-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Aqueous shunts are employed to control intraocular pressure (IOP) for people with primary or secondary glaucomas who fail or are not candidates for standard surgery. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Aqueous shunts are employed to control intraocular pressure (IOP) for people with primary or secondary glaucomas who fail or are not candidates for standard surgery.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of aqueous shunts for reducing IOP in glaucoma compared with standard surgery, another type of aqueous shunt, or modification to the aqueous shunt procedure.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 8), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to August 2016), Embase.com (1947 to August 2016), PubMed (1948 to August 2016), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database) (1982 to August 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov); searched 15 August 2016, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en); searched 15 August 2016. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 15 August 2016. We also searched the reference lists of identified trial reports and the Science Citation Index to find additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials that compared various types of aqueous shunts with standard surgery or to each other in eyes with glaucoma.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened search results for eligibility, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data from included trials. We contacted trial investigators when data were unclear or not reported. We graded the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We followed standard methods as recommended by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 27 trials with a total of 2099 participants with mixed diagnoses and comparisons of interventions. Seventeen studies reported adequate methods of randomization, and seven reported adequate allocation concealment. Data collection and follow-up times varied.Four trials compared an aqueous shunt (Ahmed or Baerveldt) with trabeculectomy, of which three reported one-year outcomes. At one-year, the difference in IOP between aqueous shunt groups and trabeculectomy groups was uncertain (mean difference (MD) 2.55 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.78 to 5.87; 380 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The difference in logMAR visual acuity was also uncertain (MD 0.12 units, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.31; 380 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In two trials, the difference in visual field score was uncertain (MD -0.25, 95% CI -1.91 to 1.40; 196 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The mean number of antiglaucoma medications was higher in the aqueous shunt group than the trabeculectomy group in one trial (MD 0.80, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.12; 184 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect on needing additional glaucoma surgery was uncertain between groups in two trials (risk ratio (RR) 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.36; 329 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In one trial, fewer total adverse events were reported in the aqueous shunt group than the trabeculectomy group (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.81; 212 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No trial reported quality-of-life outcomes at one-year follow-up.Two trials that compared the Ahmed implant with the Baerveldt implant for glaucoma found higher mean IOP in the Ahmed group at one-year follow-up (MD 2.60 mmHg, 95% CI 1.58 to 3.62; 464 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The difference in logMAR visual acuity was uncertain between groups (MD -0.07 units, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.13; 501 participants; low-certainty evidence). The MD in number of antiglaucoma medications was within one between groups (MD 0.35, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.59; 464 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). More participants in the Ahmed group required additional glaucoma surgery than the Baerveldt group (RR 2.77, 95% CI 1.02 to 7.54; 514 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The two trials reported specific adverse events but not overall number of adverse events. Neither trial reported visual field or quality-of-life outcomes at one-year follow-up.One trial compared the Ahmed implant with the Molteno implant for glaucoma over two-year follow-up. Mean IOP was higher in the Ahmed group than the Molteno group (MD 1.64 mmHg, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.43; 57 participants; low-certainty evidence). The differences in logMAR visual acuity (MD 0.08 units, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.40; 57 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and mean deviation in visual field (MD -0.18 dB, 95% CI -3.13 to 2.77; 57 participants; very low-certainty evidence) were uncertain between groups. The mean number of antiglaucoma medications was also uncertain between groups (MD -0.38, 95% CI -1.03 to 0.27; 57 participants; low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report the proportion needing additional glaucoma surgery, total adverse events, or quality-of-life outcomes.Two trials compared the double-plate Molteno implant with the Schocket shunt for glaucoma; one trial reported outcomes only at six-month follow-up, and the other did not specify the follow-up time. At six-months, mean IOP was lower in the Molteno group than the Schocket group (MD -2.50 mmHg, 95% CI -4.60 to -0.40; 115 participants; low-certainty evidence). Neither trial reported the proportion needing additional glaucoma surgery, total adverse events, or visual acuity, visual field, or quality-of-life outcomes.The remaining 18 trials evaluated modifications to aqueous shunts, including 14 trials of Ahmed implants (early aqueous suppression versus standard medication regimen, 2 trials; anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agent versus none, 4 trials; corticosteroids versus none, 2 trials; shunt augmentation versus none, 3 trials; partial tube ligation versus none, 1 trial; pars plana implantation versus conventional implantation, 1 trial; and model M4 versus model S2,1 trial); 1 trial of 500 mm Baerveldt versus 350 mm Baerveldt; and 3 trials of Molteno implants (single-plate with oral corticosteroids versus single-plate without oral corticosteroids, 1 trial; double-plate versus single-plate, 1 trial; and pressure-ridge versus double-plate with tube ligation, 1 trial).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Information was insufficient to conclude whether there are differences between aqueous shunts and trabeculectomy for glaucoma treatment. While the Baerveldt implant may lower IOP more than the Ahmed implant, the evidence was of moderate-certainty and it is unclear whether the difference in IOP reduction is clinically significant. Overall, methodology and data quality among existing randomized controlled trials of aqueous shunts was heterogeneous across studies, and there are no well-justified or widely accepted generalizations about the superiority of one surgical procedure or device over another.
Topics: Cataract Extraction; Glaucoma; Glaucoma Drainage Implants; Humans; Intraocular Pressure; Molteno Implants; Ocular Hypertension; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Trabeculectomy
PubMed: 28750481
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004918.pub3 -
Journal of Ophthalmology 2023Both systemic and inhaled corticosteroids may increase the risk of cataract in patients with both chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma. Our aim was to... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Both systemic and inhaled corticosteroids may increase the risk of cataract in patients with both chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma. Our aim was to assess the degree of association between cataract and corticosteroid exposure in patients with asthma and COPD.
METHODS
A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. The odds ratio estimates were extracted from each article. A random effects model was applied for estimate pooling in separate meta-analyses according to study design. Meta-regression was performed to assess the dose-response relationship between corticosteroid exposure and the risk of cataract development.
RESULTS
A total of 19 studies met the criteria for inclusion in this review, of which 12 studies provided effect estimates for pooled analyses. All but one of the included observational studies reported a significant association between use of corticosteroids and cataract development in cohorts of asthma and/or COPD patients. Pooled analyses revealed on average a doubled risk of cataract in corticosteroid-exposed asthma and COPD patients. Studies have shown that daily high-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) ≥ 1000 g is associated with a significant risk of developing cataract and by that predispose to subsequent cataract surgery, although one study showed that systemic corticosteroids increase cataract risk more than ICS.
CONCLUSION
ICS treatment in asthma and COPD patients is a risk factor for cataract development. Our results emphasize a previously underestimated potential long-term risk of treatment with ICS and underline the importance of targeting ICS treatment, and not least dosing, to improve the risk-benefit ratio of maintenance treatment in both asthma and COPD.
PubMed: 37899845
DOI: 10.1155/2023/8209978 -
Journal of Ophthalmology 2015The aim of the present systematic review was to examine the benefits and harms associated with immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS) with specific... (Review)
Review
The aim of the present systematic review was to examine the benefits and harms associated with immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS) with specific emphasis on the rate of complications, postoperative anisometropia, and subjective visual function in order to formulate evidence-based national Danish guidelines for cataract surgery. A systematic literature review in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane central databases identified three randomized controlled trials that compared outcome in patients randomized to ISBCS or bilateral cataract surgery on two different dates. Meta-analyses were performed using the Cochrane Review Manager software. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE method (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). We did not find any difference in the risk of complications or visual outcome in patients randomized to ISBCS or surgery on two different dates. The quality of evidence was rated as low to very low. None of the studies reported the prevalence of postoperative anisometropia. In conclusion, we cannot provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of ISBCS due to the lack of high quality evidence. Therefore, the decision to perform ISBCS should be taken after careful discussion between the surgeon and the patient.
PubMed: 26351576
DOI: 10.1155/2015/912481 -
Pharmacological Research Oct 2023To assess the effectiveness and safety of combining intravitreal endothelial growth factor inhibitor (anti-VEGF) and ocular corticosteroids for diabetic macular edema... (Review)
Review
Anti-VEGF combined with ocular corticosteroids therapy versus anti-VEGF monotherapy for diabetic macular edema focusing on drugs injection times and confounding factors of pseudophakic eyes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
PURPOSE
To assess the effectiveness and safety of combining intravitreal endothelial growth factor inhibitor (anti-VEGF) and ocular corticosteroids for diabetic macular edema (DME).
METHODS
Articles concentrating on the efficacy and safety of combining anti-VEGF and ocular corticosteroids therapy for DME versus anti-VEGF monotherapy was screened systematically. Meta-analysis was conducted on the basis of a protocol registered in the PROSPERO (CRD42023408338) and performed on the extracted continuous variables and dichotomous variables. The outcome was expressed as weighted mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR).
RESULTS
Add up to 21 studies including 1468 eyes were enrolled in this study. The MD for best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improvement at 1/3/6/12-month between the combination therapy group and monotherapy group were 2.56 (95% CI [0.43, 4.70]), 2.46 (95% CI [-0.40, 5.32]), - 1.76 (95% CI [-3.18, -0.34]), - 1.94 (95% CI [-3.87, 0.00]), respectively. The MD for central retinal thickness (CMT) reduction at 1/3/6/12-month between two groups were - 66.27 (95% CI [-101.08, -31.47]), - 33.62 (95% CI [-57.55, -9.70]), - 4.54 (95% CI [-16.84, 7.76]), - 26.67 (95% CI [-41.52, -11.82]), respectively. Additionally, the combination group had higher relative risk of high intraocular pressure and cataract progression events.
CONCLUSIONS
Anti-VEGF combined with ocular corticosteroids had a significant advantage over anti-VEGF monotherapy within 3 months of DME treatment, which reached the maximum with increasing anti-VEGF injection times to 3. However, with the prolongation of the treatment cycle, the effect of combined therapy after 6 months was no better than monotherapy, and the side effects of combined therapy were more severe.
PubMed: 37666311
DOI: 10.1016/j.phrs.2023.106904 -
Acta Ophthalmologica Jun 2015Endophthalmitis is one of the most feared complications after cataract surgery. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of intracameral and topical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Endophthalmitis is one of the most feared complications after cataract surgery. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of intracameral and topical antibiotics on the prevention of endophthalmitis after cataract surgery. A systematic literature review in the MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and EMBASE databases revealed one randomized trial and 17 observational studies concerning the prophylactic effect of intracameral antibiotic administration on the rate of endophthalmitis after cataract surgery. The effect of topical antibiotics on endophthalmitis rate was reported by one randomized trial and one observational study. The quality and design of the included studies were analysed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The quality of the evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. We found high-to-moderate quality evidence for a marked reduction in the risk of endophthalmitis with the use of intracameral antibiotic administration of cefazolin, cefuroxime and moxifloxacin, whereas no effect was found with the use of topical antibiotics or intracameral vancomycin. Endophthalmitis occurred on average in one of 2855 surgeries when intracameral antibiotics were used compared to one of 485 surgeries when intracameral antibiotics were not used. The relative risk (95% CI) of endophthalmitis was reduced to 0.12 (0.08; 0.18) when intracameral antibiotics were used. The difference was highly significant (p < 0.00001). Intracameral antibiotic therapy is the best choice for preventing endophthalmitis after cataract surgery. We did not find evidence to conclude that topical antibiotic therapy prevents endophthalmitis.
Topics: Anterior Chamber; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cataract Extraction; Endophthalmitis; Eye Infections, Bacterial; Humans; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 25779209
DOI: 10.1111/aos.12684 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016Uveitis is a term used to describe a heterogeneous group of intraocular inflammatory diseases of the anterior, intermediate, and posterior uveal tract (iris, ciliary... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Uveitis is a term used to describe a heterogeneous group of intraocular inflammatory diseases of the anterior, intermediate, and posterior uveal tract (iris, ciliary body, choroid). Uveitis is the fifth most common cause of vision loss in high-income countries, accounting for 5% to 20% of legal blindness, with the highest incidence of disease in the working-age population.Corticosteroids are the mainstay of acute treatment for all anatomical subtypes of non-infectious uveitis and can be administered orally, topically with drops or ointments, by periocular (around the eye) or intravitreal (inside the eye) injection, or by surgical implantation.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of steroid implants in people with chronic non-infectious posterior uveitis, intermediate uveitis, and panuveitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (Issue 10, 2015), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to November 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to November 2015), PubMed (1948 to November 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to November 2015), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) (last searched 15 April 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for studies. We last searched the electronic databases on 6 November 2015.We also searched reference lists of included study reports, citation databases, and abstracts and clinical study presentations from professional meetings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials comparing either fluocinolone acetonide (FA) or dexamethasone intravitreal implants with standard-of-care therapy with at least six months of follow-up after treatment. We included studies that enrolled participants of all ages who had chronic non-infectious posterior uveitis, intermediate uveitis, or panuveitis with vision that was better than hand-motion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently reviewed studies for inclusion. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias for each study.
MAIN RESULTS
We included data from two studies (619 eyes of 401 participants) that compared FA implants with standard-of-care therapy. Both studies used similar standard-of-care therapy that included administration of prednisolone and, if needed, immunosuppressive agents. The studies included participants from Australia, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. We assessed both studies at high risk of performance and detection bias.Only one study reported our primary outcome, recurrence of uveitis at any point during the study through 24 months. The evidence, judged as moderate-quality, showed that a FA implant probably prevents recurrence of uveitis compared with standard-of-care therapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.59; 132 eyes). Both studies reported safety outcomes, and moderate-quality evidence showed increased risks of needing cataract surgery (RR 2.98, 95% CI 2.33 to 3.79; 371 eyes) and surgery to lower intraocular pressure (RR 7.48, 95% CI 3.94 to 14.19; 599 eyes) in the implant group compared with standard-of-care therapy through two years of follow-up. No studies compared dexamethasone implants with standard-of-care therapy.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
After considering both benefits and harms reported from two studies in which corticosteroids implants were compared with standard-of-care therapy, we are unable to conclude that the implants are superior to traditional systemic therapy for the treatment of non-infectious uveitis. These studies exhibited heterogeneity in design and outcomes that measured efficacy. Pooled findings regarding safety outcomes suggest increased risks of post-implant surgery for cataract and high intraocular pressure compared with standard-of-care therapy.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Chronic Disease; Drug Implants; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Prednisolone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Standard of Care; Uveitis
PubMed: 26866343
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010469.pub2 -
Clinical Ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) 2018To systematically review the published evidence on the prevalence and economic and humanistic burden of astigmatism in cataract patients. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To systematically review the published evidence on the prevalence and economic and humanistic burden of astigmatism in cataract patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
For this systematic literature review, the Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched from 1996 to September 2015 for available scientific literature that met the inclusion criteria. Studies published in the English language reporting prevalence and humanistic and economic burden in patients diagnosed with cataract and astigmatism were included.
RESULTS
Of 3,649 papers reviewed, 31 studies from 32 publications met the inclusion criteria of this review. Preexisting astigmatism ≥1 D was present in up to 47% of cataract eyes. The cost burden of residual uncorrected astigmatism after cataract surgery was driven by the cost of spectacles, which was estimated to range from $2,151 to $3,440 in the US and $1,786 to $4,629 in Europe over a lifetime. In cataract patients, both preexisting and postoperative residual astigmatism were associated with poor vision-related patient satisfaction and quality of life, as well as higher spectacle burden. Astigmatism correction during cataract surgery appears to improve visual outcomes and results in overall lifetime cost savings compared to astigmatism correction with postoperative vision correction.
CONCLUSION
There is a high prevalence of preexisting astigmatism in cataract patients. Although published data are limited, both preoperative astigmatism and postoperative residual astigmatism affect visual function and vision-related quality of life, resulting in increased humanistic burden. Suboptimal correction of astigmatism during cataract surgery drives the continuous need for vision correction with spectacles in the postoperative period. Patients must bear the out-of-pocket expenses, since payers often do not reimburse the cost of spectacles. Greater access to astigmatism correction during cataract surgery could improve visual outcomes and quality of life in patients. More research is required to gain a better understanding of the disease burden of astigmatism in cataract patients.
PubMed: 29563768
DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S146829 -
Clinical Ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) 2023Recent advances in telemedicine have led to increased use of digital ophthalmoscopes (DO) in clinical settings. This review aims to assess commercially available DOs,... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Recent advances in telemedicine have led to increased use of digital ophthalmoscopes (DO) in clinical settings. This review aims to assess commercially available DOs, including smartphone (SP), desktop, and handheld ophthalmoscopes, and evaluate their applications.
METHODS
A literature review was performed by searching PubMed (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov), Web of Science (webofknowledge.com), and Science Direct (sciencedirect.com). All English-language papers that resulted from the search terms "digital ophthalmoscope", "screening tool", "glaucoma screening", "diabetic retinopathy screening", "cataract screening", and "papilledema screening" were reviewed. Studies that contained randomized clinical trials with human participants between January 2010 and December 2020 were included. The Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool was used to assess the methodological quality of each included paper.
RESULTS
Of the 1307 studies identified, 35 met inclusion and exclusion criteria. The ROBIS tool determined that 29/35 studies (82.8%) had a low risk of bias, 3/35 (8.5%) had a moderate risk of bias, and 3/35 (8.5%) had a high risk of bias.
CONCLUSION
The continued adoption of DOs remains uncertain because of concerns about the image quality for non-mydriatic eyes and the confidence in data captured from the device. Likewise, there is a lack of guidelines for the use of DOs, which makes it difficult for providers to determine the best device for their practice and to ensure appropriate use. Even so, DOs continue to gain acceptance as technology and practice integration improve, especially in underserved areas with limited access to ophthalmologists.
PubMed: 37822326
DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S423845 -
Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) May 2023Statins have been established in the market not only due to their ability to lower plasma cholesterol levels but also due to their pleiotropic effects. In the... (Review)
Review
AIM
Statins have been established in the market not only due to their ability to lower plasma cholesterol levels but also due to their pleiotropic effects. In the literature, there is a controversy regarding the role of statins in ophthalmology. We aimed to systematically address the possible effect of statin therapy on ocular diseases and to identify if there is a beneficial relationship.
METHODS
We searched PubMed and Cochrane Library databases up to 31 December 2022 for studies evaluating the effect of statins on ocular diseases. We included all relevant Randomized Control Trials (RCTs) that have been conducted in the adult population. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022364328.
RESULTS
Nineteen RCTs were finally considered eligible for this systematic review, with a total of 28,940 participants. Ten studies investigated the role of simvastatin, suggesting a lack of cataractogenic effect and a possible protective role in cataract formation, retinal vascular diseases, and especially diabetic retinopathy, age-related macular disease progression, and non-infectious uveitis. Four studies investigated lovastatin, showing no cataractogenic effect. Three studies examined atorvastatin, revealing conflicting results regarding diabetic retinopathy. Two studies examined rosuvastatin, indicating a possibly harmful effect on lenses and a significant protective effect on retinal microvasculature.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on our findings, we believe that statins have no cataractogenic effect. There are indications that statins may have a protective role against cataract formation, AMD, diabetic retinopathy progression, and non-infectious uveitis. However, our results were insufficient for any robust conclusion. Future RCTs, with large sample sizes, on the current topic are therefore recommended to provide more solid evidence.
PubMed: 37242493
DOI: 10.3390/ph16050711 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2017Cataract is the leading cause of world blindness. The only available treatment for cataract is surgery. Surgery requires highly-trained individuals with expensive... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cataract is the leading cause of world blindness. The only available treatment for cataract is surgery. Surgery requires highly-trained individuals with expensive operating facilities. Where these are not available, patients go untreated. A form of treatment that did not involve surgery would be a useful alternative for people with symptomatic cataract who are unable or unwilling to undergo surgery. If an eye drop existed that could reverse or even prevent progression of cataract, then this would be a useful additional treatment option.Cataract tends to result from oxidative stress. The protein, L-carnosine, is known to have an antioxidant effect on the cataractous lens, so biochemically there is sound logic for exploring L-carnosine as an agent to reverse or even prevent progression of cataract. When applied as an eye drop, L-carnosine cannot penetrate the eye. However, when applied to the surface of the eye, N-acetylcarnosine (NAC) penetrates the cornea into the front chamber of the eye (near to where the cataract is), where it is metabolised into L-carnosine. Hence, it is possible that use of NAC eye drops may reverse or even prevent progression of cataract, thereby improving vision and quality of life.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of NAC drops to prevent or reverse the progression of cataract.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 6), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to June 2016), Embase (January 1980 to June 2016), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) (January 1985 to June 2016), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to June 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 28 June 2016. We handsearched the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) and the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons (ESCRS) meetings from 2005 until September 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We planned to include randomized or quasi-randomised controlled trials where NAC was compared to control in people with age-related cataract.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified two potentially eligible studies from Russia and the United States. One study was split into two arms: the first arm ran for six months, with two-monthly follow-up; the second arm ran for two years with six-monthly follow-up. The other study ran for four months with a data collection point at the start and end of the study only. A total of 114 people were enrolled in these studies. The ages ranged from 55 to 80 years.We were unable to obtain sufficient information to reliably determine how both these studies were designed and conducted. We have contacted the author of these studies, but have not yet received a reply. Therefore, these studies are assigned as 'awaiting classification' in the review until sufficient information can be obtained from the authors.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is currently no convincing evidence that NAC reverses cataract, nor prevents progression of cataract (defined as a change in cataract appearance either for the better or for the worse). Future studies should be randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trials with standardised quality of life outcomes and validated outcome measures in terms of visual acuity, contrast sensitivity and glare, and large enough to detect adverse effects.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Aging; Carnosine; Cataract; Disease Progression; Humans; Middle Aged; Ophthalmic Solutions; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28245346
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009493.pub2