ABSTRACT
AIM: To systematically review the current evidence based on the efficacy and cost of Ex-PRESS implantation and trabeculectomy (Trab) for uncontrolled glaucoma. METHODS: Clinical trials were identified by electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, ISI Web of science and Cochrane library), and data, such as intraocular pressure (IOP), the complete and qualified success rate, the postoperative complications and the cost, were exacted from these relevant studies. Weighted mean difference (WMD), odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and were pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Eleven relevant publications and two abstracts met the inclusion criteria. The efficacy of Ex-PRESS was similar to that of Trab in the percentage of IOP reduction (IOPR %) at 1, 2y (WMD: -2.01; 95% CI: -7.92-3.90; P=0.50 and WMD: 2.89; 95% CI: -8.05-13.83; P=0.60, respectively). Ex-PRESS possessed a significant higher complete and qualified success rate (OR: 1.59; 95% CI: 1.07-2.35; P=0.02 and OR: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.06-2.86; P=0.03, respectively). Moreover, Ex-PRESS exerted a significantly lower frequency of hypotony and hyphema than Trab (OR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.21-0.72; P=0.003 and OR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.10-0.69; P=0.003, respectively). However, there was no consistent result on the cost between the two groups according to the previous three studies. CONCLUSION: Both Trab and Ex-PRESS have equivalent efficacy in lowering IOP, yet Ex-PRESS had a lower risk of hypotony and hyphema than Trab. Nevertheless, whether the cost of Ex-PRESS was less than that of Trab should be further investigated to ensure evidence-based conclusion in the long run.
ABSTRACT
AIM: To compare the efficacy of intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) alone or in combination with photodynamic therapy (PDT) vs PDT in patients with symptomatic polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV). METHODS: A systematic search of a wide range of databases (including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) was searched to identify relevant studies. Both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCT studies were included. Methodological quality of included literatures was evaluated according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RevMan 5.2.7 software was used to do the Meta-analysis. RESULTS: Three RCTs and 6 retrospective studies were included. The results showed that PDT monotherapy had a significantly higher proportion in patients who achieved complete regression of polyps than IVR monotherapy at months 3, 6, and 12 (All P≤0.01), respectively. However, IVR had a tendency to be more effective in improving vision on the basis of RCTs. The proportion of patients who gained complete regression of polyps revealed that there was no significant difference between the combination treatment and PDT monotherapy. The mean change of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline showed that the combination treatment had significant superiority in improving vision vs PDT monotherapy at months 3, 6 and 24 (All P<0.05), respectively. In the mean time, this comparison result was also significant at month 12 (P<0.01) after removal of a heterogeneous study. CONCLUSION: IVR has non-inferiority compare with PDT either in stabilizing or in improving vision, although it can hardly promote the regression of polyps. The combination treatment of PDT and IVR can exert a synergistic effect on regressing polyps and on maintaining or improving visual acuity. Thus, it can be the first-line therapy for PCV.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To conduct a meta-analysis on the effects of orthokeratology in slowing myopia progression. METHODS: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Methodological quality of the literature was evaluated according to the Jadad score. The statistical analysis was carried out using RevMan 5.2.6 software. RESULTS: The present meta-analysis included seven studies (two randomized controlled trials and five nonrandomized controlled trials) with 435 subjects (orthokeratology group, 218; control group, 217) aged 6 to 16 years. The follow-up time was 2 years for the seven studies. The weighted mean difference was -0.26 mm (95% confidence interval, -0.31 to -0.21; p < 0.001) for axial length elongation based on data from seven studies and -0.18 mm (95% confidence interval, -0.33 to -0.03; p = 0.02) for vitreous chamber depth elongation based on data from two studies. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that orthokeratology may slow myopia progression in children. Further large-scale studies are needed to substantiate the current result and to investigate the long-term effects of orthokeratology in myopia control.
Subject(s)
Myopia/prevention & control , Orthokeratologic Procedures , Adolescent , Child , Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic , HumansABSTRACT
AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of combination of ranibizumab with photodynamic therapy (PDT) vs ranibizumab monotherapy in the treatment of age-related macular degeneration (AMD). METHODS: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, Pubmed, and Embase were searched. There were no language or data restrictions in the search for trials. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Methodological quality of the literatures was evaluated according to the Jadad Score. RevMan 5.2.6 software was used to do the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Seven studies were included in our systematic review, among which four of them were included in quantitative analysis. The result shows that the ranibizumab monotherapy group had a better mean best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) change vs baseline at month 12 compared with that of the combination treatment group, and the statistical difference was significant (WMD, -2.61; 95% CI, -5.08 to -0.13; P=0.04). However, after the removal of one study, the difference between the two groups showed no significant difference (WMD, -2.29; 95% CI, -4.81 to 0.23; P=0.07). Meanwhile, no significant central retinal thickness (CRT) reduction was found in the combination treatment group and the ranibizumab monotherapy group at 12 months follow-up. Nevertheless, the combination group tended to have a greater reduction in CRT (WMD, -4.13µm; 95%CI, -25.88 to 17.63, P=0.71). The proportion of patients gaining more than 3 lines at month 12 in the ranibizumab group was higher than in the combination group and there was a significant difference (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.95; P=0.02). Whereas there was no significant difference for the proportion of patients gaining more than 0 line at month 12 between the two groups (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.15; P=0.52). The general tendency shows a reduction in ranibizumab retreatment number in the combination treatment group compared with the ranibizumab monotherapy group. As major adverse events, the differences in the number of eye pain, endophthalmitis, hypertension and arterial thromboembolic events were not significant between the two groups, and the incidence of serious adverse events in the two groups was very low. CONCLUSION: For the maintenance of vision, the comparison of the combination of ranibizumab with PDT vs ranibizumab monotherapy shows no apparent difference. Compared with the combination of ranibizumab and PDT, patients treated with ranibizumab monothearpy may gain more visual acuity (VA) improvement. The combination treatment group had a tendency to reduce the number of ranibizumab retreatment. Both the two treatment strategies were well tolerated.
