Photodiagnosis and photodynamic therapy · 2023
Evaluating the effect of vitreomacular interface abnormalities on anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment outcomes in diabetic macular edema by optical coherence tomography: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gong Yi, Wang Manqiao, Li Qingbo, Shao Yan, Li Xiaorong
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of vitreomacular interface (VMI) configuration on treatment outcomes after intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy for diabetic macular edema (DME) using optical coherence tomography (OCT).
METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed on PubMed, Embase, web of science and clinicaltrials.gov. The primary outcome parameters were central macular thickness (CMT), best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and mean injection numbers. We performed this meta-analysis by Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4.1.
RESULTS: The impact of epiretinal membrane (ERM), vitreomacular traction (VMT) and vitreomacular adhesion (VMA) on the treatment outcomes were analyzed separately. 9 clinical studies involving 699 eyes were eligible for the meta-analysis for evaluating the effect of ERM/VMT on efficacy. And 7 studies with 610 eyes were included to access whether VMA affected the response to anti-VEGF therapy in patients with DME. The ERM/VMT group had poorer CMT reductions than the control group at 1 month ([MD] 52.91 mm, P<0.00001), while no significant difference at 3 months ([MD] 43.95 mm, P = 0.22) and over 12 months ([MD] 30.51 mm, P = 0.45). No statistically significant difference in the mean BCVA change at 1 month ([MD] -0.03 Log MAR, P = 0.79), whereas ERM/VMT group had poor visual acuity gains at 3 months ([MD] 0.08 Log MAR, P = 0.003), and a tendency of poor vision improvement over 12 months follow-up ([MD] 0.07 Log MAR, P = 0.11). There was no significant difference in the visual and anatomical results over 3 months in DME patients with or without VMA ([MD] -21.92 mm, P = 0.09; [MD] 1.79 letters, P = 0.22). Besides, VMI configuration was not found to affect mean injection numbers.
CONCLUSION: The limited evidence suggested that ERM/VMT was associated with worse CMT reduction at 1 month, poor BCVA gain at 3 months and a tendency of limited vision improvement over 12 months follow-up in DME patients treated with anti-VEGF agents. And VMA may not adversely affect the anatomic and functional outcomes. However, the results of this meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution because of the heterogeneity among study designs.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed on PubMed, Embase, web of science and clinicaltrials.gov. The primary outcome parameters were central macular thickness (CMT), best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and mean injection numbers. We performed this meta-analysis by Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4.1.
RESULTS: The impact of epiretinal membrane (ERM), vitreomacular traction (VMT) and vitreomacular adhesion (VMA) on the treatment outcomes were analyzed separately. 9 clinical studies involving 699 eyes were eligible for the meta-analysis for evaluating the effect of ERM/VMT on efficacy. And 7 studies with 610 eyes were included to access whether VMA affected the response to anti-VEGF therapy in patients with DME. The ERM/VMT group had poorer CMT reductions than the control group at 1 month ([MD] 52.91 mm, P<0.00001), while no significant difference at 3 months ([MD] 43.95 mm, P = 0.22) and over 12 months ([MD] 30.51 mm, P = 0.45). No statistically significant difference in the mean BCVA change at 1 month ([MD] -0.03 Log MAR, P = 0.79), whereas ERM/VMT group had poor visual acuity gains at 3 months ([MD] 0.08 Log MAR, P = 0.003), and a tendency of poor vision improvement over 12 months follow-up ([MD] 0.07 Log MAR, P = 0.11). There was no significant difference in the visual and anatomical results over 3 months in DME patients with or without VMA ([MD] -21.92 mm, P = 0.09; [MD] 1.79 letters, P = 0.22). Besides, VMI configuration was not found to affect mean injection numbers.
CONCLUSION: The limited evidence suggested that ERM/VMT was associated with worse CMT reduction at 1 month, poor BCVA gain at 3 months and a tendency of limited vision improvement over 12 months follow-up in DME patients treated with anti-VEGF agents. And VMA may not adversely affect the anatomic and functional outcomes. However, the results of this meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution because of the heterogeneity among study designs.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
HumansMacular EdemaDiabetic RetinopathyTomography, Optical CoherenceVascular Endothelial Growth Factor APhotochemotherapyPhotosensitizing AgentsRetinaRetinal DiseasesTreatment OutcomeVascular Endothelial Growth FactorsIntravitreal InjectionsRetrospective StudiesAngiogenesis InhibitorsDiabetes Mellitus