-
Medical Science Monitor : International... Aug 2012Ocular ischemic syndrome is a rare condition, which is caused by ocular hypoperfusion due to stenosis or occlusion of the common or internal carotid arteries.... (Review)
Review
Ocular ischemic syndrome is a rare condition, which is caused by ocular hypoperfusion due to stenosis or occlusion of the common or internal carotid arteries. Atherosclerosis is the major cause of changes in the carotid arteries. Ocular ischemic syndrome is manifested as visual loss, orbital pain and, frequently, changes of the visual field, and various anterior and posterior segment signs. Anterior segment signs include iris neovascularization and secondary neovascular glaucoma, iridocyclitis, asymmetric cataract, iris atrophy and sluggish reaction to light. Posterior eye segment changes are the most characteristic, such as narrowed retinal arteries, perifoveal telangiectasias, dilated retinal veins, mid-peripheral retinal hemorrhages, microaneurysms, neovascularization at the optic disk and in the retina, a cherry-red spot, cotton-wool spots, vitreous hemorrhage and normal-tension glaucoma. Differential diagnosis of ocular ischemic syndrome includes diabetic retinopathy and moderate central retinal vein occlusion. Carotid artery imaging and fundus fluorescein angiography help to establish the diagnosis of ocular ischemic syndrome. The treatment can be local, for example, ocular (conservative, laser and surgical) or systemic (conservative and surgical treatment of the carotid artery). Since the condition does not affect the eyes alone, patients with ocular ischemic syndrome should be referred for consultation to the neurologist, vascular surgeon and cardiologist.
Topics: Animals; Diagnosis, Differential; Eye; Eye Diseases; Humans; Ischemia; Syndrome
PubMed: 22847215
DOI: 10.12659/msm.883260 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2023Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is characterised by neurovascular degeneration as a result of chronic hyperglycaemia. Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) is the most... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is characterised by neurovascular degeneration as a result of chronic hyperglycaemia. Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) is the most serious complication of DR and can lead to total (central and peripheral) visual loss. PDR is characterised by the presence of abnormal new blood vessels, so-called "new vessels," at the optic disc (NVD) or elsewhere in the retina (NVE). PDR can progress to high-risk characteristics (HRC) PDR (HRC-PDR), which is defined by the presence of NVD more than one-fourth to one-third disc area in size plus vitreous haemorrhage or pre-retinal haemorrhage, or vitreous haemorrhage or pre-retinal haemorrhage obscuring more than one disc area. In severe cases, fibrovascular membranes grow over the retinal surface and tractional retinal detachment with sight loss can occur, despite treatment. Although most, if not all, individuals with diabetes will develop DR if they live long enough, only some progress to the sight-threatening PDR stage. OBJECTIVES: To determine risk factors for the development of PDR and HRC-PDR in people with diabetes and DR.
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, and Ovid Embase. The date of the search was 27 May 2022. Additionally, the search was supplemented by screening reference lists of eligible articles. There were no restrictions to language or year of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included prospective or retrospective cohort studies and case-control longitudinal studies evaluating prognostic factors for the development and progression of PDR, in people who have not had previous treatment for DR. The target population consisted of adults (≥18 years of age) of any gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and geographical location, with non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) or PDR with less than HRC-PDR, diagnosed as per standard clinical practice. Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts, and full-text articles, to determine eligibility; discrepancies were resolved through discussion. We considered prognostic factors measured at baseline and any other time points during the study and in any clinical setting. Outcomes were evaluated at three and eight years (± two years) or lifelong. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from included studies using a data extraction form that we developed and piloted prior to the data collection stage. We resolved any discrepancies through discussion. We used the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool to assess risk of bias. We conducted meta-analyses in clinically relevant groups using a random-effects approach. We reported hazard ratios (HR), odds ratios (OR), and risk ratios (RR) separately for each available prognostic factor and outcome, stratified by different time points. Where possible, we meta-analysed adjusted prognostic factors. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence with an adapted version of the GRADE framework. MAIN RESULTS: We screened 6391 records. From these, we identified 59 studies (87 articles) as eligible for inclusion. Thirty-five were prospective cohort studies, 22 were retrospective studies, 18 of which were cohort and six were based on data from electronic registers, and two were retrospective case-control studies. Twenty-three studies evaluated participants with type 1 diabetes (T1D), 19 with type 2 diabetes (T2D), and 17 included mixed populations (T1D and T2D). Studies on T1D included between 39 and 3250 participants at baseline, followed up for one to 45 years. Studies on T2D included between 100 and 71,817 participants at baseline, followed up for one to 20 years. The studies on mixed populations of T1D and T2D ranged from 76 to 32,553 participants at baseline, followed up for four to 25 years. We found evidence indicating that higher glycated haemoglobin (haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c)) levels (adjusted OR ranged from 1.11 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.32) to 2.10 (95% CI 1.64 to 2.69) and more advanced stages of retinopathy (adjusted OR ranged from 1.38 (95% CI 1.29 to 1.48) to 12.40 (95% CI 5.31 to 28.98) are independent risk factors for the development of PDR in people with T1D and T2D. We rated the evidence for these factors as of moderate certainty because of moderate to high risk of bias in the studies. There was also some evidence suggesting several markers for renal disease (for example, nephropathy (adjusted OR ranged from 1.58 (95% CI not reported) to 2.68 (2.09 to 3.42), and creatinine (adjusted meta-analysis HR 1.61 (95% CI 0.77 to 3.36)), and, in people with T1D, age at diagnosis of diabetes (< 12 years of age) (standardised regression estimate 1.62, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.48), increased triglyceride levels (adjusted RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.95), and larger retinal venular diameters (RR 4.28, 95% CI 1.50 to 12.19) may increase the risk of progression to PDR. The certainty of evidence for these factors, however, was low to very low, due to risk of bias in the included studies, inconsistency (lack of studies preventing the grading of consistency or variable outcomes), and imprecision (wide CIs). There was no substantial and consistent evidence to support duration of diabetes, systolic or diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, low- (LDL) and high- (HDL) density lipoproteins, gender, ethnicity, body mass index (BMI), socioeconomic status, or tobacco and alcohol consumption as being associated with incidence of PDR. There was insufficient evidence to evaluate prognostic factors associated with progression of PDR to HRC-PDR. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Increased HbA1c is likely to be associated with progression to PDR; therefore, maintaining adequate glucose control throughout life, irrespective of stage of DR severity, may help to prevent progression to PDR and risk of its sight-threatening complications. Renal impairment in people with T1D or T2D, as well as younger age at diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (DM), increased triglyceride levels, and increased retinal venular diameters in people with T1D may also be associated with increased risk of progression to PDR. Given that more advanced DR severity is associated with higher risk of progression to PDR, the earlier the disease is identified, and the above systemic risk factors are controlled, the greater the chance of reducing the risk of PDR and saving sight.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Diabetic Retinopathy; Glycated Hemoglobin; Prognosis; Prospective Studies; Retinal Hemorrhage; Retrospective Studies; Triglycerides; Vitreous Hemorrhage
PubMed: 36815723
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013775.pub2 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence May 2011Diabetic retinopathy is the most common cause of blindness in the UK, with older people and those with worse diabetes control, hypertension, and hyperlipidaemia being... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Diabetic retinopathy is the most common cause of blindness in the UK, with older people and those with worse diabetes control, hypertension, and hyperlipidaemia being most at risk. Diabetic retinopathy can cause microaneurysms, haemorrhages, exudates, changes to blood vessels, and retinal thickening.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments in people with diabetic retinopathy? What are the effects of treatments for vitreous haemorrhage? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 58 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: peripheral retinal laser photocoagulation, focal and grid laser photocoagulation for maculopathy, corticosteroids for macular oedema, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors, and vitrectomy for vitreous haemorrhage.
Topics: Diabetic Retinopathy; Humans; Injections; Macular Edema; Treatment Outcome; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 21609511
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Nov 2007Diabetic retinopathy is the most common cause of blindness in the UK, with older people and those with worse diabetic control, hypertension, and hyperlipidaemia being... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Diabetic retinopathy is the most common cause of blindness in the UK, with older people and those with worse diabetic control, hypertension, and hyperlipidaemia being most at risk. Diabetic retinopathy can cause microaneurysms, haemorrhages, exudates, changes to blood vessels, and retinal thickening.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments in people with diabetic retinopathy? What are the effects of treatments for vitreous haemorrhage? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to November March 2007 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 29 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: peripheral retinal laser photocoagulation, focal and grid laser photocoagulation for maculopathy, corticosteroids for macular oedema, and vitrectomy for vitreous haemorrhage.
Topics: Diabetic Retinopathy; Humans; Laser Coagulation; Macular Edema; Visual Acuity; Vitreous Body
PubMed: 19450351
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Oct 2023: Vitreous hemorrhage (VH) is a common vitreoretinal condition causing impairment of vision due to various etiologies. No consensus exists on the best timing for... (Review)
Review
: Vitreous hemorrhage (VH) is a common vitreoretinal condition causing impairment of vision due to various etiologies. No consensus exists on the best timing for performing pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) in fundus-obscuring VH. : Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) standards, we conducted a systematic review of the timing of PPV in VH. We assessed the strength of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for all the included publications, in accordance with the 2011 Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) recommendations. : A total of 1731 articles were identified. Following the removal of duplicates and screening of abstracts, 1203 articles remained. Subsequently, a comprehensive full-text review of 30 articles was conducted. Ultimately, 18 articles met the predefined inclusion criteria. : Despite the small number of studies on the timing of treatment for VH, the advantage of early over late PPV seems to be a reasonable approach in selected cases, and it might be considered modern standard care.
PubMed: 37892789
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12206652 -
Clinical Ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) 2023This review aimed to systematically compare the efficacy and safety of intravitreal aflibercept (IVA) and vitrectomy for treating severe vitreous hemorrhage (VH)... (Review)
Review
Determining the Superiority of Vitrectomy vs Aflibercept for Treating Dense Diabetic Vitreous Hemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.
This review aimed to systematically compare the efficacy and safety of intravitreal aflibercept (IVA) and vitrectomy for treating severe vitreous hemorrhage (VH) secondary to proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). The review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A search strategy, including the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and US National Library of Medicine databases, was developed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared vitrectomy and IVA for managing VH due to PDR (participant age ≥ 18 years). The primary outcome measure was the difference in the mean visual acuity between the two treatment groups at 1, 6, and 24 months. Outcome measures included clearance of VH (in weeks), the incidence of recurrent VH, and the rate of complications. The studies were evaluated using the Cochrane Bias (ROB) tool. We identified 774 articles; six articles met the inclusion criteria, and two were ultimately included (n = 239 eyes). With or without PRP, IVA injections and vitrectomy were performed in 117 and 122 eyes, respectively. The mean BCVA at one month was significantly better in the vitrectomy group (MD=0.22, CI:0.10-0.34, p=0.0003), but no difference was found at six months (MD=0.04, CI: -0.04-0.12, p=0.356). The incidence of recurrent VH was significantly higher in the IVA group (OR=5.05, CI:2.71-9.42, p<0.0001). The probability of recurrent VH was five times greater in the IVA group than that in the vitrectomy group. There were no significant differences in the overall proportions of intra- or postoperative complications (OR=0.64, CI: 0.09-4.85, p=0.669). None of the studies had a low ROB in any of the seven domains. We conclude that IVA can be considered a viable treatment modality for diabetic VH in patients with a good follow-up. Vitrectomy initially provides better visual effect, faster VH recovery, and lower VH recurrence than IVA injections.
PubMed: 37600150
DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S419478 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2023Diabetic retinopathy is a common complication of diabetes and a leading cause of visual impairment and blindness. Research has established the importance of blood... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Diabetic retinopathy is a common complication of diabetes and a leading cause of visual impairment and blindness. Research has established the importance of blood glucose control to prevent development and progression of the ocular complications of diabetes. Concurrent blood pressure control has been advocated for this purpose, but individual studies have reported varying conclusions regarding the effects of this intervention.
OBJECTIVES
To summarize the existing evidence regarding the effect of interventions to control blood pressure levels among diabetics on incidence and progression of diabetic retinopathy, preservation of visual acuity, adverse events, quality of life, and costs.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched several electronic databases, including CENTRAL, and trial registries. We last searched the electronic databases on 3 September 2021. We also reviewed the reference lists of review articles and trial reports selected for inclusion.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which either type 1 or type 2 diabetic participants, with or without hypertension, were assigned randomly to more intense versus less intense blood pressure control; to blood pressure control versus usual care or no intervention on blood pressure (placebo); or to one class of antihypertensive medication versus another or placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Pairs of review authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of records identified by the electronic and manual searches and the full-text reports of any records identified as potentially relevant. The included trials were independently assessed for risk of bias with respect to outcomes reported in this review.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 29 RCTs conducted in North America, Europe, Australia, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East that had enrolled a total of 4620 type 1 and 22,565 type 2 diabetic participants (sample sizes from 16 to 4477 participants). In all 7 RCTs for normotensive type 1 diabetic participants, 8 of 12 RCTs with normotensive type 2 diabetic participants, and 5 of 10 RCTs with hypertensive type 2 diabetic participants, one group was assigned to one or more antihypertensive agents and the control group to placebo. In the remaining 4 RCTs for normotensive participants with type 2 diabetes and 5 RCTs for hypertensive type 2 diabetic participants, methods of intense blood pressure control were compared to usual care. Eight trials were sponsored entirely and 10 trials partially by pharmaceutical companies; nine studies received support from other sources; and two studies did not report funding source. Study designs, populations, interventions, lengths of follow-up (range less than one year to nine years), and blood pressure targets varied among the included trials. For primary review outcomes after five years of treatment and follow-up, one of the seven trials for type 1 diabetics reported incidence of retinopathy and one trial reported progression of retinopathy; one trial reported a combined outcome of incidence and progression (as defined by study authors). Among normotensive type 2 diabetics, four of 12 trials reported incidence of diabetic retinopathy and two trials reported progression of retinopathy; two trials reported combined incidence and progression. Among hypertensive type 2 diabetics, six of the 10 trials reported incidence of diabetic retinopathy and two trials reported progression of retinopathy; five of the 10 trials reported combined incidence and progression. The evidence supports an overall benefit of more intensive blood pressure intervention for five-year incidence of diabetic retinopathy (11 studies; 4940 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.92; I = 15%; moderate certainty evidence) and the combined outcome of incidence and progression (8 studies; 6212 participants; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.89; I = 42%; low certainty evidence). The available evidence did not support a benefit regarding five-year progression of diabetic retinopathy (5 studies; 5144 participants; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.12; I = 57%; moderate certainty evidence), incidence of proliferative diabetic retinopathy, clinically significant macular edema, or vitreous hemorrhage (9 studies; 8237 participants; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.04; I = 31%; low certainty evidence), or loss of 3 or more lines on a visual acuity chart with a logMAR scale (2 studies; 2326 participants; RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.08; I = 90%; very low certainty evidence). Hypertensive type 2 diabetic participants realized more benefit from intense blood pressure control for three of the four outcomes concerning incidence and progression of diabetic retinopathy. The adverse event reported most often (13 of 29 trials) was death, yielding an estimated RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.00; 13 studies; 13,979 participants; I = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). Hypotension was reported in two trials, with an RR of 2.04 (95% CI 1.63 to 2.55; 2 studies; 3323 participants; I = 37%; low certainty evidence), indicating an excess of hypotensive events among participants assigned to more intervention on blood pressure.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Hypertension is a well-known risk factor for several chronic conditions for which lowering blood pressure has proven to be beneficial. The available evidence supports a modest beneficial effect of intervention to reduce blood pressure with respect to preventing diabetic retinopathy for up to five years, particularly for hypertensive type 2 diabetics. However, there was a paucity of evidence to support such intervention to slow progression of diabetic retinopathy or to affect other outcomes considered in this review among normotensive diabetics. This weakens any conclusion regarding an overall benefit of intervening on blood pressure in diabetic patients without hypertension for the sole purpose of preventing diabetic retinopathy or avoiding the need for treatment for advanced stages of diabetic retinopathy.
Topics: Humans; Diabetic Retinopathy; Blood Pressure; Macular Edema; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Hypertension; Antihypertensive Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36975019
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006127.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2023Neovascular glaucoma (NVG) is a potentially blinding, secondary glaucoma. It is caused by the formation of abnormal new blood vessels, which prevent normal drainage of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Neovascular glaucoma (NVG) is a potentially blinding, secondary glaucoma. It is caused by the formation of abnormal new blood vessels, which prevent normal drainage of aqueous from the anterior segment of the eye. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) medications are specific inhibitors of the primary mediators of neovascularization. Studies have reported the effectiveness of anti-VEGF medications for the control of intraocular pressure (IOP) in NVG.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of intraocular anti-VEGF medications, alone or with one or more types of conventional therapy, compared with no anti-VEGF medications for the treatment of NVG.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register); MEDLINE; Embase; PubMed; and LILACS to 19 October 2021; metaRegister of Controlled Trials to 19 October 2021; and two additional trial registers to 19 October 2021. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of people treated with anti-VEGF medications for NVG.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the search results for trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias, and the certainty of the evidence. We resolved discrepancies through discussion.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five RCTs (356 eyes of 353 participants). Each trial was conducted in a different country: two in China, and one each in Brazil, Egypt, and Japan. All five RCTs included both men and women; the mean age of participants was 55 years or older. Two RCTs compared intravitreal bevacizumab combined with Ahmed valve implantation and panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) with Ahmed valve implantation and PRP alone. One RCT randomized participants to receive an injection of either intravitreal aflibercept or placebo at the first visit, followed by non-randomized treatment according to clinical findings after one week. The remaining two RCTs randomized participants to PRP with and without ranibizumab, one of which had insufficient details for further analysis. We assessed the RCTs to have an unclear risk of bias for most domains due to insufficient information to permit judgment. Four RCTs examined achieving control of IOP, three of which reported our time points of interest. Only one RCT reported our critical time point at one month; it found that the anti-VEGF group had a 1.3-fold higher chance of achieving control of IOP at one month (RR 1.32, 95% 1.10 to 1.59; 93 participants) than the non-anti-VEGF group (low certainty of evidence). For other time points, one RCT found a three-fold greater achievement in control of IOP in the anti-VEGF group when compared with the non-anti-VEGF group at one year (RR 3.00; 95% CI:1.35 to 6.68; 40 participants). However, another RCT found an inconclusive result at the time period ranging from 1.5 years to three years (RR 1.08; 95% CI: 0.67 to 1.75; 40 participants). All five RCTs examined mean IOP, but at different time points. Very-low-certainty evidence showed that anti-VEGFs were effective in reducing mean IOP by 6.37 mmHg (95% CI: -10.09 to -2.65; 3 RCTs; 173 participants) at four to six weeks when compared with no anti-VEGFs. Anti-VEGFs may reduce mean IOP at three months (MD -4.25; 95% CI -12.05 to 3.54; 2 studies; 75 participants), six months (MD -5.93; 95% CI -18.13 to 6.26; 2 studies; 75 participants), one year (MD -5.36; 95% CI -18.50 to 7.77; 2 studies; 75 participants), and more than one year (MD -7.05; 95% CI -16.61 to 2.51; 2 studies; 75 participants) when compared with no anti-VEGFs, but such effects remain uncertain. Two RCTs reported the proportion of participants who achieved an improvement in visual acuity with specified time points. Participants receiving anti-VEGFs had a 2.6 times (95% CI 1.60 to 4.08; 1 study; 93 participants) higher chance of improving visual acuity when compared with those not receiving anti-VEGFs at one month (very low certainty of evidence). Likewise, another RCT found a similar result at 18 months (RR 4.00, 95% CI 1.33 to 12.05; 1 study; 40 participants). Two RCTs reported the outcome, complete regression of new iris vessels, at our time points of interest. Low-certainty evidence showed that anti-VEGFs had a nearly three times higher chance of complete regression of new iris vessels when compared with no anti-VEGFs (RR 2.63, 95% CI 1.65 to 4.18; 1 study; 93 participants). A similar finding was observed at more than one year in another RCT (RR 3.20, 95% CI 1.45 to 7.05; 1 study; 40 participants). Regarding adverse events, there was no evidence that the risks of hypotony and tractional retinal detachment were different between the two groups (RR 0.67; 95% CI: 0.12 to 3.57 and RR 0.33; 95% CI: 0.01 to 7.72, respectively; 1 study; 40 participants). No RCTs reported incidents of endophthalmitis, vitreous hemorrhage, no light perception, and serious adverse events. Evidence for the adverse events of anti-VEGFs was low due to limitations in the study design due to insufficient information to permit judgments and imprecision of results due to the small sample size. No trial reported the proportion of participants with relief of pain and resolution of redness at any time point.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Anti-VEGFs as an adjunct to conventional treatment could help reduce IOP in NVG in the short term (four to six weeks), but there is no evidence that this is likely in the longer term. Currently available evidence regarding the short- and long-term effectiveness and safety of anti-VEGFs in achieving control of IOP, visual acuity, and complete regression of new iris vessels in NVG is insufficient. More research is needed to investigate the effect of these medications compared with, or in addition to, conventional surgical or medical treatment in achieving these outcomes in NVG.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Bevacizumab; Glaucoma, Neovascular; Ranibizumab; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 37010901
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007920.pub4 -
Molecular Vision 2012To investigate the genetic associations of polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV), the genetic difference between PCV and age-related macular degeneration (AMD), and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To investigate the genetic associations of polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV), the genetic difference between PCV and age-related macular degeneration (AMD), and the genotype-phenotype correlation of PCV.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. Published articles about genetic associations of PCV identified from a literature search were reviewed. The following data from individual studies were extracted and analyzed: 1) comparison of genetic polymorphisms between PCV and controls; 2) comparison of genetic polymorphisms between PCV and AMD; and 3) comparison of phenotypes between different genotype groups.
RESULTS
A total of 33 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. With meta-analyses, variants in four genes were found to be significantly associated with PCV: LOC387715 rs10490924 (n=9, allelic odds ratio [OR]=2.27, p<0.00001), HTRA1 rs11200638 (n=4, OR=2.72, p<0.00001), CFH rs1061170 (n=4, OR=1.72, p<0.00001), CFH rs800292 (n=5, OR=2.10, p<0.00001), and C2 rs547154 (n=3, OR=0.56, p=0.01). LOC387715 rs10490924 was the only variant showing a significant difference between PCV and wet AMD (n=5, OR=0.66, p<0.00001). The risk genotypes of rs10490924 were associated with larger lesion size, greater chance of vitreous hemorrhage, and worse therapeutic response in PCV.
CONCLUSIONS
LOC387715 rs10490924 was associated with PCV and its clinical manifestations, and showed a discrepant distribution between PCV and AMD. Variants in HTRA1, CFH, and C2 were also associated with PCV.
Topics: Alleles; Asian People; Choroid; Choroidal Neovascularization; Female; Gene Frequency; Genetic Association Studies; Genotype; Humans; Macular Degeneration; Male; Phenotype; Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide; Polyploidy; Proteins
PubMed: 22509112
DOI: No ID Found -
Acta Ophthalmologica Feb 2015Prophylactic treatment of retinal breaks has been examined in several studies and reviews, but so far, no studies have successfully applied a systematic approach. In the... (Review)
Review
Prophylactic treatment of retinal breaks has been examined in several studies and reviews, but so far, no studies have successfully applied a systematic approach. In the present systematic review, we examined the need of follow-up after posterior vitreous detachment (PVD) - diagnosed by slit-lamp biomicroscopy or Goldmann 3-mirror examination - with regard to retinal breaks as well as the indication of prophylactic treatment in asymptomatic and symptomatic breaks. A total of 2941 publications were identified with PubMed and Medline searches. Two manual search strategies were used for papers in English published before 2012. Four levels of screening identified 13 studies suitable for inclusion in this systematic review. No meta-analysis was conducted as no data suitable for statistical analysis were identified. In total, the initial examination after symptomatic PVD identified 85-95% of subsequent retinal breaks. Additional retinal breaks were only revealed at follow-up in patients where a full retinal examination was compromised at presentation by, for example, vitreous haemorrhage. Asymptomatic and symptomatic retinal breaks progressed to rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) in 0-13.8% and 35-47% of cases, respectively. The cumulated incidence of RRD despite prophylactic treatment was 2.1-8.8%. The findings in this review suggest that follow-up after symptomatic PVD is only necessary in cases of incomplete retinal examination at presentation. Prophylactic treatment of symptomatic retinal breaks must be considered, whereas no unequivocal conclusion could be reached with regard to prophylactic treatment of asymptomatic retinal breaks.
Topics: Cryosurgery; Humans; Laser Coagulation; Retinal Detachment; Retinal Perforations; Slit Lamp; Vitreous Detachment
PubMed: 24853827
DOI: 10.1111/aos.12447