both the anti-VEGF group and combined group compared to PRP [anti-VEGF vs PRP, mean difference (MD) = 3.42; standard error (SE) = 1.5; combined vs PRP, MD = 3.92; SE = 1.65], with no difference between combined group and anti-VEGF (MD = -0.50; SE = 1.87). No difference in neovascularization regression was found between PRP and anti-VEGF alone or in combination with PRP, but there was significant inconsistency (p = 0.016). Subgroup analyses in patients without DME yielded no difference for the 12-month visual outcome between the three interventions, but with significant inconsistency (p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: This NMA showed limited evidence of comparable efficacy in terms of neovascularization regression between PRP and anti-VEGF therapy alone or in combination with PRP, but better visual outcomes were associated with anti-VEGF use. Intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy could be a valid therapeutic option in association with PRP.
PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) versus anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment alone or in combination with PRP, for proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). METHODS: PubMed, Medline and Embase databases were searched for RCTs comparing PRP versus intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy and/or combined PRP and intravitreal anti-VEGF for PDR. The primary outcome measures were the mean best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) change and the regression of neovascularization. Mean change of central macular thickness (CMT), the subgroup analyses of patients without diabetic macular oedema (DME) and the rate of vitreous haemorrhage and vitrectomy were secondary outcomes. Frequentist NMAs were performed. RESULTS: Twelve RCTs were included. For the 12-month mean BCVA change, NMA showed a better visual outcome in both the anti-VEGF group and combined group compared to PRP [anti-VEGF vs PRP, mean difference (MD) = 3.42; standard error (SE) = 1.5; combined vs PRP, MD = 3.92; SE = 1.65], with no difference between combined group and anti-VEGF (MD = -0.50; SE = 1.87). No difference in neovascularization regression was found between PRP and anti-VEGF alone or in combination with PRP, but there was significant inconsistency (p = 0.016). Subgroup analyses in patients without DME yielded no difference for the 12-month visual outcome between the three interventions, but with significant inconsistency (p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: This NMA showed limited evidence of comparable efficacy in terms of neovascularization regression between PRP and anti-VEGF therapy alone or in combination with PRP, but better visual outcomes were associated with anti-VEGF use. Intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy could be a valid therapeutic option in association with PRP.