Comparative efficacy of bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept for treatment of macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Sangroongruangsri, S., Ratanapakorn, T., Wu, O. , Anothaisintawee, T. and Chaikledkaew, U. (2018) Comparative efficacy of bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept for treatment of macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology, 11(9), pp. 903-916. (doi: 10.1080/17512433.2018.1507735) (PMID:30071180)

[img]
Preview
Text
169164.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

2MB

Abstract

Introduction: Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy has become the most commonly used treatment for macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO). Although its superior efficacy as compared to other interventions has been proven, there is a lack of evidence for relative efficacy among anti-VEGF drugs. Areas covered: This work systematically reviewed and compared the efficacy of intravitreal bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept for treating macular edema due to RVO. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from their inception until October 2017. Eleven randomized controlled trials (18 articles; 1830 adult patients) were identified. The proportion of patients who gained at least 15 letters in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), mean change from baseline in BCVA, and mean change from baseline in central macular thickness (CMT) were reported and these efficacy outcomes at 6 months were analyzed in network meta-analysis. Expert commentary: Apparently, bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept were significantly superior to sham injection in terms of BCVA improvement and CMT reduction and had good safety profiles. However, there were no statistically significant differences in any outcomes among anti-VEGF drugs. In selecting an anti-VEGF drug for individual patients, other factors including affordability, drug availability, and patient characteristics should be considered.

Item Type:Articles
Additional Information:This work was supported by the Thailand Research Fund and Mahidol University under the Royal Golden Jubilee Ph.D. Program [Grant No. PHD/0180/2554] through Sermsiri Sangroongruangsri and Usa Chaikledkaew.
Keywords:General Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, Pharmacology (medical), General Medicine.
Status:Published
Refereed:Yes
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID:Wu, Professor Olivia
Authors: Sangroongruangsri, S., Ratanapakorn, T., Wu, O., Anothaisintawee, T., and Chaikledkaew, U.
College/School:College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences > Institute of Health and Wellbeing > Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment
Journal Name:Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology
Publisher:Taylor & Francis
ISSN:1751-2433
ISSN (Online):1751-2441
Published Online:10 August 2018
Copyright Holders:Copyright © 2018 The Authors
First Published:First published in Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology 11(9): 903-916
Publisher Policy:Reproduced under a Creative Commons License

University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record