-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2023Uveitis is a term used to describe a group of intraocular inflammatory diseases. Uveitis is the fifth most common cause of vision loss in high-income countries, with the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Uveitis is a term used to describe a group of intraocular inflammatory diseases. Uveitis is the fifth most common cause of vision loss in high-income countries, with the highest incidence of disease in the working-age population. Corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment for all subtypes of non-infectious uveitis. They can be administered orally, topically with drops, 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), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase, PubMed, LILACS, and three trials registries to November 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing either fluocinolone acetonide (FA) or dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implants with standard-of-care therapy or sham procedures, 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
We applied standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We included data from four trials (683 participants, 907 eyes) that compared corticosteroid implants with either sham or standard-of-care therapy. Study characteristics and risk of bias Of the two trials that compared corticosteroid implants with sham procedure, one examined a 0.18 mg FA implant, and the other, a 0.7 mg DEX implant. The other two trials compared a 0.59 mg FA implant with standard-of-care therapy, which included systemic corticosteroids and immunosuppressive medications, if needed. We assessed the four trials to be at either low risk, or with some concerns of risk of bias across all domains. Findings Using sham procedure as control, combined results at the six-month primary time point suggested that corticosteroid implants may decrease the risk of uveitis recurrence by 60% (relative risk [RR] 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30 to 0.54; 2 trials, 282 participants; low-certainty evidence); and lead to a greater improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA; mean difference [MD] 0.22 logMAR, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.31; 1 trial, 153 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence based on a single-study report (146 participants) suggested that steroid implants may have no effects on visual functioning quality of life, measured on the National Eye Institute 25-Item Visual Function Questionnaire (MD 2.85, 95%CI -3.64 to 9.34; 1 trial, 146 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Using standard-of care therapy as control, combined estimates at the 24-month primary time point suggested that corticosteroid implants were likely to decrease the risk of recurrence of uveitis by 54% (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.60; 2 trials, 619 eyes). Combined estimates at 24 months also suggested that steroid implants may have little to no effects on BCVA (MD 0.05 logMAR, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.12; 2 trials, 619 eyes; low-certainty evidence). Evidence based on a single-study report (232 participants) suggested that steroid implants may have minimal clinical effects on visual functioning (MD 4.64, 95% CI 0.13 to 9.15; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); physical functioning (SF-36 physical subscale MD 2.95, 95% CI 0.55 to 5.35; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); or mental health (SF-36 mental subscale MD 3.65, 95% CI 0.52 to 6.78; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); but not on EuroQoL (MD 6.17, 95% CI 1.87 to 10.47; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); or EuroQoL-5D scale (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.08; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse effects Compared with sham procedures, corticosteroid implants may slightly increase the risk of cataract formation (RR 2.69, 95% CI 1.17 to 6.18; 1 trial, 90 eyes; low-certainty evidence), but not the risk of cataract progression (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 6.12; 1 trial, 117 eyes; low-certainty evidence); or the need for surgery (RR 2.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 10.81; 1 trial, 180 eyes; low-certainty evidence), during up to 12 months of follow-up. These implants may increase the risk of elevated intraocular pressure ([IOP] RR 2.81, 95% CI 1.42 to 5.56; 2 trials, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and the need for IOP-lowering eyedrops (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.25; 2 trials, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); but not the need for IOP-lowering surgery (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.13 to 4.17; 2 trials, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Evidence comparing the 0.59 mg FA implant with standard-of-care suggested that the implant may increase the risk of cataract progression (RR 2.71, 95% CI 2.06 to 3.56; 2 trials, 210 eyes; low-certainty evidence); and the need for surgery (RR 2.98, 95% CI 2.33 to 3.79; 2 trials, 371 eyes; low-certainty evidence); along with the risk of elevated IOP (RR 3.64, 95% CI 2.71 to 4.87; 2 trials, 605 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence); and the need for medical (RR 3.04, 95% CI 2.36 to 3.91; 2 trials, 544 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence); or surgical interventions (RR 5.43, 95% CI 3.12 to 9.45; 2 trials, 599 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). In either comparison, these implants did not increase the risk for endophthalmitis, retinal tear, or retinal detachment (moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our confidence is limited that local corticosteroid implants are superior to sham therapy or standard-of-care therapy in reducing the risk of uveitis recurrence. We demonstrated different effectiveness on BCVA relative to comparators in people with non-infectious uveitis. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that these implants may increase the risk of cataract progression and IOP elevation, which will require interventions over time. To better understand the efficacy and safety profiles of corticosteroid implants, we need future trials that examine implants of different doses, used for different durations. The trials should measure core standard outcomes that are universally defined, and measured at comparable follow-up time points.
Topics: Humans; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Cataract; Glaucoma; Panuveitis; Quality of Life; Steroids; Uveitis; Uveitis, Intermediate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36645716
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010469.pub3 -
Journal of Ophthalmology 2022We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the association between cataract surgery and the development and progression of AMD. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the association between cataract surgery and the development and progression of AMD.
METHODS
This meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42017077962). We conducted a systematic literature search in August 2020 in Embase and PubMed and included cohort studies, case-control studies, or randomized controlled trials (RCTs) if they examined the association between cataract surgery and AMD. Odds ratio (OR) was used as a measure of the association with a random effect model. The analysis was further stratified by factors that could affect the outcomes.
RESULTS
15 studies were included in this study. In the overall analysis, cataract surgery was significantly associated with the incidence of late AMD (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.26-2.56; = 0.001), particularly geographic atrophy (OR, 3.20; 95% CI, 1.90-5.39; ≤ 0.001). No significant associations were observed between cataract surgery and the incidence of early AMD. Subgroup analysis showed that the OR for incidence of early and late AMD was significantly higher for cataract surgery performed more than 5 years compared with less than 5 years. We also found an increased risk of progression of AMD after cataract surgery performed more than 5 years (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.29-3.01; = 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS
Our results suggest that cataract surgery may be associated with an increased risk of late AMD development and AMD progression. In addition, increasing the follow-up time since cataract surgery may further increase the risk for the development and progression of AMD. In the future, prospective multicenter studies with well-designed RCTs are required to confirm our findings.
PubMed: 35573811
DOI: 10.1155/2022/6780901 -
Frontiers in Aging 2021The effects of short-term hyperoxia on age-related diseases and aging biomarkers have been reported in animal and human experiments using different protocols; however,... (Review)
Review
The effects of short-term hyperoxia on age-related diseases and aging biomarkers have been reported in animal and human experiments using different protocols; however, the findings of the studies remain conflicting. In this systematic review, we summarized the existing reports in the effects of short-term hyperoxia on age-related diseases, hypoxia-inducible factor 1α (HIF-1α), and other oxygen-sensitive transcription factors relevant to aging, telomere length, cellular senescence, and its side effects. This review was done as described in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. A systematic search was done in PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library and from the references of selected articles to identify relevant studies until May 2021. Of the total 1,699 identified studies, 17 were included in this review. Most of the studies have shown significant effects of short-term hyperoxia on age-related diseases and aging biomarkers. The findings of the studies suggest the potential benefits of short-term hyperoxia in several clinical applications such as for patients undergoing stressful operations, restoration of cognitive function, and the treatment of severe traumatic brain injury. Short-term hyperoxia has significant effects in upregulation or downregulation of transcription factors relevant to aging such as HIF-1α, nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B-cells (NF-kB), and nuclear factor (erythroid-derived 2)-like 2 (NRF2) among others. Short-term hyperoxia also has significant effects to increase antioxidant enzymes, and increase telomere length and clearance of senescent cells. Some of the studies have also reported adverse consequences including mitochondrial DNA damage and nuclear cataract formation depending on the dose and duration of oxygen exposure. In conclusion, short-term hyperoxia could be a feasible treatment option to treat age-related disease and to slow aging because of its ability to increase antioxidant enzymes, significantly increase telomere length and clearance of senescent cells, and improve cognitive function, among others. The reported side effects of hyperoxia vary depending on the dose and duration of exposure. Therefore, it seems that additional studies for better understanding the beneficial effects of short-term hyperoxia and for minimizing side effects are necessary for optimal clinical application.
PubMed: 35822043
DOI: 10.3389/fragi.2021.783144 -
BMJ Open Aug 2023To systematically investigate the associations between vision impairment and risk of motor vehicle crash (MVC) involvement, and evaluate vision-related interventions to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To systematically investigate the associations between vision impairment and risk of motor vehicle crash (MVC) involvement, and evaluate vision-related interventions to reduce MVCs.
DESIGN
Medline (Ovid), EMBASE and Global Health electronic databases were systematically searched from inception to March 2022 for observational and interventional English-language studies. Screening, data extraction and appraisals using the Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tools were completed by two reviewers independently. Where appropriate, measures of association were converted into risk ratios (RRs) or ORs for meta-analysis.
PARTICIPANTS
Drivers of four-wheeled vehicles of all ages with no cognitive declines.
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES
MVC involvement (primary) and driving cessation (secondary).
RESULTS
101 studies (n=778 052) were included after full-text review. 57 studies only involved older drivers (≥65 years) and 85 were in high-income settings. Heterogeneity in the data meant that most meta-analyses were underpowered as only 25 studies, further split into different groups of eye diseases and measures of vision, could be meta-analysed. The limited evidence from the meta-analyses suggests that visual field defects (four studies; RR 1.51 (95% CI 1.23, 1.85); p<0.001; I=46.79%), and contrast sensitivity (two studies; RR 1.40 (95% CI 1.08, 1.80); p=0.01, I=0.11%) and visual acuity loss (five studies; RR 1.21 (95% CI 1.02, 1.43); p=0.03, I=28.49%) may increase crash risk. The results are more inconclusive for available evidence for associations of glaucoma (five studies, RR 1.27 (95% CI 0.67, 2.42); p=0.47; I=93.48%) and cataract (two studies RR 1.15 (95% CI 0.97, 1.36); p=0.11; I=3.96%) with crashes. Driving cessation may also be linked with glaucoma (two studies; RR 1.62 (95% CI 1.20, 2.19); p<0.001, I=22.45%), age-related macular degeneration (AMD) (three studies; RR 2.21 (95% CI 1.47, 3.31); p<0.001, I=75.11%) and reduced contrast sensitivity (three studies; RR 1.30 (95% CI 1.05, 1.61); p=0.02; I=63.19%). Cataract surgery halved MVC risk (three studies; RR 0.55 (95% CI 0.34, 0.92); p=0.02; I=97.10). Ranibizumab injections (four randomised controlled trials) prolonged driving in persons with AMD.
CONCLUSION
Impaired vision identified through a variety of measures is associated with both increased MVC involvement and cessation. Cataract surgery can reduce MVC risk. Despite literature being highly heterogeneous, this review shows that detection of vision problems and appropriate treatment are critical to road safety.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42020172153.
Topics: Humans; Visual Acuity; Ranibizumab; Accidents, Traffic; Macular Degeneration; Vision Disorders; Cataract
PubMed: 37567751
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065210 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2022Endophthalmitis is a sight-threatening emergency that requires prompt diagnosis and treatment. The condition is characterised by purulent inflammation of the intraocular... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Endophthalmitis is a sight-threatening emergency that requires prompt diagnosis and treatment. The condition is characterised by purulent inflammation of the intraocular fluids caused by an infective agent. In exogenous endophthalmitis, the infective agent is foreign and typically introduced into the eye through intraocular surgery or open globe trauma.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the potential role of combined pars plana vitrectomy and intravitreal antibiotics in the acute management of exogenous endophthalmitis, versus the standard of care, defined as vitreous tap and intravitreal antibiotics.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2022, Issue 5); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry; ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. There were no restrictions to language or year of publication. The date of the search was 5 May 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared pars plana vitrectomy and intravitreal injection of antibiotics versus intravitreal injection of antibiotics alone, for the immediate management of exogenous endophthalmitis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently screened search results and extracted data. We considered the following outcomes: visual acuity improvement and change in visual acuity at three and six months; additional surgical procedures, including vitrectomy and cataract surgery, at any time during follow-up; quality of life and adverse effects. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified a single RCT that met our inclusion criteria. The included RCT enrolled a total of 420 participants with clinical evidence of endophthalmitis, within six weeks of cataract surgery or secondary intraocular lens implantation. Participants were randomly assigned according to a 2 x 2 factorial design to either treatment with vitrectomy (VIT) or vitreous tap biopsy (TAP) and to treatment with or without systemic antibiotics. Twenty-four participants did not have a final follow-up: 12 died, five withdrew consent to be followed up, and seven were not willing to return for the visit. The study did not report visual acuity according to the review's predefined outcomes. At three months, 41% of all participants achieved 20/40 or better visual acuity and 69% had 20/100 or better acuity. The study authors reported that there was no statistically significant difference in visual acuity between treatment groups (very low-certainty evidence). There was low-certainty evidence of a similar requirement for additional surgical procedures (risk ratio RR 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.21). Adverse effects included: VIT group: dislocated intraocular lens (n = 2), macular infarction (n = 1). TAP group: expulsive haemorrhage (n = 1). Quality of life and mean change in visual acuity were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified a single RCT (published 27 years ago) for the role of early vitrectomy in exogenous endophthalmitis, which suggests that there may be no difference between groups (VIT vs TAP) for visual acuity at three or nine months' follow-up. We are of the opinion that there is a clear need for more randomised studies comparing the role of primary vitrectomy in exogenous endophthalmitis. Moreover, since the original RCT study, there have been incremental changes in the surgical techniques with which vitrectomy is performed. Such advances are likely to influence the outcome of early vitrectomy in exogenous endophthalmitis.
Topics: Humans; Vitrectomy; Endophthalmitis; Cataract Extraction; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cataract; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36398614
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013760.pub2 -
JAMA Ophthalmology Nov 2022A bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) can help compare the various types of multifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) used in clinical practice. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Visual Outcomes and Optical Quality of Accommodative, Multifocal, Extended Depth-of-Focus, and Monofocal Intraocular Lenses in Presbyopia-Correcting Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-analysis.
IMPORTANCE
A bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) can help compare the various types of multifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) used in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE
To compare outcomes of presbyopia-correcting IOLs frequently recommended in clinical practice through a bayesian NMA based on a systematic review.
DATA SOURCES
Medline (PubMed) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched on May 15, 2021, from inception.
STUDY SELECTION
Based on the research question, randomized clinical trials assessing multifocal IOLs in patients who underwent bilateral cataract extraction were searched. Nonrandomized studies, studies in patients with unilateral or contralateral cataract extractions, duplicated studies, conference abstracts, and nonpeer-reviewed articles were excluded.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Descriptive statistics and outcomes were extracted. The NMA was conducted to compare different types of IOLs. The mean differences for continuous variables, odds ratios for binary variables, 95% credible intervals (CrIs), and ranks of interventions were estimated.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The outcomes examined included binocular visual acuities by distance and optical quality, including glare, halos, and spectacle independence.
RESULTS
This NMA included 27 studies comprising 2605 patients. For uncorrected near visual acuity, trifocal IOLs (mean difference, -0.32 [95% CrI, -0.46 to -0.19]) and old bifocal diffractive IOLs (mean difference, -0.33 [95% CrI, -0.50 to -0.14]) afforded better visual acuity than monofocal IOLs. Regarding uncorrected intermediate visual acuity, extended depth-of-focus IOLs provided better visual acuity than monofocal IOLs. However, there were no differences between extended depth-of-focus and trifocal diffractive IOLs in pairwise comparisons. For uncorrected distant visual acuity, all multifocal IOLs were comparable with monofocal IOLs. There were no statistical differences between multifocal and monofocal IOLs regarding contrast sensitivity, glare, or halos.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
For patients considering a multifocal IOL due to presbyopia, bilateral implantation of a trifocal IOL might be an optimal option for patients without compromising distant visual acuity.
Topics: Humans; Presbyopia; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Lenses, Intraocular; Cataract Extraction; Contrast Sensitivity; Cataract
PubMed: 36136323
DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2022.3667 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2020Stimulus deprivation amblyopia (SDA) develops due to an obstruction to the passage of light secondary to a condition such as cataract. The obstruction prevents formation...
BACKGROUND
Stimulus deprivation amblyopia (SDA) develops due to an obstruction to the passage of light secondary to a condition such as cataract. The obstruction prevents formation of a clear image on the retina. SDA can be resistant to treatment, leading to poor visual prognosis. SDA probably constitutes less than 3% of all amblyopia cases, although precise estimates of prevalence are unknown. In high-income countries, most people present under the age of one year; in low- to middle-income countries, people are likely to be older at the time of presentation. The mainstay of treatment is correction of the obstruction (e.g., removal of the cataract) and then occlusion of the better-seeing eye, but regimens vary, can be difficult to execute, and traditionally are believed to lead to disappointing results.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of occlusion therapy for SDA in an attempt to establish realistic treatment outcomes and to examine evidence of any dose-response effect and assess the effect of the duration, severity, and causative factor on the size and direction of the treatment effect.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2018, Issue 12), which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; and five other databases. We used no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches. We last searched the databases on 12 December 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We planned to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials of participants with unilateral SDA with visual acuity worse than 0.2 LogMAR or equivalent. We specified no restrictions for inclusion based upon age, gender, ethnicity, comorbidities, medication use, or the number of participants.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified no trials that met the inclusion criteria specified in the protocol for this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no evidence from RCTs or quasi-randomized trials on the effectiveness of any treatment for SDA. RCTs are needed in order to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of occlusion, duration of treatment, level of vision that can be realistically achieved, effects of age at onset and magnitude of visual defect, optimum occlusion regimen, and factors associated with satisfactory and unsatisfactory outcomes with the use of various interventions for SDA.
Topics: Amblyopia; Blepharoptosis; Cataract; Child, Preschool; Humans; Infant; Occlusive Dressings; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32203629
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005136.pub4 -
Ophthalmology and Therapy Apr 2023The purpose of this article was to ascertain the existing literature and find the gaps in economic evaluations of cataracts. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this article was to ascertain the existing literature and find the gaps in economic evaluations of cataracts.
METHODS
Systematic methods were used to search and collect the published literature on economic evaluations of cataracts. A mapping review of studies published in the following bibliographical databases was performed: the National Library of Medicine (PubMed), EMBASE, Web of Science (WOS), and the Central of Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) database. A descriptive analysis was conducted and relevant studies were classified into different groups.
RESULTS
Among 984 studies screened, 56 studies were included in the mapping review. Four research questions were answered. There has been a progressive increase of publications during the last decade. The majority of the included studies were published by authors from institutions in the USA and UK. The most commonly investigated area was cataract surgery followed by intraocular lenses (IOLs). The studies were classified into different categories according to the main outcome evaluated, such as comparisons between different surgical techniques, costs of the cataract surgery, second eye cataract surgery costs, quality of life gain after cataract surgery, waiting time of cataract surgery and costs, and cataract evaluation, follow-up, and costs. In the IOL classification, the most frequently studied area was the comparison between monofocal and multifocal IOLs, followed by the comparison between toric and monofocal IOLs.
CONCLUSIONS
Cataract surgery is a cost-effective procedure compared with other non-ophthalmic and ophthalmic interventions and surgery waiting time is an important factor to consider because vision loss has a huge and broad-ranging impact on society. Numerous gaps and inconsistencies are found among the studies included. For this reason, there is a need for further studies according to the classification described in the mapping review.
PubMed: 36809595
DOI: 10.1007/s40123-023-00678-0 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2022Cataract surgery is the most common ambulatory incisional surgery performed in the USA. Cystoid macular edema (CME), the accumulation of fluid in the central retina due... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cataract surgery is the most common ambulatory incisional surgery performed in the USA. Cystoid macular edema (CME), the accumulation of fluid in the central retina due to leakage from dilated capillaries, is the most common cause of vision impairment following cataract surgery. Acute CME, defined as CME of less than four months' duration, often resolves spontaneously. CME that persists for four months or longer is termed chronic CME. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been used to treat CME. This update adds new evidence and analyses to the previously published review.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effectiveness of NSAIDs in the treatment of CME following cataract surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the CENTRAL (2022, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase; PubMed; LILACS; mRCT (discontinued in 2014, last searched August 2011), ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP databases. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 20 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of NSAIDs for CME following cataract surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts, reviewed full-text publications against eligibility criteria, independently extracted data from newly included trials and assessed risk of bias for each included trial. We contacted trial authors for clarification or to request missing information. We provided a narrative synthesis of all included trials and their results. For continuous and dichotomous outcomes, we separately performed pooled analysis and reported mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) as well as the associated 95% confidence interval (CI) whenever feasible. Two review authors independently graded the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine trials with a total of 390 participants (393 eyes). Study participants' mean age was 72.2 years (interquartile range [IQR] 68.8 to 73.6) and 72% were women (IQR 69% to 74%). Three trials included participants with acute CME, and four included participants with chronic CME; the remaining two trials enrolled both participants with acute and chronic CME or participants with unknown CME duration. We assessed trials as having unclear (33%) or high risk of bias (67%). Visual improvement of two or more lines at the end of treatment Data from one trial in participants with acute CME show no treatment effect of topical ketorolac compared to placebo (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.46 to 8.76; 22 participants). Data from a three-arm trial in participants with acute CME demonstrate that, when compared with topical prednisolone, topical ketorolac (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.58 to 3.07; 17 participants) or topical ketorolac and prednisolone combination therapy (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.86 to 3.69; 17 participants) may have little or no effect on visual improvement. Results of subgroup analysis from two studies in participants with chronic CME suggest that, after treatment for 90 days or longer, NSAIDs may increase participants' likelihood of visual improvement by 1.87 fold (RR 2.87, 95% CI 1.58 to 5.22; I = 33%; 2 trials, 121 participants) relative to placebo. However, there was no evidence of treatment effects in the subgroup with two months of treatment or less (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.73; P = 0.19, I = 41%; 2 trials, 34 participants). Overall, this evidence is very low certainty. A single-study estimate in patients with mixed CME indicates that topical diclofenac may increase the likelihood of visual improvement by 40% when compared to topical ketorolac (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.94; 68 participants). However, the same trial reported no difference between the groups in mean final visual acuity in Snellen lines (MD 0.40, 95% CI -0.93 to 1.73). A three-arm trial in patients with mixed CME reporting visual changes in ETDRS letters in comparisons between ketorolac and diclofenac (34 participants) or bromfenac (34 participants) suggests no evidence of effects. Overall, NSAIDs may slightly improve visual acuity in participants with mixed CME but the evidence is very uncertain. Persistence of improvement of vision one month after discontinuation of treatment One trial of participants with chronic CME tested oral indomethacin (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.60; 20 participants) and the other compared topical ketorolac to placebo (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 31.1; 26 participants). While there is no evidence of treatment effects, evidence suggests substantial between-group heterogeneity (P = 0.07, I = 69.9%; very low-certainty evidence). None of the trials in patients with acute or mixed CME reported this outcome. Proportion of participants with improvement in leakage on fundus fluorescein angiography One three-arm trial in participants with acute CME shows that, when compared with topical prednisolone, there is no treatment benefit of topical ketorolac (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.75; 17 participants) or topical ketorolac and topical prednisolone combination therapy (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.72 to 3.38; 17 participants). This evidence is very low certainty. The combined estimate from two trials in participants with chronic CME indicates NSAIDs have little to no effect over placebo on improving leakage (RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.62 to 6.02; 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Neither of the trials in patients with mixed CME reported this outcome. Proportion of participants with improved contrast sensitivity Very low-certainty evidence from one trial in participants with acute CME shows no treatment benefit of ketorolac (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.75; 17 participants) or ketorolac and prednisolone combination therapy (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.86 to 3.69; 17 participants) compared with topical prednisolone. None of the trials in patients with chronic or mixed CME reported this outcome. Proportion of participants with improved central macular thickness on optical coherence tomography; measures of quality of life No included trial reported these outcomes. Adverse effects Most trials observed no differences in ocular adverse events, such as corneal toxicity or elevated intraocular pressure, between comparison groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence on effects of NSAIDs in patients with CME is very uncertain and further investigation is warranted. Our findings are limited by small sample sizes, and heterogeneity in interventions, assessments, and reporting of clinically important outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Female; Aged; Male; Macular Edema; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Ketorolac; Diclofenac; Quality of Life; Cataract; Prednisolone
PubMed: 36520144
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004239.pub4 -
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