Efficacy of Conversion to Aflibercept for Diabetic Macular Edema Previously Refractory to Bevacizumab or Ranibizumab: A Meta-analysis of High-Quality Nonrandomized Studies.

Background: Aflibercept has been widely used in treating diabetic macular edema (DME). However, the effect of aflibercept in treating DME refractory to bevacizumab or ranibizumab has not been well established. Objective: To assess the therapeutic effect of switching from bevacizumab or ranibizumab to aflibercept in the treatment of refractory DME. Methods: Relevant studies were searched from 3 databases: the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Web of Science. Data on changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and adverse events within the follow-up period were collected and pooled using weighted mean differences (WMDs) with corresponding 95% CIs in a random effects model. The between-study heterogeneity was tested using the χ2 test and the I2 statistic, and funnel plots were used to evaluate the publication bias. Results: A total of 11 nonrandomized trials met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Our studies showed significant improvements in the BCVA (WMD = 100.55; 95% CI = 68.46 to 132.63; P < 0.01) and reduction in CMT (WMD = 0.09; 95% CI = 0.03 to 0.14; P < 0.01) after switching to aflibercept. Although a large amount of heterogeneity was detected in the CMT results among these studies, the sensitivity analyses showed the reliability and stability of our results. Conclusion and Relevance: There were significant improvements in both visual and anatomical outcomes after switching from bevacizumab or ranibizumab to aflibercept, without risk of adverse events. Thus, switching therapy may be a safe and effective treatment for patients with refractory DME.

Effect of Pars Plana Vitrectomy With or Without Cataract Surgery in Patients with Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) is considered to be an essential and effective surgical approach for the management of complications of diabetic retinopathy. Given the high rate of accelerated cataract progression after PPV, PPV combined with cataract surgery appears to be an attractive treatment option for patients with diabetes. However, this combined surgical approach remains controversial in terms of effectiveness and safety. We have therefore conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the treatment outcome of PPV with or without cataract surgery. METHODS: A systematic search of three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library) was performed to identify relevant articles, using the key words "pars plana vitrectomy," "cataract," and "diabetic retinopathy." Main outcome measures included the final visual acuity and postoperative complications. The incidence of postoperative complications was pooled using odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals in a random effect model. RESULTS: Ultimately, one randomized controlled trial (RCT) and four high-quality retrospective studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. In four of these studies, final visual acuity did not vary significantly between patients undergoing PPV alone and those undergoing PPV combined with cataract surgery (combined surgery). Only one study reported better visual improvement in the combined treatment group. Our analysis also showed that most phakic eyes after PPV had cataract progression with varying degrees. In addition, patients receiving PPV alone had a lower risk of neovascular glaucoma (OR 0.36; P < 0.05), iris synechias to anterior capsule (OR 0.36; P < 0.05), and iris rubeosis (OR 0.26; P < 0.05) compared with those receiving combined surgery. CONCLUSION: Overall, our findings show that PPV combined with cataract surgery achieved good outcomes without a substantial increased risk to visual acuity or most complications. Given the high rates of cataract progression after PPV, combined surgery may be the more appropriate treatment for patients with diabetes and coexistent visually significant cataract.

Effect of Intravitreal Bevacizumab with or without Macular Photocoagulation for Diabetic Macular Edema: A Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: In this meta-analysis, we aimed to assess the possible benefits of macular photocoagulation (MPC) as an additional treatment with intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) in patients with diabetic macular edema. METHODS: The studies were identified from three databases: PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. The main outcome measures included change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), differences in central macular thickness (CMT), and adverse events within the follow-up period. The results were pooled using weight mean difference with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals. A fixed or random effects model was employed, depending on the heterogeneity of the inclusion trials. RESULTS: Finally, three randomized controlled trial and two high-quality retrospective studies were identified and included. Changes in CMT at 1, 3, and 6 months did not vary significantly between the IVB-alone group and the IVB with MPC group (P = 0.26, 0.06, and 0.65, respectively). Similarly, changes in BCVA at 1, 3, and 6 months also did not vary significantly between the two groups (P = 0.20, 0.91, and 0.70, respectively). Whereas substantial heterogeneity was detected in the CMT results among these studies, the sensitivity analyses showed Solaiman's study was probably the source of the heterogeneity. No publication bias was detected by funnel plots in this study. CONCLUSION: Results of this meta-analysis showed that the treatments with IVB alone and combined IVB and MPC were similarly effective in improving BCVA and reducing CMT. However, more evidence is needed to evaluate their effects in the long-term periods.