The aim of this study was to better understand the efficacy of various drugs, such as glucocorticoids and anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGF), in the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME), and to evaluate various clinical treatment regimens consisting of different therapeutic measures.

This study included randomized controlled trials up to February 2023 comparing the efficacy of corticosteroid-related therapy and anti-VEGF therapy. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched, and the quality of the studies was carefully assessed. Finally, 39 studies were included.

Results at 3-month followup showed that intravitreal injection of bevacizumab (IVB) + triamcinolone acetonide (TA) was the most beneficial in improving best-corrected visual acuity and reducing the thickness of macular edema in the center of the retina in patients with DME. Results at 6-month follow-up showed that intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) was the most effective in improving patients' bestcorrected visual acuity and reducing the thickness of central macular edema.

Overall, IVB+TA was beneficial in improving best-corrected visual acuity and reducing central macular edema thickness over a 3-month follow-up period, while DEX implants had a better therapeutic effect than anti-VEGF agents at 6 months, especially the patients with severe macular edema and visual acuity impaired.

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=397100, identifier CRD42023397100.

Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a common complication of diabetic retinopathy. Antiangiogenic therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) can reduce oedema, improve vision, and prevent further visual loss. These drugs have replaced laser photocoagulation as the standard of care for people with DMO. In the previous update of this review, we found moderate-quality evidence that, at 12 months, aflibercept was slightly more effective than ranibizumab and bevacizumab for improving vision in people with DMO, although the difference may have been clinically insignificant (less than 0.1 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), or five Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters, or one ETDRS line).

The objective of this updated review was to compare the effectiveness and safety of the different anti-VEGF drugs in RCTs at longer followup (24 months).

We searched various electronic databases on 8 July 2022.

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any anti-angiogenic drug with an anti-VEGF mechanism of action versus another anti-VEGF drug, another treatment, sham, or no treatment in people with DMO.

We used standard Cochrane methods for pairwise meta-analysis and we augmented this evidence using network meta-analysis (NMA) methods. We used the Stata 'network' meta-analysis package for all analyses. We used the CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis) web application to grade the certainty of the evidence.

We included 23 studies (13 with industry funding) that enrolled 3513 people with DMO (median central retinal thickness (CRT) 460 microns, interquartile range (IQR) 424 to 482) and moderate vision loss (median best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) 0.48 logMAR, IQR 0.42 to 0.55. One study that investigated ranibizumab versus sham and one study that mainly enrolled people with subclinical DMO and normal BCVA were not suitable for inclusion in the efficacy NMA. Consistent with the previous update of this review, we used ranibizumab as the reference drug for efficacy, and control (including laser, observation, and sham) as the reference for systemic safety. Eight trials provided data on the primary outcome (change in BCVA at 24 months, in logMAR: lower is better). We found no evidence of a difference between the following interventions and ranibizumab alone: aflibercept (mean difference (MD) -0.05 logMAR, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.12 to 0.02; moderate certainty); bevacizumab (MD -0.01 logMAR, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.10; low certainty), brolucizumab (MD 0.00 logMAR, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.07; low certainty), ranibizumab plus deferred laser (MD 0.00 logMAR, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.10; low certainty), and ranibizumab plus prompt laser (MD 0.03 logMAR, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.09; very low certainty). We also analysed BCVA change at 12 months, finding moderate-certainty evidence of increased efficacy with brolucizumab (MD -0.07 logMAR, 95%CI -0.10 to -0.03 logMAR), faricimab (MD -0.08 logMAR, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.05), and aflibercept (MD -0.07 logMAR, 95 % CI -0.10 to -0.04) compared to ranibizumab alone, but the difference could be clinically insignificant. Compared to ranibizumab alone, NMA of six trials showed no evidence of a difference with aflibercept (moderate certainty), bevacizumab (low certainty), or ranibizumab with prompt (very low certainty) or deferred laser (low certainty) regarding improvement by three or more ETDRS lines at 24 months. There was moderate-certainty evidence of greater CRT reduction at 24 months with brolucizumab (MD -23 microns, 95% CI -65 to -1 9) and aflibercept (MD -26 microns, 95% CI -53 to 0.9) compared to ranibizumab. There was moderate-certainty evidence of lesser CRT reduction with bevacizumab (MD 28 microns, 95% CI 0 to 56), ranibizumab plus deferred laser (MD 63 microns, 95% CI 18 to 109), and ranibizumab plus prompt laser (MD 72 microns, 95% CI 25 to 119) compared with ranibizumab alone. Regarding all-cause mortality at the longest available follow-up (20 trials), we found no evidence of increased risk of death for any drug compared to control, although effects were in the direction of an increase, and clinically relevant increases could not be ruled out. The certainty of this evidence was low for bevacizumab (risk ratio (RR) 2.10, 95% CI 0.75 to 5.88), brolucizumab (RR 2.92, 95% CI 0.68 to 12.58), faricimab (RR 1.91, 95% CI 0.45 to 8.00), ranibizumab (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.34), and very low for conbercept (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.81) and aflibercept (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.77). Estimates for Antiplatelet Trialists Collaboration arterial thromboembolic events at 24 months did not suggest an increase with any drug compared to control, but the NMA was overall incoherent and the evidence was of low or very low certainty. Ocular adverse events were rare and poorly reported and could not be assessed in NMAs.

There is limited evidence of the comparative efficacy and safety of anti-VEGF drugs beyond one year of follow-up. We found no clinically important differences in visual outcomes at 24 months in people with DMO, although there were differences in CRT change. We found no evidence that any drug increases all-cause mortality compared to control, but estimates were very imprecise. Evidence from RCTs may not apply to real-world practice, where people in need of antiangiogenic treatment are often under-treated, and the individuals exposed to these drugs may be less healthy than trial participants.

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is secondary to leakage from diseased retinal capillaries with thickening of central retina, and is an important cause of poor central visual acuity in people with diabetic retinopathy. Intravitreal steroids have been used to reduce retinal thickness and improve vision in people with DME.

To assess the effectiveness and safety of intravitreal steroid therapy compared with other treatments for DME.

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase on 15 May, 2019. We also searched reference lists, Science Citation Index, conference proceedings, and relevant trial registers. We conducted a top up search on 21 October, 2020.

We included randomized controlled trials that evaluated any type of intravitreal steroids as monotherapy against any other intervention (e.g. observation, laser photocoagulation, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (antiVEGF) for DME.

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analyses.

We included 10 trials (4348 participants, 4505 eyes). These trials compared intravitreal steroid therapies versus other treatments, including intravitreal antiVEGF therapy, laser photocoagulation, and sham injection. Most trials had an overall unclear or high risk of bias. One trial (701 eyes ) compared intravitreal dexamethasone implant 0.7mg with sham. We found moderate-certainty evidence that dexamethasone leads to slightly more improvement of visual acuity than sham at 12 months (mean difference [MD] -0.08 logMAR, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.12 to -0.05 logMAR). Regarding improvement of three or more lines of visual acuity, there was moderate-certainty evidence in favor of dexamethasone at 12 months, but the CI covered the null value (risk ratio (RR) 1.39, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.12). Regarding adverse events, dexamethasone increased by about four times the risk of cataract progression and the risk of using intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering medications compared to sham (RR 3.89, 95% CI 2.75 to 5.50 and RR 4.54, 95% CI 3.19 to 6.46, respectively; moderate-certainty evidence); about 4 in 10 participants treated with dexamethasone needed IOP-lowering medications. Two trials (451 eyes) compared intravitreal dexamethasone implant 0.7mg with intravitreal antiVEGF (bevacizumab and ranibizumab). There was moderate-certainty evidence that visual acuity improved slightly less with dexamethasone compared with antiVEGF at 12 months (MD 0.07 logMAR, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.09 logMAR; 2 trials; 451 participants/eyes; I² = 0%). The RR of gain of three or more lines of visual acuity was inconsistent between trials, with one trial finding no evidence of a difference between dexamethasone and bevacizumab at 12 months (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.40; 1 trial; 88 eyes), and the other, larger trial finding the chances of vision gain were half with dexamethasone compared with ranibizumab (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.79; 1 trial; 432 participants). The certainty of evidence was low. Cataract progression and the need for IOP-lowering medications increased more than 4 times with dexamethasone implant compared to antiVEGF (moderate-certainty evidence). One trial (560 eyes) compared intravitreal fluocinolone implant 0.19mg with sham. There was moderate-certainty evidence that visual acuity improved slightly more with fluocinolone at 12 months (MD -0.04 logMAR, 95% CI -0.06 to -0.01 logMAR). There was moderate-certainty evidence that an improvement in visual acuity of three or more lines was more common with fluocinolone than with sham at 12 months (RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.78). Fluocinolone also increased the risk of cataract progression (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.35 to 1.97; participants = 335; moderate-certainty evidence), which occurred in about 8 in 10 participants, and the use of IOP-lowering medications (RR 2.72, 95% CI 1.87 to 3.98; participants = 558; moderate-certainty evidence), which were needed in 2 to 3 out of 10 participants. One small trial with 43 participants (69 eyes) compared intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection 4 mg with sham. There may be a benefit in visual acuity at 24 months (MD -0.11 logMAR, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.03 logMAR), but the certainty of evidence is low. Differences in adverse effects were poorly reported in this trial. Two trials (615 eyes) compared intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection 4mg with laser photocoagulation and reached discordant results. The smaller trial (31 eyes followed up to 9 months) found more visual acuity improvement with triamcinolone (MD -0.18 logMAR, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07 logMAR), but a larger, multicenter trial (584 eyes, 12-month follow-up) found no evidence of a difference regarding change in visual acuity (MD 0.02 logMAR, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.07 logMAR) or gain of three or more lines of visual acuity (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.30) (overall low-certainty evidence). Cataract progression was about three times more likely (RR 2.68, 95% CI 2.21 to 3.24; moderate-certainty evidence) and the use of IOP-lowering medications was about four times more likely (RR 3.92, 95% CI 2.59 to 5.96; participants = 627; studies = 2; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) with triamcinolone. About 1 in 3 participants needed IOP-lowering medication. One small trial (30 eyes) compared intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection 4mg with intravitreal antiVEGF (bevacizumab or ranibizumab). Visual acuity may be worse with triamcinolone at 12 months (MD 0.18 logMAR, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.26 logMAR); the certainty of evidence is low. Adverse effects were poorly reported in this trial. Four trials reported data on pseudophakic participants, for whom cataract is not a concern. These trials found no decrease in visual acuity in the second treatment year due to cataract progression.

Intravitreal steroids may improve vision in people with DME compared to sham or control. Effects were small, about one line of vision or less in most comparisons. More evidence is available for dexamethasone or fluocinolone implants when compared to sham, and the evidence is limited and inconsistent for the comparison of dexamethasone with antiVEGF treatment. Any benefits should be weighed against IOP elevation, the use of IOP-lowering medication and, in phakic patients, the progression of cataract. The need for glaucoma surgery is also increased, but remains rare.

Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a common complication of diabetic retinopathy. Antiangiogenic therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) can reduce oedema, improve vision and prevent further visual loss. These drugs have replaced laser photocoagulation as the standard of care for people with DMO.

The 2014 update of this review found high-quality evidence of benefit with anti-VEGF modalities, compared to laser photocoagulation, for the treatment of DMO. The objective of this updated review is to compare the effectiveness and safety of the different anti-VEGF drugs using network meta-analysis methods.

We searched various electronic databases on 26 April 2017.

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any anti-angiogenic drug with an anti-VEGF mechanism of action versus another anti-VEGF drug, another treatment, sham or no treatment in people with DMO.

We used standard Cochrane methods for pair-wise meta-analysis and we augmented this evidence using network meta-analysis methods. We focused on the relative efficacy and safety of the three most commonly used drugs as interventions of direct interest for practice: aflibercept and ranibizumab, used on-label; and off-label bevacizumab.We collected data on three efficacy outcomes (gain of 15 or more Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters; mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA); mean change in central retinal thickness (CRT)), three safety outcomes (all severe systemic adverse events (SSAEs); all-cause death; arterial thromboembolic events) and quality of life.We used Stata 'network' meta-analysis package for all analyses. We investigated the risk of bias of mixed comparisons based on the variance contribution of each study, having assigned an overall risk of bias to each study.

Twenty-four studies included 6007 participants with DMO and moderate vision loss, of which two studies randomised 265 eyes of 230 participants and one was a cross-over study on 56 participants (62 eyes) that was treated as a parallel-arm trial. Data were collected on drugs of direct interest from three studies on aflibercept (975 eyes), eight studies on bevacizumab (515 eyes), and 14 studies on ranibizumab (1518 eyes). As treatments of indirect interest or legacy treatment we included three studies on pegaptanib (541 eyes), five studies on ranibizumab plus prompt laser (557 eyes), one study on ranibizumab plus deferred laser (188 eyes), 13 studies on laser photocoagulation (936 eyes) and six studies on sham treatment (793 eyes).Aflibercept, bevacizumab and ranibizumab were all more effective than laser for improving vision by 3 or more lines after one year (high-certainty evidence). Approximately one in 10 people improve vision with laser, and about three in 10 people improve with anti-VEGF treatment: risk ratio (RR) versus laser 3.66 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.79 to 4.79) for aflibercept; RR 2.47 (95% CI 1.81 to 3.37) for bevacizumab; RR 2.76 (95% CI 2.12 to 3.59) for ranibizumab. On average there was no change in visual acuity (VA) with laser after one year, compared with a gain of 1 or 2 lines with anti-VEGF treatment: laser versus aflibercept mean difference (MD) -0.20 (95% CI -0.22 to -0.17) logMAR; versus bevacizumab MD -0.12 (95% CI -0.15 to -0.09) logMAR; versus ranibizumab MD -0.12 (95% CI -0.14 to -0.10) logMAR. The certainty of the evidence was high for the comparison of aflibercept and ranibizumab with laser and moderate for bevacizumab comparison with laser due to inconsistency between the indirect and direct evidence.People receiving ranibizumab were less likely to gain 3 or more lines of VA at one year compared with aflibercept: RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.94), moderate-certainty evidence. For every 1000 people treated with aflibercept, 92 fewer would gain 3 or more lines of VA at one year if treated with ranibizumab (22 to 148 fewer). On average people receiving ranibizumab had worse VA at one year (MD 0.08 logMAR units, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.11), moderate-certainty evidence; and higher CRT (MD 39 µm, 95% CI 2 µm to 76 µm; low-certainty evidence). Ranibizumab and bevacizumab were comparable with respect to aflibercept and did not differ in terms of VA: RR of gain of 3 or more lines of VA at one year 1.11 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.43), moderate-certainty evidence, and difference in change in VA was 0.00 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.03) logMAR, moderate-certainty evidence. CRT reduction favoured ranibizumab by -29 µm (95% CI -58 µm to -1 µm, low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of overall statistical inconsistency in our analyses.The previous version of this review found moderate-certainty evidence of good safety of antiangiogenic drugs versus control. This update used data at the longest available follow-up (one or two years) and found that aflibercept, ranibizumab and bevacizumab do not differ regarding systemic serious adverse events (SSAEs) (moderate- or high-certainty evidence). However, risk of bias was variable, loop inconsistency could be found and estimates were not precise enough on relative safety regarding less frequent events such as arterial thromboembolic events or death (low- or very low-certainty evidence).Two-year data were available and reported in only four RCTs in this review. Most industry-sponsored studies were open-label after one year. One large publicly-funded study compared the three drugs at two years and found no difference.

Anti-VEGF drugs are effective at improving vision in people with DMO with three to four in every 10 people likely to experience an improvement of 3 or more lines VA at one year. Aflibercept may confer some advantage over ranibizumab and bevacizumab in people with DMO at one year in visual and anatomic terms but it is unclear whether this applies to the long-term. There is a need for more evidence on the long-term (greater than two years) comparative effects of these anti-VEGF agents. Evidence from RCTs may not apply to real-world practice, where people in need of antiangiogenic treatment are often under-treated and under-monitored.We found no signals of differences in overall safety between the three antiangiogenic drugs that are currently available to treat DMO, but our estimates are imprecise for cardiovascular events and death.

Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a common complication of diabetic retinopathy. Antiangiogenic therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) modalities can reduce oedema and thereby improve vision and prevent further visual loss. These drugs have replaced laser photocoagulation as the standard of care for people with DMO.

The 2014 update of this review found high-quality evidence of benefit with antiangiogenic therapy with anti-VEGF modalities, compared to laser photocoagulation, for the treatment of DMO.The objective of this updated review is to compare the effectiveness and safety of the different anti-VEGF drugs in preserving and improving vision and quality of life using network meta-analysis methods.

We searched various electronic databases on 26 April 2017.

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any anti-angiogenic drug with an anti-VEGF mechanism of action versus another anti-VEGF drug, another treatment, sham or no treatment in people with DMO.

We used standard Cochrane methods for pair-wise meta-analysis and we augmented this evidence using network meta-analysis methods. We focused on the relative efficacy and safety of the three most commonly used drugs as interventions of direct interest for practice: aflibercept and ranibizumab, used on-label; and off-label bevacizumab.We collected data on three efficacy outcomes (gain of 15 or more Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters; mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA); mean change in central retinal thickness (CRT)), three safety outcomes (all severe systemic adverse events (SSAEs); all-cause death; arterial thromboembolic events) and quality of life.We used Stata 'network' meta-analysis package for all analyses. We investigated the risk of bias of mixed comparisons based on the variance contribution of each study, having assigned an overall risk of bias to each study.

Twenty-four studies included 6007 participants with DMO and moderate vision loss, of which two studies randomised 265 eyes of 230 participants and one was a cross-over study on 56 participants (62 eyes) that was treated as a parallel-arm trial. Data were collected on drugs of direct interest from three studies on aflibercept (975 eyes), eight studies on bevacizumab (515 eyes), and 14 studies on ranibizumab (1518 eyes). As treatments of indirect interest or legacy treatment we included three studies on pegaptanib (541 eyes), five studies on ranibizumab plus prompt laser (557 eyes), one study on ranibizumab plus deferred laser (188 eyes), 13 studies on laser photocoagulation (936 eyes) and six studies on sham treatment (793 eyes).Aflibercept, bevacizumab and ranibizumab were all more effective than laser for improving vision by 3 or more lines after one year (high-certainty evidence). Approximately one in 10 people improve vision with laser, and about three in 10 people improve with anti-VEGF treatment: risk ratio (RR) versus laser 3.66 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.79 to 4.79) for aflibercept; RR 2.47 (95% CI 1.81 to 3.37) for bevacizumab; RR 2.76 (95% CI 2.12 to 3.59) for ranibizumab. On average there was no change in visual acuity (VA) with laser after one year, compared with a gain of 1 or 2 lines with anti-VEGF treatment: laser versus aflibercept mean difference (MD) -0.20 (95% CI -0.22 to -0.17) logMAR; versus bevacizumab MD -0.12 (95% CI -0.15 to -0.09) logMAR; versus ranibizumab MD -0.12 (95% CI -0.14 to -0.10) logMAR. The certainty of the evidence was high for the comparison of aflibercept and ranibizumab with laser and moderate for bevacizumab comparison with laser due to inconsistency between the indirect and direct evidence.People receiving ranibizumab were less likely to gain 3 or more lines of VA at one year compared with aflibercept: RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.94), moderate-certainty evidence. For every 1000 people treated with aflibercept, 92 fewer would gain 3 or more lines of VA at one year if treated with ranibizumab (22 to 148 fewer). On average people receiving ranibizumab had worse VA at one year (MD 0.08 logMAR units, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.11), moderate-certainty evidence; and higher CRT (MD 39 µm, 95% CI 2 µm to 76 µm; low-certainty evidence). Ranibizumab and bevacizumab were comparable with respect to aflibercept and did not differ in terms of VA: RR of gain of 3 or more lines of VA at one year 1.11 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.43), moderate-certainty evidence, and difference in change in VA was 0.00 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.03) logMAR, moderate-certainty evidence. CRT reduction favoured ranibizumab by -29 µm (95% CI -58 µm to -1 µm, low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of overall statistical inconsistency in our analyses.The previous version of this review found moderate-certainty evidence of good safety of antiangiogenic drugs versus control. This update used data at the longest available follow-up (one or two years) and found that aflibercept, ranibizumab and bevacizumab do not differ regarding systemic serious adverse events (SSAEs) (moderate- or high-certainty evidence). However, risk of bias was variable, loop inconsistency could be found and estimates were not precise enough on relative safety regarding less frequent events such as arterial thromboembolic events or death (low- or very low-certainty evidence).Two-year data were available and reported in only four RCTs in this review. Most industry-sponsored studies were open-label after one year. One large publicly-funded study compared the three drugs at two years and found no difference.

Anti-VEGF drugs are effective at improving vision in people with DMO with three to four in every 10 people likely to experience an improvement of 3 or more lines VA at one year. There is moderate-certainty evidence that aflibercept confers some advantage over ranibizumab and bevacizumab in people with DMO at one year in visual and anatomic terms. Relative effects among anti-VEGF drugs at two years are less well known, since most studies were short term. Evidence from RCTs may not apply to real-world practice, where people in need of antiangiogenic treatment are often under-treated and under-monitored.We found no signals of differences in overall safety between the three antiangiogenic drugs that are currently available to treat DMO, but our estimates are imprecise for cardiovascular events and death.

To perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effects of treatment with intravitreal injections of triamcinolone acetonide (TA) with the standard of care for ocular inflammatory diseases.

Medline database was searched for causes of macular edema terms in association with intravitreal triamcinolone. The primary outcome of interest included changes in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT). Pooled summary estimates for primary outcomes were calculated as weighted mean differences (WMD) either on a fixed- or random-effect model.

A total of 8 studies were included for quantitative analysis. Treatment with intravitreal TA showed improvement in BCVA compared with standard of care at 1 month (WMD, -0.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.17 to -0.02), at 4 months (WMD, -0.09; 95% CI, -0.15 to -0.03), at 6 months (WMD, -0.13; 95% CI, -0.21 to -0.05), and in CMT at 1 month (WMD, -88.14; 95% CI, -105.86 to -70.43). Increased intraocular pressure (IOP) among patients treated with intravitreal TA was found at 4 months (WMD, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.96 to 3.70), persisting also at 12 months (WMD, 3.78; 95% CI, 2.97 to 4.59), compared with those receiving the standard of care. All outcomes are mostly equivalent at further follow-up times.

Intravitreal injections of TA may offer certain advantages over the standard of care for ocular inflammatory diseases, especially in the early stage of follow-up. However, it is necessary to take into account risks and benefits of TA treatment for ocular inflammatory diseases due to possible ocular hypertension elicited, in general, by intravitreal injection of corticosteroids.

To further evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) versus macular photocoagulation (MPC) in treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) by Meta-analysis.

Pertinent publications were identified through systemic searches of PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to 30 November, 2013. Changes in central macular thickness (CMT) in µm and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in logMAR equivalents were extracted at 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24mo after initial treatment, and a Meta-analysis was carried out to compare results between groups receiving IVB and MPC.

Five randomized controlled trial (RCTs) and one high-quality comparative study were identified and included. Our Meta-analysis revealed that both IVB and MPC resulted in the improvements of CMT and BCVA in eyes with DME at 1mo after initial treatment, with IVB being significantly superior to MPC (P=0.01 and 0.02, respectively). The improvements of both measure outcomes at 3, 6, 12 and 24mo after treatment did not vary significantly between the IVB groups and MPC groups (CMT at 3mo, P=0.85; at 6mo, P=0.29; at 12mo, P=0.56; at 24mo, P=0.71; BCVA at 3mo, P=0.31; at 6mo, P= 0.30; at 12mo, P=0.23; at 24mo, P=0.52). However, the number of observed adverse events was low in all studies.

Current evidence shows IVB treatment trends to be more effective in improvements of macular edema and vision in eyes with DME at an earlier follow up (1mo) compared with MPC. At other time, both interventions have comparable efficacy without statistical significances.

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 is used to try to improve vision in people with DMO.

To investigate the effects in preserving and improving vision and acceptability, including the safety, compliance with therapy and quality of life, of antiangiogenic therapy with anti-VEGF modalities for the treatment of DMO.

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2014, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to April 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to April 2014), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to April 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 28 April 2014.

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 people with DMO.

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. The risk ratios (RR) for visual loss and visual gain of three or more lines of logMAR visual acuity were estimated at one year of follow-up (plus or minus six months) after treatment initiation.

Eighteen studies provided data on four comparisons of interest in this review. Participants in the trials had central DMO and moderate vision loss.Compared with grid laser photocoagulation, people treated with antiangiogenic therapy were more likely to gain 3 or more lines of vision at one year (RR 3.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.7 to 4.8, 10 studies, 1333 cases, high quality evidence) and less likely to lose 3 or more lines of vision (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.24, 7 studies, 1086 cases, high quality evidence). In meta-analyses, no significant subgroup difference was demonstrated between bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept for the two primary outcomes, but there was little power to detect a difference. The quality of the evidence was judged to be high, because the effect was large, precisely measured and did not vary across studies, although some studies were at high or unclear risk of bias for one or more domains. Regarding absolute benefit, we estimated that 8 out of 100 participants with DMO may gain 3 or more lines of visual acuity using photocoagulation whereas 28 would do so with antiangiogenic therapy, meaning that 100 participants need to be treated with antiangiogenic therapy to allow 20 more people (95% CI 13 to 29) to markedly improve their vision after one year. People treated with anti-VEGF on average had 1.6 lines better vision (95% CI 1.4 to 1.8) after one year compared to laser photocoagulation (9 studies, 1292 cases, high quality evidence). To achieve this result, seven to nine injections were delivered in the first year and three or four in the second, in larger studies adopting either as needed regimens with monthly monitoring or fixed regimens.In other analyses antiangiogenic therapy was more effective than sham (3 studies on 497 analysed participants, high quality evidence) and ranibizumab associated with laser was more effective than laser alone (4 studies on 919 participants, high quality evidence).Ocular severe adverse events, such as endophthalmitis, were rare in the included studies. Meta-analyses conducted for all antiangiogenic drugs compared with either sham or photocoagulation did not show a significant difference regarding serious systemic adverse events (15 studies, 441 events in 2985 participants, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.17), arterial thromboembolic events (14 studies, 129 events in 3034 participants, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.25) and overall mortality (63 events in 3562 participants, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.47). We judged the quality of the evidence on adverse effects as moderate due to partial reporting of safety data and the exclusion of participants with previous cardiovascular events in some studies.

There is high quality evidence that antiangiogenic drugs provide a benefit compared to current therapeutic options for DMO, that is grid laser photocoagulation, in clinical trial populations at one or two years. Future research should investigate differences between drugs, effectiveness under real-world monitoring and treatment conditions, and safety in high-risk populations, particularly regarding cardiovascular risk.

To determine the feasibility of the surgical procedure and to collect some safety data regarding the bioelectronics of a novel micro drug pump for intravitreal drug delivery in a Beagle dog model for up to 1 year.

Thirteen Beagle dogs were assigned to two groups. The experimental group (n = 11) underwent pars plana implantation of MicroPump; the body of which was sutured episclerally, while its catheter was secured at a pars plana sclerotomy. The control group (n = 2) underwent sham surgeries in the form of a temporary suturing of the MicroPump, including placement of the pars plana tube. Baseline and follow-up exams included ophthalmic examination and imaging. The experimental animals were euthanized and explanted at predetermined time points after surgery (1, 3, and 12 months), while the control animals were euthanized at 3 months. All operated eyes were submitted for histopathology.

Eyes were scored according to a modified McDonald-Shadduck system and ophthalmic imaging. Neither the implanted eyes nor the control eyes showed clinically significant pathological changes beyond the expected surgical changes. The operated eyes showed neither significant inflammatory reaction nor tissue ingrowth through the sclerotomy site compared with the fellow eyes.

This study shows that the Replenish Posterior MicroPump could be successfully implanted with good safety profile in this animal model.

The results of this study in a Beagle dog model are supportive of the biocompatibility of Replenish MicroPump and pave the way to the use of these devices for ocular automated drug delivery after further testing in larger animal models.

To compare the efficacy of the sole intravitreal triamcinolone (IVT) versus intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) alone or IVB combined with IVT in the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME).

Pertinent publications were identified through systematic searches of database and manually searching. Methodological quality of the literatures was valuated according to the Jadad Score. RevMan 5.1.0 was used to do the meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was determined and sensitivity was conducted.

Six studies were ultimately included in the meta-analysis. The results of our analysis showed IVT had a statistically significant improvement in vision over the IVB at 1 month and 3 months (P<0.01). However, the reduction was not significant regarding central macular thickness (CMT) during the earlier (1 month and 3 months) follow-up period (P=0.12, P=0.41, respectively). At later visit (6 months), IVT had a significant decrease in CMT when compared to IVB (P<0.01) while no significant improvement in visual acuity (VA) was observed (P=0.14). The incidence of intraocular hypertension was 13/102 in IVT group during follow-up period while 0/103 in IVB group. The difference was significant (P<0.01). With regards to IVT versus IVB combined with IVT, there were no significant differences in CMT at 1 month (P=0.86) and 3 months (P=0.06). The incidence of intraocular hypertension was 6/67 in IVT group during follow-up period while 4/66 in IVB+IVT group. But the difference was not significant (P=0.53).

Current evidence shows IVT is superior in improving VA at earlier follow-up (1 month and 3 months) and in reducing CMT at later follow-up (6 months) for DME. At other time, it is in favor of IVT treatment but there are no statistically significances. However, IVT has the side-effect of ocular hypertension. There is no adequate evidence of the benefit adding IVB to IVT in contrast to IVT alone.