Ranibizumab for macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion: a meta-analysis of dose effects and comparison with no anti-VEGF treatment.
Ranibizumab for macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion: a meta-analysis of dose effects and comparison with no anti-VEGF treatment.
复制标题
雷珠单抗治疗视网膜静脉阻塞继发性黄斑水肿：剂量效应荟萃分析以及与无抗 VEGF 治疗的比较
DOI：
10.1186/s12886-015-0017-z
复制
发表时间：
2015-03-29
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
Xia XB
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Song WT;Xia XB
背景：比较0.5 mg或0.3 mg玻璃体内雷尼单抗（IVR）与非抗血管内皮生长因子（VEGF）的疗效和耐受性，并比较0.5 mg IVR与0.3 mg IVR治疗视网膜静脉闭塞继发性黄斑水肿的疗效。方法通过PubMed、EMBASE、Web of Science和Cochrane Library数据库进行广泛检索，选择相关研究。关注的结果包括视觉结果、解剖变量和不良事件。结果4项随机对照试验（RCTs）符合我们的纳入标准。与非抗vegf相比，0.5 mg IVR在6个月时产生了更高的视力改善，合并加权平均差异（wmd）为12.30个早期治疗糖尿病视网膜病变研究（ETDRS）字母（95% CI:10.03, 14.58） （P< 0.001），并导致更高比例的患者在随访终点获得≥15个字母（RR, 2.36; 95%CI: 1.86, 2.99；P< 0.001）。与非抗vegf组相比，IVR 0.5 mg组中央中央凹厚度（CFT）下降更明显，CFT均值差异有统计学意义（WMD, - 216.86 μm; 95%CI: - 279.01, - 154.71；P< 0.001）。IVR 0.3 mg组与非抗vegf组疗效相似。0.5 mg和0.3 mg的IVR无显著差异。非抗vegf组虹膜新生血管的发生率明显高于IVR组。结论sivr 0.5 mg、0.3 mg治疗效果优于假注射和激光治疗。IVR 0.3 mg与IVR 0.5 mg治疗视网膜静脉闭塞继发黄斑水肿效果相同。
BackgroundTo compare the efficacy and tolerability of intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) 0.5 mg or 0.3 mg with non-anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and to compare the efficacy of IVR 0.5 mg with IVR 0.3 mg in the treatment of macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion.MethodsRelevant studies were selected after an extensive search using the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. Outcomes of interest included visual outcomes, anatomic variables, and adverse events.ResultsFour randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met our inclusion criteria. IVR 0.5 mg produced a significantly higher improvement in visual acuity at six months, with pooled weighted mean differences (WMDs) of 12.30 early treatment diabetic retinopathy study (ETDRS) letters (95% CI:10.03, 14.58) (P< 0.001),and led to a higher proportion of patients gaining ≥15 letters (RR, 2.36; 95%CI: 1.86, 2.99;P< 0.001) at the follow-up endpoint, compared with non-anti-VEGF. A more obvious reduction in central foveal thickness (CFT) was observed in the IVR 0.5 mg group than the non-anti-VEGF group, and the mean difference in CFT was statistically significant (WMD, −216.86 μm; 95%CI: −279.01, −154.71;P< 0.001). A similar efficacy was found between the IVR 0.3 mg group and the non-anti-VEGF group. No significant differences were found between IVR 0.5 mg and 0.3 mg. The incidence of iris neovascularization in the non-anti-VEGF group was significantly higher than that of the IVR group.ConclusionsIVR 0.5 mg or 0.3 mg was more effective than sham injection and laser treatment. IVR 0.3 mg is as effective as IVR 0.5 mg in the treatment of macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
158.5
作者：
Wong, Tien Y.;Scott, Ingrid U.
通讯作者：
Scott, Ingrid U.
DOI：
10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2
发表时间：
1986-09-01
期刊：
CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS
影响因子：
--
作者：
DERSIMONIAN, R;LAIRD, N
通讯作者：
LAIRD, N
影响因子：
1.4
作者：
Vinores, SA;Derevjanik, NL;Campochiaro, PA
通讯作者：
Campochiaro, PA
影响因子：
13.7
作者：
Campochiaro, Peter A.;Sophie, Raafay;Patel, Arun
通讯作者：
Patel, Arun
影响因子：
4.2
作者：
Tan, Mei Hong;Mcallister, Ian L.;Wong, Tien Y.
通讯作者：
Wong, Tien Y.