Abstract

BackgroundThis was an updated network meta-analysis (NMA) of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents and laser photocoagulation in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). Unlike previous NMA that used meta-regression to account for potential confounding by systematic variation in treatment effect modifiers across studies, this update incorporated individual patient-level data (IPD) regression to provide more robust adjustment.MethodsAn updated review was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials for inclusion in a Bayesian NMA. The network included intravitreal aflibercept (IVT-AFL) 2 mg bimonthly (2q8) after 5 initial doses, ranibizumab 0.5 mg as-needed (PRN), ranibizumab 0.5 mg treat-and-extend (T&E), and laser photocoagulation. Outcomes included in the analysis were change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), measured using an Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart, and patients with ≥10 and ≥ 15 ETDRS letter gains/losses at 12 months. Analyses were performed using networks restricted to IPD-only and IPD and aggregate data with (i) no covariable adjustment, (ii) covariable adjustment for baseline BVCA assuming common interaction effects (against reference treatment), and (iii) covariable adjustments specific to each treatment comparison (restricted to IPD-only network).ResultsThirteen trials were included in the analysis. IVT-AFL 2q8 was superior to laser in all analyses. IVT-AFL 2q8 showed strong evidence of superiority (95% credible interval [CrI] did not cross null) versus ranibizumab 0.5 mg PRN for mean change in BCVA (mean difference 5.20, 95% CrI 1.90–8.52 ETDRS letters), ≥15 ETDRS letter gain (odds ratio [OR] 2.30, 95% CrI 1.12–4.20), and ≥10 ETDRS letter loss (OR 0.25, 95% CrI 0.05–0.74) (IPD and aggregate random-effects model with baseline BCVA adjustment). IVT-AFL 2q8 was not superior to ranibizumab 0.5 mg T&E for mean change in BCVA (mean difference 5.15, 95% CrI -0.26–10.61 ETDRS letters) (IPD and aggregate random-effects model).ConclusionsThis NMA, which incorporated IPD to improve analytic robustness, showed evidence of superiority of IVT-AFL 2q8 to laser and ranibizumab 0.5 mg PRN. These results were irrespective of adjustment for baseline BCVA.

Highlights

  • This was an updated network meta-analysis (NMA) of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents and laser photocoagulation in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME)

  • Previous network meta-analyses (NMA) of anti-VEGF agents [9,10,11] have attempted to adjust for baseline best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) using aggregate data. These analyses provide useful data for decision-making, but meta-regression based on aggregate data may not mirror effects at the patient level and could be confounded by non-linear covariable effects and other sources of heterogeneity between trials that are not accounted for by the variables included in the meta-regression [12, 13]

  • This updated literature review identified all relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that were published from February 2015 to December 2016 using the same search strategy that was described in the previous publication [9]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

This was an updated network meta-analysis (NMA) of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents and laser photocoagulation in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). Anti-VEGF agents are currently standard of care in DME treatment. Direct randomised comparisons of anti-VEGF agents in DME, are limited to the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network (DRCR.net) Protocol T trial [4, 8], which only included ranibizumab at 0.3 mg (US dose) and did not include ranibizumab at 0.5 mg (EU dose) and is not directly relevant to retina practice outside the United States. Many comparator DME trials have used mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA; Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] letters) after 12 months as a primary efficacy measure, but differences in baseline BCVA between trials, a likely treatment effect modifier [4, 8], may confound indirect comparisons

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call