-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2024Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a progressive eye disease characterized by choroidal neovascularization (CNV) and is a leading cause of vision loss... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
RATIONALE
Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a progressive eye disease characterized by choroidal neovascularization (CNV) and is a leading cause of vision loss and disability worldwide. Although intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy is an effective treatment option that helps to prevent vision loss or to improve visual acuity in people with neovascular AMD, treatment imposes a significant financial burden on patients and healthcare systems. A biosimilar is a biological product that has been developed to be nearly identical to a previously approved biological product. The use of biosimilars may help reduce costs and so may increase patient access to effective biologic medicines with similar levels of safety to the drugs on which they are based.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of anti-VEGF biosimilar agents compared with their corresponding anti-VEGF agents (i.e. the reference products) that have obtained regulatory approval for intravitreal injections in people with neovascular AMD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and two trials registries together with reference checking and contact with study authors to identify studies that are included in the review. The latest search date was 2 June 2023.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared approved anti-VEGF biosimilars with their reference products for treating the eyes of adult participants (≥ 50 years) who had an active primary or recurrent choroidal neovascularization lesion secondary to neovascular AMD.
OUTCOMES
Our outcomes were: best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central subfield thickness (CST), vision-related quality of life, serious ocular and non-ocular adverse events (AE), treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), anti-drug antibodies (ADAs), and serum concentrations of biosimilars and reference drugs.
RISK OF BIAS
We assessed the risk of bias (RoB) for seven outcomes reported in a summary of findings table by using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool.
SYNTHESIS METHODS
We synthesized results for each outcome using meta-analysis, where possible, by calculating risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and continuous outcomes, respectively. Where this was not possible due to the nature of the data, we summarized the results narratively. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for prespecified outcomes.
INCLUDED STUDIES
We included nine parallel-group multi-center RCTs that enrolled a total of 3814 participants (3814 participating eyes), with sample sizes that ranged from 160 to 705 participants per study. The mean age of the participants in these studies ranged from 67 to 76 years, and the proportion of women ranged from 26.5% to 58.7%. Ranibizumab (Lucentis) was the reference product in seven studies, and aflibercept (Eyelea) was the reference product in two others. All the included studies had been supported by industry. The follow-up periods ranged from 12 to 52 weeks (median 48 weeks). Five studies (56%) were conducted in multi-country settings across Europe, North America and Asia, two studies in India, and one each in Japan and the Republic of Korea. We judged all the included studies to have met high methodological standards.
SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS
With regard to efficacy, our meta-analyses demonstrated that anti-VEGF biosimilars for neovascular AMD resulted in little to no difference compared with the reference products for BCVA change at 8 to 12 weeks (MD -0.55 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters, 95% CI -1.17 to 0.07; 8 studies, 3603 participants; high-certainty evidence) and the proportion of participants who lost fewer than 15 letters in BCVA at 24 to 48 weeks (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01; 7 studies, 2658 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Almost all participants (96.6% in the biosimilar group and 97.0% in the reference product group) lost fewer than 15 letters in BCVA. The evidence from two studies suggested that there was no evidence of difference between biosimilars and reference products in vision-related quality of life measured by the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25) summary scores at 24 to 48 weeks (MD 0.82, 95% CI -0.70 to 2.35; 2 studies, 894 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). With regard to the safety profile, meta-analyses also revealed little to no difference between anti-VEGF biosimilars and the reference products for the proportion of participants who experienced serious ocular AEs (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.26; 7 studies, 3292 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and for TEAEs leading to investigational product discontinuation or death (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.46; 8 studies, 3497 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Overall, 1.4% of participants in the biosimilar group and 1.2% in the reference product group experienced serious ocular adverse events. The most frequently documented serious ocular AEs were retinal hemorrhage and endophthalmitis. Although the evidence is of low certainty due to imprecision, meta-analysis suggested that anti-VEGF biosimilars led to no difference compared with the reference products for cumulative incidence of ADAs (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.22; 8 studies, 3066 participants; low-certainty evidence) or mean maximum serum concentrations (MD 0.42 ng/mL, 95% CI -0.22 to 1.05; subgroup of 3 studies, 100 participants; low-certainty evidence). We judged the overall risk of bias to be low for all studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In our review, low to high certainty evidence suggests that there is little to no difference, to date, between the anti-VEGF biosimilars approved for treating neovascular AMD and their reference products in terms of benefits and harms. While anti-VEGF biosimilars may be a viable alternative to reference products, current evidence for their use is based on a limited number of studies - particularly for comparison with aflibercept - with sparse long-term safety data, and infrequent assessment of quality of life outcomes. Our effect estimates and conclusions may be modified once findings have been reported from studies that are currently ongoing, and studies of biosimilar agents that are currently in development.
FUNDING
Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Project is supported by grant UG1EY020522, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health. Takeshi Hasegawa and Hisashi Noma were supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (Grant numbers: 22H03554, 19K03092, 24K06239).
REGISTRATION
Protocol available via doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015804.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Aptamers, Nucleotide; Bevacizumab; Bias; Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals; Choroidal Neovascularization; Intravitreal Injections; Macular Degeneration; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ranibizumab; Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor; Recombinant Fusion Proteins; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Visual Acuity; Middle Aged; Male; Female
PubMed: 38829176
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015804.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2016Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) plays a key role in angiogenesis in fetal life. Recently, researchers have attempted to use anti-VEGF agents for the treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) plays a key role in angiogenesis in fetal life. Recently, researchers have attempted to use anti-VEGF agents for the treatment of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), a vasoproliferative disorder. There is currently uncertainty regarding the safety and efficacy of these agents in preterm infants with ROP.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anti-VEGF drugs when used either as monotherapy, i.e. without concomitant cryotherapy or laser therapy or in combination with planned cryo/laser therapy in preterm infants with type 1 ROP (defined as zone I any stage with plus disease, zone I stage 3 with or without plus disease or zone II stage 2 or 3 with plus disease).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to January 1, 2016), EMBASE (1980 to January 1, 2016), CINAHL (1982 to January 1, 2016), conference proceedings, and previous reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that evaluated the efficacy and safety of administration, or both, of anti-VEGF agents compared with conventional therapy in premature infants with ROP.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane and Cochrane Neonatal methods for data collection and analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
Three trials, in which 239 infants participated, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Two trials compared intravitreal bevacizumab with conventional laser therapy (monotherapy) while the third compared intravitreal pegaptanib plus laser treatment with laser and cryotherapy (combination therapy) in infants with type 1 ROP.Of the two studies that evaluated intravitreal bevacizumab, one randomized infants while the other randomized eyes of the infants to the intervention and control groups. The former did not report any difference in the incidence of complete or partial retinal detachment between the groups (143 infants; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.21 to 5.13; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.07; very low quality evidence) but reported a significant reduction in the risk of refractive errors - very high myopia - at 30 months of age (211 eyes; RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.20; RD -0.40, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.30; low quality evidence) and recurrence of ROP by 54 weeks' postmenstrual age (143 infants; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.62; RD -0.20, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.09; moderate quality evidence) in the bevacizumab group. The study found no difference in the risk of mortality before discharge from the hospital (150 infants; RR 1.50; 95% CI 0.26 to 8.75; RD 0.01; 95% CI -0.04 to 0.07; low quality evidence), mortality at 30 months of age (150 infants; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.45; RD -0.01; 95% CI -0.10 to 0.08; low quality evidence), corneal opacity requiring corneal transplant (286 eyes; RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.26; RD -0.01; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.02; very low quality evidence), or lens opacity requiring cataract removal (286 eyes; RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.79; RD -0.02; 95% CI -0.05 to 0.01; very low quality evidence). The second trial that randomized eyes of the infants did not find any difference in the risk of complete retinal detachment between the eyes randomized to bevacizumab and those that were randomized to laser therapy (13 eyes; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.50; RD -0.08, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.11).When used in combination with laser therapy, intravitreal pegaptanib was found to reduce the risk of retinal detachment when compared to laser/cryotherapy alone (152 eyes; RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.55; RD -0.29, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.16; low quality evidence). The incidence of recurrence of ROP by 55 weeks' postmenstrual age was also lower in the pegaptanib + laser therapy group (76 infants; RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.7; RD -0.35, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.16; low quality evidence). There was no difference in the risk of perioperative retinal haemorrhages between the two groups (152 eyes; RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.56; RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.05; very low quality evidence). The risk of delayed systemic adverse effects with either of the drugs is, however, not known.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
Intravitreal bevacizumab reduces the risk of refractive errors during childhood when used as monotherapy while intravitreal pegaptanib reduces the risk of retinal detachment when used in conjunction with laser therapy in infants with type 1 ROP. Quality of evidence was, however, low for both the outcomes because of the risk of detection and other biases. Effect on other critical outcomes and, more importantly, the long-term systemic adverse effects of the drugs are not known. The insufficient data precludes strong conclusions favouring routine use of intravitreal anti-VEGF agents in preterm infants with type 1 ROP.
IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH
Further studies are needed to evaluate the effect of anti-VEGF agents on structural and functional outcomes in childhood and delayed systemic adverse effects such as myocardial dysfunction and adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes.
Topics: Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Aptamers, Nucleotide; Bevacizumab; Combined Modality Therapy; Cryotherapy; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Intravitreal Injections; Laser Therapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retinal Detachment; Retinopathy of Prematurity; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 26932750
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009734.pub2 -
The British Journal of Ophthalmology Feb 2012The authors address the question of whether vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (anti-VEGF) lead to better clinical outcomes than current treatments in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH QUESTION
The authors address the question of whether vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (anti-VEGF) lead to better clinical outcomes than current treatments in patients with clinically manifest diabetic macular oedema (DMO), which is the leading cause of vision loss in the working age population in developed countries.
METHODS
The authors performed a systematic literature search in common databases and compiled the evidence according to the GRADE methodology. The authors analysed clinically relevant improvement of visual acuity, vision-related quality of life and local or systemic adverse events.
RESULTS
In a proportion of patients (on average 25%), VEGF inhibitors result in better visual acuity (≥15 ETDRS letters or equivalent) than in patients treated with laser photocoagulation or sham injection. The number of injections required for long-term improvement as well as the general long-term efficacy is unknown. The evidence is not sufficient to confirm safety of the products in patients with DMO and does not suggest superiority of a single product.
CONCLUSION
For some patients with DMO, VEGF inhibitors seem to be more effective as a short-term treatment option than alternative therapies. The evidence is not of sufficient quality to confirm safety. Decisions on financing should take into account the high price difference between the products and ongoing research.
Topics: Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Aptamers, Nucleotide; Bevacizumab; Diabetic Retinopathy; Humans; Intravitreal Injections; Macular Degeneration; Macular Edema; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ranibizumab; Retreatment; Treatment Outcome; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 22133986
DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2011-300674 -
Current Pharmaceutical Biotechnology 2021Cancer is the most devastating disease in the present scenario, killing millions of people every year. Early detection, accurate diagnosis, and timely treatment are...
Cancer is the most devastating disease in the present scenario, killing millions of people every year. Early detection, accurate diagnosis, and timely treatment are considered to be the most effective ways to control this disease. Rapid and efficient detection of cancer at their earliest stage is one of the most significant challenges in cancer detection and cure. Numerous diagnostic modules have been developed to detect cancer cells early. As nucleic acid equivalent to antibodies, aptamers emerge as a new class of molecular probes that can identify cancer-related biomarkers or circulating rare cancer/ tumor cells with very high specificity and sensitivity. The amalgamation of aptamers with the biosensing platforms gave birth to "Aptasensors." The advent of highly sensitive aptasensors has opened up many new promising point-of-care diagnostics for cancer. This comprehensive review focuses on the newly developed aptasensors for cancer diagnostics.
Topics: Aptamers, Nucleotide; Biomarkers, Tumor; Biosensing Techniques; Early Detection of Cancer; Humans; Nanostructures; Neoplasms
PubMed: 32957883
DOI: 10.2174/1389201021999200918152721 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2009Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a common complication of diabetic retinopathy. The retina at the macula thickens and this can cause gradual loss of central vision.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a common complication of diabetic retinopathy. The retina at the macula thickens and this can cause gradual loss of central vision. Although grid or focal laser photocoagulation has been shown to reduce the risk of visual loss in DMO or clinically significant macular oedema (CSMO), vision is rarely improved. Antiangiogenic therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) modalities has recently been proposed for improving vision in people with DMO. Anti-VEGF drugs are delivered by an injection in the vitreous cavity of the eye.
OBJECTIVES
This review aims to assess the effectiveness of anti-VEGF therapy for preserving or improving vision in people with DMO.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS). There were no language or date restrictions in the search for trials.The electronic databases were last searched on 16 April 2009.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any antiangiogenic drugs with an anti-VEGF mechanism of action compared to another treatment, sham treatment, or no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently extracted the data. The risk ratio (RR) of visual loss and visual gain of 3 or more lines was estimated at least six months after treatment.
MAIN RESULTS
We found four small studies that collected only short-term outcomes (24 to 36 weeks); three of which had more than two randomisation groups generating five types of comparisons overall. Only one comparison included more than one trial in the analysis. The short-term outcome was the mean change in LogMAR visual acuity. One study on 172 patients compared three doses of pegaptanib versus sham (about 5 injections on average) and another compared bevacizumab or bevacizumab plus triamcinolone with sham (multiple bevacizumab injections and a single triamcinolone injection in 101 patients, 115 eyes overall) in patients with CSMO that was refractory to photocoagulation. Bevacizumab or bevacizumab plus triamcinolone were also compared to photocoagulation in 129 patients with untreated CSMO (150 eyes, multiple injections needed in 24 patients). Although comparisons tended to favour antiangiogenic therapy, estimates did not reach statistical significance or, if they did, they were not robust to sensitivity analysis regarding missing data and potential bias related to single trial estimates. No difference could be demonstrated in one study on 26 patients comparing bevacizumab to triamcinolone (both administered with a single injection) and between bevacizumab and bevacizumab plus triamcinolone in two studies on 182 patients. All the studies in this review, except for the study on pegaptanib, were at risk of bias based on the assessment of six methodological quality items.There were no serious adverse effects in these short-term studies, except for one case of severe anterior uveitis in one eye treated with bevacizumab. No included study examined long-term adverse effects of antiangiogenic therapy.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is not sufficient high quality evidence from large RCTs supporting the use of either single or multiple anti-VEGF intravitreal injections to treat DMO. Results from ongoing studies on several compounds should assess not only treatment efficacy but also, if a benefit is found, the number of injections needed for maintenance and long-term safety.
Topics: Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Aptamers, Nucleotide; Bevacizumab; Diabetic Retinopathy; Humans; Macular Edema; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Triamcinolone; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 19821414
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007419.pub2 -
PloS One Sep 2008Numerous studies were performed to illuminate mechanisms of tumorigenesis and metastases from gene expression profiles of Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma (HNSCC).... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Numerous studies were performed to illuminate mechanisms of tumorigenesis and metastases from gene expression profiles of Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma (HNSCC). The objective of this review is to conduct a network-based meta-analysis to identify the underlying biological signatures of the HNSCC transcriptome.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
We included 63 HNSCC transcriptomic studies into three specific categories of comparisons: Pre, premalignant lesions v.s. normal; TvN, primary tumors v.s. normal; and Meta, metastatic or invasive v.s. primary tumors. Reported genes extracted from the literature were systematically analyzed. Participation of differential gene activities across three progressive stages deciphered the evolving nature of HNSCC. In total, 1442 genes were verified, i.e. reported at least twice, with ECM1, EMP1, CXCL10 and POSTN shown to be highly reported across all three stages. Knowledge-based networks of the HNSCC transcriptome were constructed, demonstrating integrin signaling and antigen presentation pathways as highly enriched. Notably, functional estimates derived from topological characteristics of integrin signaling networks identified such important genes as ITGA3 and ITGA5, which were supported by findings of invasiveness in vitro. Moreover, we computed genome-wide probabilities of reporting differential gene activities for the Pre, TvN, and Meta stages, respectively. Results highlighted chromosomal regions of 6p21, 19p13 and 19q13, where genomic alterations were shown to be correlated with the nodal status of HNSCC.
CONCLUSIONS
By means of a systems-biology approach via network-based meta-analyses, we provided a deeper insight into the evolving nature of the HNSCC transcriptome. Enriched canonical signaling pathways, hot-spots of transcriptional profiles across the genome, as well as topologically significant genes derived from network analyses were highlighted for each of the three progressive stages, Pre, TvN, and Meta, respectively.
Topics: Carcinoma, Squamous Cell; Computational Biology; Disease Progression; Gene Expression Regulation, Neoplastic; Genome, Human; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Humans; Integrins; Models, Genetic; Models, Statistical; Neoplasm Metastasis; Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis; Signal Transduction; Systems Biology
PubMed: 18791647
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003215 -
Current Medical Research and Opinion Oct 2021Onasemnogene abeparvovec, a one-time intravenous gene replacement therapy, and nusinersen, an antisense oligonucleotide that requires ongoing intrathecal administration,... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
OBJECTIVE
Onasemnogene abeparvovec, a one-time intravenous gene replacement therapy, and nusinersen, an antisense oligonucleotide that requires ongoing intrathecal administration, have been evaluated as treatments for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) type 1 in separate Phase III trials, but no head-to-head comparison studies have been conducted. Onasemnogene abeparvovec was compared with nusinersen using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to estimate the treatment effect of onasemnogene abeparvovec relative to nusinersen for the treatment of symptomatic patients with SMA type 1 for up to 24 months of follow-up.
METHODS
In the absence of studies for both onasemnogene abeparvovec and nusinersen with a common comparator, a Bayesian naïve indirect treatment comparison (ITC) and MAIC between onasemnogene abeparvovec and nusinersen were conducted to compare efficacy and safety of onasemnogene abeparvovec with nusinersen. Outcomes of interest were event-free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS), and motor milestone achievements (independent sitting and independent walking). Relative treatment effects were expressed as relative risk (RR) and risk difference.
RESULTS
Pooled and weighted patient-level data illustrated a favorable effect toward onasemnogene abeparvovec, suggesting longer EFS for patients compared with nusinersen (HR of onasemnogene abeparvovec vs. nusinersen: 0.19 [95% CI: 0.07-0.54; 99% CI: 0.05-0.74]). At 24 months of follow-up, patients receiving onasemnogene abeparvovec were statistically significantly more likely to achieve the motor milestone of sitting independently compared with patients treated with nusinersen. Although statistically significant differences were not observed at 6 to 18 months between treatment options, the likelihood of sitting independently at 12 and 18 months numerically favored onasemnogene abeparvovec. A numerically greater likelihood of walking by 18 and 24 months was also observed for patients treated with onasemnogene abeparvovec compared with nusinersen. Onasemnogene abeparvovec therapy was also associated with a favorable (but statistically nonsignificant) outcome for OS and may be associated with prolonged survival compared with nusinersen (HR of onasemnogene abeparvovec vs. nusinersen: 0.35 [95% CI: 0.09-1.32; 99% CI: 0.06-2.01]). Bayesian naïve ITC results were similar to the MAIC analysis for EFS, OS, and motor milestone achievements. Small sample size limited covariate matching to baseline CHOP INTEND and nutritional support requirement, leading to wider CIs and statistically inconclusive outcomes for some of the results.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite limitations of the current MAIC analysis (mainly a small sample size for statistical testing, even for the pooled onasemnogene abeparvovec trials, and potential differences in prognostic and predictive factors between studies), the relative treatment effects in EFS, OS, and motor milestone achievement indicate that onasemnogene abeparvovec may offer continued benefit compared with nusinersen through 24 months of follow-up.
Topics: Bayes Theorem; Biological Products; Genetic Therapy; Humans; Oligonucleotides; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recombinant Fusion Proteins; Spinal Muscular Atrophies of Childhood
PubMed: 34236007
DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2021.1947216 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2008Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a common cause of severe vision loss in people 55 years and older. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a common cause of severe vision loss in people 55 years and older.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to investigate the effects of anti-VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor) modalities for treating neovascular AMD.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS. We handsearched ARVO abstracts for 2006, 2007 for ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data. We contacted trial authors for additional data. We summarized outcomes as relative risks (RR), number needed to treat (NNT) and weighted mean differences.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five RCTs of good methodological quality. All five trials were conducted by pharmaceutical companies. An intention-to-treat analysis using the last observation carried forward method was done in most trials. Two trials compared pegaptanib versus sham. One trial compared ranibizumab versus sham, another compared ranibizumab/sham verteporfin PDT versus verteporfin PDT/sham ranibizumab, and the final trial compared ranibizumab plus verteporfin PDT versus verteporfin PDT alone. Fewer patients treated with pegaptanib lost 15 or more letters of visual acuity at one year follow-up compared to sham (pooled relative risk (RR) 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 0.84). The NNT was 6.67 (95% CI 4.35 to 14.28) for 0.3 mg pegaptanib, 6.25 (95% CI 4.17 to 12.5) for 1 mg pegaptanib and 14.28 (95% CI 6.67 to 100) for 3 mg pegaptanib. In a trial of ranibizumab versus sham, RR for loss of 15 or more letters visual acuity at one year was 0.14 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.22) in favour of ranibizumab. The NNT was 3.13 (95% CI 2.56 to 3.84) for 0.3 mg ranibizumab and 3.13 (95% CI 2.56 to 3.84) for 0.5 mg ranibizumab. In a trial of ranibizumab versus verteporfin PDT, RR for loss of 15 or more letters at one year was 0.13 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.23) favouring ranibizumab. The NNT was 3.33 (95% CI 2.56 to 4.76) for 0.3 mg ranibizumab and 3.12 (95% CI 2.43 to 4.17) for 0.5 mg ranibizumab. In another trial of combined ranibizumab plus verteporfin PDT versus verteporfin PDT, RR for loss of 15 or more letters at one year favoured combined therapy (RR 0.3 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.60). The NNT was 4.35 (95% CI 2.78 to 11.11). Pooled RR for gain of 15 or more letters visual acuity at one year was 5.81 (95% CI 3.29 to 10.26) for ranibizumab versus sham, 6.79 (95% CI 3.41 to 13.54) for ranibizumab/sham verteporfin PDT versus verteporfin PDT/sham ranibizumab, and 4.44 (95% CI 1.40 to 14.08) for ranibizumab plus verteporfin PDT versus verteporfin PDT. Frequency of endophthalmitis in included studies was between 0.7% to 4.7% with ranibizumab and 1.3% with pegaptanib. Improvement in vision-specific quality of life was reported for both treatments.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Pegaptanib and ranibizumab reduce the risk of visual acuity loss in patients with neovascular AMD. Ranibizumab causes gains in visual acuity in many eyes. Quality of life and cost will be important for treatment decisions. Other agents blocking VEGF are being tested in ongoing trials.
Topics: Aged; Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Aptamers, Nucleotide; Choroidal Neovascularization; Humans; Macular Degeneration; Middle Aged; Porphyrins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ranibizumab; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Verteporfin
PubMed: 18425911
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005139.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2017Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. While in the past, pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, views on children's pain have changed over time, and relief of pain is now seen as importantWe designed a suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol) in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions in children and adolescents.As the leading cause of morbidity in the world today, chronic disease (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Chronic pain (that is pain lasting three months or longer) can occur in the paediatric population in a variety of pathophysiological classifications (nociceptive, neuropathic, or idiopathic) relating to genetic conditions, nerve damage pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and chronic abdominal pain, and for other unknown reasons.Antiepileptic (anticonvulsant) drugs, which were originally developed to treat convulsions in people with epilepsy, have in recent years been used to provide pain relief in adults for many chronic painful conditions and are now recommended for the treatment of chronic pain in the WHO list of essential medicines. Known side effects of antiepileptic drugs range from sweating, headache, elevated temperature, nausea, and abdominal pain to more serious effects including mental or motor function impairment.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of antiepileptic drugs used to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 6 September 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews as well as online clinical trial registries.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, by any route, treating chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, comparing any antiepileptic drug with placebo or an active comparator.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods if data were available. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created two 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two studies with a total of 141 participants (aged 7 to 18 years) with chronic neuropathic pain, complex regional pain syndrome type 1 (CRPS-I), or fibromyalgia. One study investigated pregabalin versus placebo in participants with fibromyalgia (107 participants), and the other study investigated gabapentin versus amitriptyline in participants with CRPS-I or neuropathic pain (34 participants). We were unable to perform any quantitative analysis.Risk of bias for the two included studies varied, due to issues with randomisation (low to unclear risk), blinding of outcome assessors (low to unclear risk), reporting bias (low to unclear risk), the size of the study populations (high risk), and industry funding in the 'other' domain (low to unclear risk). We judged the remaining domains of sequence generation, blinding of participants and personnel, and attrition as low risk of bias. Primary outcomesOne study (gabapentin 900 mg/day versus amitriptyline 10 mg/day, 34 participants, for 6 weeks) did not report our primary outcomes (very low-quality evidence).The second study (pregabalin 75 to 450 mg/day versus placebo 75 to 450 mg/day, 107 participants, for 15 weeks) reported no significant change in pain scores for pain relief of 30% or greater between pregabalin 18/54 (33.3%), and placebo 16/51 (31.4%), P = 0.83 (very low-quality evidence). This study also reported Patient Global Impression of Change, with the percentage of participants feeling "much or very much improved" with pregabalin 53.1%, and placebo 29.5% (very low-quality evidence).We downgraded the evidence by three levels to very low for one of two reasons: due to the fact that there was no evidence to support or refute the use of the intervention, or that there were too few data and the number of events was too small to be meaningful. Secondary outcomesIn one small study, adverse events were uncommon: gabapentin 2 participants (2 adverse events); amitriptyline 1 participant (1 adverse event) (6-week trial). The second study reported a higher number of adverse events: pregabalin 38 participants (167 adverse events); placebo 34 participants (132 adverse events) (15-week trial) (very low-quality evidence).Withdrawals due to adverse events were infrequent in both studies: pregabalin (4 participants), placebo (4 participants), gabapentin (2 participants), and amitriptyline (1 participant) (very low-quality evidence).Serious adverse events were reported in both studies. One study reported only one serious adverse event (cholelithiasis and major depression resulting in hospitalisation in the pregabalin group) and the other study reported no serious adverse events (very low-quality evidence).There were few or no data for our remaining secondary outcomes (very low-quality evidence).We downgraded the evidence by three levels to very low due to too few data and the fact that the number of events was too small to be meaningful.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review identified only two small studies, with insufficient data for analysis.As we could undertake no meta-analysis, we were unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of antiepileptic drugs to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. Similarly, we could not comment on our remaining secondary outcomes: Carer Global Impression of Change; requirement for rescue analgesia; sleep duration and quality; acceptability of treatment; physical functioning; and quality of life.We know from adult randomised controlled trials that some antiepileptics, such as gabapentin and pregabalin, can be effective in certain chronic pain conditions.We found no evidence to support or refute the use of antiepileptic drugs to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents.
Topics: Adolescent; Amines; Amitriptyline; Anticonvulsants; Child; Chronic Pain; Complex Regional Pain Syndromes; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Fibromyalgia; Gabapentin; Humans; Neuralgia; Pregabalin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 28779491
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012536.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2012Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a common complication of diabetic retinopathy. Although grid or focal laser photocoagulation has been shown to reduce the risk of visual... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a common complication of diabetic retinopathy. Although grid or focal laser photocoagulation has been shown to reduce the risk of visual loss in DMO or clinically significant macular oedema (CSMO), vision is rarely improved. Antiangiogenic therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) modalities has recently been proposed for improving vision in people with DMO.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of anti-VEGF therapy for preserving or improving vision in people with DMO.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 6), MEDLINE (January 1946 to June 2012), EMBASE (January 1980 to June 2012), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the 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 13 June 2012.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any antiangiogenic drugs with an anti-VEGF mechanism of action versus another treatment, sham treatment, or no treatment in patients with DMO. We also included economic evaluations to assess cost-effectiveness.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted the data. The risk ratio (RR) of visual loss and visual gain of three or more lines was estimated at least six months after treatment. Each economic analysis was described narratively using a structured format.
MAIN RESULTS
Eleven studies provided data on three comparisons of interest in this review. We based our conclusions on the RR of gain or loss of three or more lines of vision at about one year, which was more consistently reported as follow-up.Compared with sham treatment, there was evidence of moderate quality in three studies (497 participants, follow-up 8 to 12 months) that antiangiogenic therapy (pegaptanib: two studies, 246 participants; ranibizumab: one study, 151 participants) doubled and, respectively, halved, the chance of gaining or losing three or more lines of vision (RR: 2.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36 to 3.53; RR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.59). In meta-analyses, the benefit was larger for ranibizumab compared to pegaptanib, but no significant subgroup difference could be demonstrated regarding our primary outcome.Compared with grid laser photocoagulation, there was evidence of moderate quality that antiangiogenic therapy (bevacizumab: two studies, 167 participants; ranibizumab: two studies, 300 participants; aflibercept: one study, 221 participants, 89 used for data extraction) more than doubled and, respectively, reduced by at least two thirds, the chance of gaining or losing three or more lines of vision (RR: 3.20, 95% CI 2.07 to 4.95 and RR: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.34, respectively). In meta-analyses, no significant subgroup difference could be demonstrated between bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept regarding our primary outcome, but, again, there was little power to detect a difference.Compared with grid laser photocoagulation alone, there was high quality evidence that ranibizumab plus photocoagulation (three studies, 783 participants) doubled and, respectively, at least halved, the chance of gaining or losing three or more lines of vision (RR: 2.11, 95% CI 1.67 to 2.67; RR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.55).Systemic and ocular adverse events were rare in the included studies. Meta-analyses conducted for all antiangiogenic drugs compared with either sham or photocoagulation (nine studies, 104 events in 2159 participants) did not show a significant difference regarding arterial thromboembolic events (RR: 0.85 (0.56 to 1.28). Similarly, no difference was suggested regarding overall mortality (53 events, RR: 0.95 (0.52 to 1.74), but clinically significant differences could not be ruled out.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate quality evidence that antiangiogenic drugs provide a definite, but small, benefit compared to current therapeutic options for DMO, i.e. grid laser photocoagulation, or no treatment when laser is not an option. The quality and quantity of the evidence was larger for ranibizumab, but there was little power to investigate drug differences. Most data were obtained at one year, and a long-term confirmation is needed, since DMO is a chronic condition. Safety of both drug and the intravitreal injection procedure were good in the trials, but further long-term data are needed to exclude small, but clinically important differences regarding systemic adverse events.
Topics: Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Aptamers, Nucleotide; Bevacizumab; Diabetic Retinopathy; Humans; Laser Coagulation; Macular Edema; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ranibizumab; Triamcinolone; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 23235642
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007419.pub3