Safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of immediate versus delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery in the Netherlands (BICAT-NL study): a multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In an ageing population, efficiency improvements are required to assure future accessibility of cataract care. We aim to address remaining knowledge gaps by evaluating the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS) versus delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery (DSBCS). We hypothesised that ISBCS is non-inferior to DSBCS, regarding safety and effectiveness, and being superior in cost-effectiveness. METHODS: We did a multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial, which included participants from ten Dutch hospitals. Eligible participants were 18 years or older, underwent expected uncomplicated surgery, and had no increased risk of endophthalmitis or refractive surprise. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the ISBCS (intervention) group or DSBCS (conventional procedure) group, using a web-based system stratified by centre and axial length. Participants and outcome assessors were not masked to the treatment groups because of the nature of the intervention. The primary outcome was the proportion of second eyes with a target refractive outcome of 1·0 dioptre (D) or less 4 weeks postoperatively, with a non-inferiority margin of -5% for ISBCS versus DSBCS. For the trial-based economic evaluation, the primary endpoint was the incremental societal costs per quality-adjusted life-year. All analyses were done by a modified intention-to-treat principle. Costs were calculated by multiplying volumes of resource use with unit cost prices and converted to 2020 Euros (€) and US$. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03400124, and is now closed for recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Sept 4, 2018, and July 10, 2020, a total of 865 patients were randomly assigned to either the ISBCS group (427 [49%] patients; 854 eyes) or DSBCS group (438 [51%] patients; 876 eyes). In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, the proportion of second eyes with a target refraction of 1·0 D or less was 97% (404 of 417 patients) in the ISBCS group versus 98% (407 of 417) in the DSBCS group. The percentage difference was -1% (90% CI -3 to 1; p=0·526), thereby establishing non-inferiority for ISBCS compared with DSBCS. Endophthalmitis was not observed or reported in either group. Adverse events were comparable between groups, with only a significant difference in disturbing anisometropia (p=0·0001). Societal costs were €403 (US$507) lower with ISBCS than with DSBCS. The cost-effectiveness probability of ISBCS versus DSBCS was 100% across the willingness-to-pay range of €2500-80 000 (US$3145-100 629) per quality-adjusted life-year. INTERPRETATION: Our results showed non-inferiority of ISBCS versus DSBCS regarding effectiveness outcomes, comparable safety, and superior cost-effectiveness of ISBCS. National cost savings could amount to €27·4 million (US$34·5 million) annually, advocating for ISBCS if strict inclusion criteria are applied. FUNDING: Research grant from The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) and Dutch Ophthalmological Society.

Trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) versus ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK).

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasy (DMEK) versus Ultrathin Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK). METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis using data from a multicenter randomized clinical trial was performed. The time horizon was 12 months postoperatively. Patients with Fuchs' endothelial dystrophy were randomized to DMEK (n = 29) or UT-DSAEK (n = 24). Relevant resources from healthcare and societal perspectives were included in the cost analysis. Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) were determined using the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) and the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L questionnaires. The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; incremental societal costs per QALY). RESULTS: Societal costs averaged €8851 (US$11 406) for DMEK and €8320 (US$10 722) for UT-DSAEK. Higher costs in the DMEK group were mainly caused by higher rebubbling and regraft rates (21% and 7%, vs. 4% and 0% in the UT-DSAEK group). HUI3 QALYs were 0.70 (DMEK) and 0.79 (UT-DSAEK). EQ-5D-5L QALYs were 0.83 (DMEK) and 0.86 (UT-DSAEK). The ICER indicated DMEK was dominated by UT-DSAEK in both analyses. The cost-effectiveness probability for DMEK ranged from 21% to 5% (HUI3 QALYs) and 27%-14% (EQ-5D-5L QALYs), assuming the maximum acceptable ICER ranged from €2500 to €80.000 (US$3222-US$103 093) per QALY. CONCLUSION: The base case cost-effectiveness analysis favoured UT-DSAEK over DMEK, as costs of DMEK were higher while QALYs were lower. Further studies are required to assess long-term rebubbling and regraft rates and graft survival.

Immediate sequential bilateral surgery versus delayed sequential bilateral surgery for cataracts.

BACKGROUND: Age-related cataract affects both eyes in most cases. Most people undergo cataract surgery in both eyes on separate days, referred to as delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery (DSBCS). An alternative procedure involves operating on both eyes on the same day, but as two separate procedures, known as immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS). Potential advantages of ISBCS include fewer hospital visits for the patient, faster visual recovery, and lower healthcare costs. Nevertheless, concerns exist about possible bilateral, postoperative, sight-threatening adverse effects with ISBCS. Therefore, there is a clear need for evaluating evidence regarding the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of ISBCS versus DSBCS. OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety of ISBCS compared to DSBCS in people with bilateral age-related cataracts and to summarise current evidence for the incremental resource use, utilities, costs, and cost-effectiveness associated with the use of ISBCS compared to DSBCS in people with bilateral age-related cataracts (primary objectives). The secondary objective was to assess visual and patient-reported outcomes of ISBCS compared to DSBCS in people with bilateral age-related cataracts. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 5); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov; the WHO ICTRP; and DARE and NHS EED on the CRD Database on 11 May 2021. There were no language restrictions. We limited the searches to a date range of 2007 onwards. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to assess complications, refractive outcomes, best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) with ISBCS compared to DSBCS. We included non-randomised (NRSs), prospective, and retrospective cohort studies comparing ISBCS and DSBCS for safety assessment, because of the rare incidence of important adverse events. To assess cost-effectiveness of ISBCS compared to DSBCS, we included both full and partial economic evaluations, and both trial-based and model-based economic evaluations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures and assessed risk of bias for NRSs using the ROBINS-I tool. For cost-evaluations, we used the CHEC-list, the CHEERS-checklist, and the NICE-checklist to investigate risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with the GRADE tool. We reported results for economic evaluations narratively. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies in the review; two RCTs, seven NRSs, and six economic evaluations (one study was both an NRS and economic evaluation). The studies reported on 276,260 participants (7384 for ISBCS and 268,876 for DSBCS) and were conducted in Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Iran, (South) Korea, Spain (Canary Islands), Sweden, the UK, and the USA. Overall, we considered the included RCTs to be at 'high to some concerns' risk of bias for complications, 'some concerns' risk of bias for refractive outcomes and visual acuity, and 'high' risk of bias for PROMs. The overall risk of bias for NRSs was graded 'serious' regarding complications and 'serious to critical' regarding refractive outcomes.  With regard to endophthalmitis, we found that relative effects were estimated imprecisely and with low certainty, so that relative estimates were not reliable. Nonetheless, we found a very low risk of endophthalmitis in both ISBCS (1/14,076 participants) and DSBCS (55/556,246 participants) groups. Based on descriptive evidence and partially weak statistical evidence we found no evidence of an increased risk of endophthalmitis with ISBCS. Regarding refractive outcomes, we found moderate-certainty (RCTs) and low-certainty (NRSs) evidence there was no difference in the percentage of eyes that did not achieve refraction within 1.0 dioptre of target one to three months after surgery (RCTs: risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.26; NRSs: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.75). Similarly, postoperative complications did not differ between groups (RCTs: RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.40; NRSs: 1.04, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.29), although the certainty of this evidence was very low for both RCTs and NRSs. Furthermore, we found low-certainty (RCTs) to very low-certainty (NRSs) evidence that total costs per participant were lower for ISBCS compared to DSBCS, although results of individual studies could not be pooled. Only one study reported on cost-effectiveness. This study found that ISBCS is cost-effective compared to DSBCS, but did not measure quality-adjusted life years using preferred methods and calculated costs erroneously. Finally, regarding secondary outcomes, we found limited evidence on BCDVA (data of two RCTs could not be pooled, although both studies individually found no difference between groups (very low-certainty evidence)). Regarding PROMs, we found moderate-certainty evidence (RCTs only) that there was no difference between groups one to three months after surgery (standardised mean difference -0.08, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.03). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence supports there are probably no clinically important differences in outcomes between ISBCS and DSBCS, but with lower costs for ISBCS. However, the amount of evidence is limited, and the certainty of the evidence was graded moderate to very low. In addition, there is a need for well-designed cost-effectiveness studies.

Economic evaluation of prevention of cystoid macular edema after cataract surgery in diabetic patients: ESCRS PREMED study report 6.

PURPOSE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic treatments against cystoid macular edema after cataract surgery in diabetic patients. SETTING: 7 ophthalmology clinics in the Netherlands and Belgium. DESIGN: Prospective trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis using data from a European multicenter randomized clinical trial. METHODS: Diabetic patients (n = 163) undergoing uneventful cataract surgery were randomized to perioperative subconjunctival triamcinolone acetonide (n = 36), perioperative intravitreal bevacizumab (n = 36), combination treatment (n = 45), or no additional treatment (control group, n = 46). The cost analysis was performed from a healthcare perspective within a 12-week postoperative time horizon. The main effectiveness outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The main cost-effectiveness outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; cost per QALY). RESULTS: The mean total healthcare costs and QALYs were as follows: triamcinolone group €1827 (U.S. dollars [$] 2295)/0.166; bevacizumab group €2050 ($2575)/0.144; combination group €2027 ($2546)/0.166; and control group €2041 ($2564)/0.156. Bevacizumab and control treatment were most costly and least effective. The ICER was €321 984 ($404 503) per QALY for the combination group compared with that of the triamcinolone group. Assuming the willingness-to-pay as €20 000 ($25 126) per QALY, the cost-effectiveness probability was 70% and 23% in the triamcinolone and combination groups, respectively. No patient who received triamcinolone developed clinically significant macular edema (CSME). A secondary cost-effectiveness analysis based on this outcome showed a clear preference for triamcinolone. CONCLUSIONS: In diabetic patients, subconjunctival triamcinolone was effective in preventing CSME after cataract surgery. The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that triamcinolone is also cost-effective.

Predictive accuracy of an intraoperative aberrometry device for a new monofocal intraocular lens.

PURPOSE: To evaluate refractive outcomes for the Clareon monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) in terms of achieved target refraction for the ORA (ALCON) intraoperative wavefront aberrometry device and preoperative noncontact biometry. SETTING: University Eye Clinic Maastricht, Maastricht University Medical Center+, the Netherlands. DESIGN: Prospective observational clinical trial. METHODS: Patients with bilateral age-related cataracts undergoing phacoemulsification, either by delayed sequential surgery or on the same day, were included in the study. Exclusion criteria were an increased risk for refractive surprise or complicated surgery. Implanted IOL power was based on noncontact optical biometry data using the Barrett Universal II (BU-II) formula, optimized for the Clareon IOL. Postoperative subjective refraction was measured 4 to 6 weeks after surgery. Catquest-9SF questionnaires were completed preoperatively and 3 months after surgery. RESULTS: 100 eyes (51 patients) were included. The percentages of eyes within 1.0 diopters (D), 0.75 D, 0.50 D, and 0.25 D of target for ORA vs BU-II were 84% (84 eyes), 72% (72 eyes), 57% (57 eyes), and 21% (21 eyes) vs 97% (97 eyes), 88% (88 eyes), 77% (77 eyes), and 53% (53 eyes), respectively. Mean absolute prediction error was significantly higher for ORA vs preoperative biometry (P < .001). After global optimization, the prediction accuracy of ORA improved significantly (P < .001). Catquest-9SF questionnaires showed improved levels of ability at 3 months after surgery (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed lower percentages of eyes within target refraction for ORA (prior to lens constant optimization) compared with the BU-II formula when implanting the Clareon IOL. However, prediction accuracy of ORA improved significantly after global optimization. Therefore, further intraoperative measurements, postoperative measurements, and optimization are needed to improve the ORA prediction for this IOL.

Cost analysis of mydriasis strategies in cataract surgery care in the Netherlands.

PURPOSE: To investigate the economic impact of an intracameral mydriatics and anesthetic agent (ICMA), topical mydriatics, and a mydriatic ocular insert in cataract patients. SETTING: One public hospital in the Netherlands. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: Resource use data were collected from a healthcare and societal perspective on the day of surgery. Other outcome parameters included pupil size, surgeon satisfaction, postoperative pain, and Catquest-9SF scores. RESULTS: A total of 368 patients were included, the mean costs per patient were €506 in the ICMA group (n = 122), €474 in the ocular insert group (n = 115), and €451 in the topical group (n = 131). The acquisition cost of ICMA was highest and resulted in longer surgical time. After correction for an imbalance in the distribution of fast and slow surgeons, the mean costs in the ocular insert and topical groups were comparable (€450 vs €444). There was no statistically significant difference in the use of additional mydriatics intraoperatively (P = .521). The mean ratio of pupil size to white-to-white distance was lower in the ICMA group during all intraoperative measurements (P < .001) but similar between the topical and ocular insert groups (P range .11-.82). CONCLUSIONS: In the investigated setting in the Netherlands, ICMA was the most costly strategy. In addition, pupil size was lowest in the ICMA group but did not result in more additional mydriasis measures intraoperatively. The ocular insert was comparable with topical mydriatics in costs and pupil size. Implementation of ICMA could be considered when availability of nurses or physical space for perioperative care is limited.

Economic evaluation of prevention of cystoid macular edema after cataract surgery in patients without diabetes: ESCRS PREMED study report 4.

PURPOSE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic treatments against cystoid macular edema (CME) after cataract surgery in patients without diabetes. SETTING: Seven ophthalmology clinics in the Netherlands and Belgium. DESIGN: Prospective cost-effectiveness analysis using data from a European multicenter randomized clinical trial (ESCRS PREMED). METHODS: Patients without diabetes planned for expected uneventful cataract surgery were randomized to topical bromfenac (Yellox, n = 242), topical dexamethasone (n = 242), or a combination treatment (n = 238). All relevant resources from a healthcare perspective were included in the cost analysis within a time horizon of 12 weeks postoperatively. The main effectiveness outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The main cost-effectiveness outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) based on the cost per QALY. RESULTS: The study comprised 722 patients without diabetes. Total healthcare costs and QALYs were € 447 (US $562) and 0.174 in the bromfenac group, €421 (US $529) and 0.179 in the dexamethasone group, and €442 (US $565) and 0.182 in the combination group. Bromfenac was most costly and least effective (ie, strongly dominated). The ICER was €6544 (US $8221) per QALY for the combination group compared with the dexamethasone group. Assuming that the willingness to pay is € 20 000 (US $25 126) per QALY, the cost-effectiveness probability was 3%, 32%, and 65% in the bromfenac, dexamethasone, and combination groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients without diabetes, combination treatment with topical bromfenac and dexamethasone was effective and cost-effective in preventing CME after cataract surgery compared with treatment with either drug alone.

Trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) versus DSAEK.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) versus standard DSAEK. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis using data from a multicentre randomized clinical trial was performed. The time horizon was 12 months postoperatively. Sixty-four eyes of 64 patients with Fuchs' endothelial dystrophy were included and randomized to UT-DSAEK (n = 33) or DSAEK (n = 31). Relevant resources from healthcare and societal perspectives were included in the cost analysis. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were determined using the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 questionnaire. The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; incremental societal costs per QALY). RESULTS: Societal costs were €9431 (US$11 586) for UT-DSAEK and €9110 (US$11 192) for DSAEK. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were 0.74 in both groups. The ICER indicated inferiority of UT-DSAEK. The cost-effectiveness probability ranged from 37% to 42%, assuming the maximum acceptable ICER ranged from €2500-€80 000 (US$3071-US$98 280) per QALY. Additional analyses were performed omitting one UT-DSAEK patient who required a regraft [ICER €9057 (US$11 127) per QALY, cost-effectiveness probability: 44-62%] and correcting QALYs for an imbalance in baseline utilities [ICER €23 827 (US$29 271) per QALY, cost-effectiveness probability: 36-59%]. Furthermore, the ICER was €2101 (US$2581) per patient with clinical improvement in best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (≥0.2 logMAR) and €3274 (US$4022) per patient with clinical improvement in National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire-25 composite score (≥10 points). CONCLUSION: The base case analysis favoured DSAEK, since costs of UT-DSAEK were higher while QALYs were comparable. However, additional analyses revealed no preference for UT-DSAEK or DSAEK. Further cost-effectiveness studies are required to reduce uncertainty.

Clinical Evaluation and Validation of the Dutch Crosslinking for Keratoconus Score.

Importance: Defining keratoconus progression is fundamental in clinical decision making because crosslinking treatments are indicated when the disease is considered progressive. Currently, there is no consensus which parameters should be used to define progression. Objective: To assess and validate a novel clinical scoring system as an easy-to-use assessment tool for crosslinking treatment in patients with keratoconus. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective cohort study at 2 academic treatment centers. Patients with keratoconus referred between January 1, 2012, and June 30, 2014, with 2-year follow-up were included. Analysis began March 2017. Interventions: The Dutch Crosslinking for Keratoconus (DUCK) score is based on changes in 5 clinical parameters that are routinely assessed: age, visual acuity, refraction error, keratometry, and subjective patient experience. The DUCK score is derived by scoring 0 to 2 points per item, and cutoffs were determined by clinical experience. We compared the DUCK scores to the conventional 1.0-diopter increase in maximum keratometry criterion, within the last 12 months, in a longitudinal discovery and a validation cohort. Sensitivity analyses and intraitem correlations were performed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall treatment rate reduction and the duly withheld treatment rate. Results: A total of 504 eyes of 388 patients were available for analysis on disease progression in the course of 12 and 24 months. Baseline patient characteristics of the discovery cohort and the validation cohort were comparable in terms of age (mean [SD], 26.8 [8.3] years vs 26.3 [9.1]), sex (216 of 332 [65%] vs 123 of 172 [72%] men), and maximum keratometry (mean [SD], 53.5 [7.1] vs 52.7 [6.3]). Adhering to the DUCK score, rather than maximum keratometry, was associated with a reduction in overall treatment rate by 23% (95% CI, 18%-30%), without increasing the risk of disease progression (ie, the rate of progression for both groups was equal; ±0%). The DUCK score appears to better identify eyes that were duly withheld treatment by 35% (95% CI, 22%-49%). Conclusions and Relevance: These results provide validation of the DUCK score as a tool to determine whether a crosslinking treatment might be warranted. Compared with the conventional maximum keratometry criterion of more than 1.0 diopter, the DUCK score may better select patients who might benefit from crosslinking treatment. Potentially, it may prevent unnecessary treatments, reduce exposure to treatment risks, and improve the cost effectiveness of crosslinking.

Trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of toric versus monofocal intraocular lenses in cataract patients with bilateral corneal astigmatism in the Netherlands.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of toric versus monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in cataract patients with bilateral corneal astigmatism. SETTING: Two ophthalmology clinics in the Netherlands. DESIGN: Prospective cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: Resource-use data were collected over a 6-month postoperative period. Consecutive patients with bilateral age-related cataract and 1.25 diopters or more of corneal astigmatism were included in the economic evaluation. Patients were randomized to phacoemulsification with bilateral toric or monofocal IOL implantation. All relevant resources were included in the cost analysis. The base-case analysis was performed from a societal perspective based on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: The analysis comprised 77 consecutive patients (33 toric IOL; 44 monofocal IOL). Societal costs were higher in the toric IOL group (€3203 [$3864]) than in the monofocal IOL group (€2796 [US$3373]). QALYs were slightly lower in the toric IOL group (0.30 versus 0.31; P = .75). Toric IOLs were therefore inferior to monofocal IOLs from a cost-effectiveness perspective. The cost-effectiveness probability ranged from 1% to 15%, assuming a ceiling ratio for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €2500 to €20 000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: From a societal perspective, bilateral toric IOL implantation in cataract patients with corneal astigmatism was not cost-effective compared with monofocal IOL implantation. Copayment by patients should therefore be considered.

Treatment of cystoid macular edema after cataract surgery.

The purpose of this review was to determine the optimum pharmacologic treatment for cystoid macular edema (CME) after cataract surgery in nondiabetic and diabetic patients. The Cochrane Library, Medline, and Embase databases were searched, and all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared at least 2 pharmacologic strategies for CME after cataract surgery were included. Studies were excluded if preoperative CME or other risk factors for developing CME postoperatively were present. Ten RCTs were included in the systematic review. Five trials included at least 30 participants. Three RCTs showed a greater visual acuity improvement in patients treated with topical nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) than with a placebo. Other studies comparing the efficacy of topical NSAIDs, topical corticosteroids, sub-Tenon corticosteroids, oral NSAIDs, and oral acetazolamide did not report significant differences between treatment groups. Therefore, large RCTs are needed to provide evidence-based recommendations for the optimum treatment of CME after cataract surgery.

Prevention of Cystoid Macular Edema After Cataract Surgery in Nondiabetic and Diabetic Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the optimum medical strategy to prevent cystoid macular edema (CME) after cataract surgery. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: setting: Cochrane, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases were searched to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). STUDY POPULATION: RCTs comparing medical strategies to prevent CME after uncomplicated cataract surgery in nondiabetic and diabetic patients. OBSERVATION PROCEDURES: Data were extracted by 2 authors independently. Quality of individual RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias and Delphi criteria. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Odds of developing CME within 3 months postoperatively and foveal thickness, macular volume and corrected distance visual acuity change within 3 months postoperatively, as compared to baseline. RESULTS: Seventeen trials reported incidence rates. Topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) significantly reduced the odds of developing CME as compared to topical corticosteroids in nondiabetic (odds ratio [OR] 0.11; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.03-0.37) and mixed populations (OR 0.05; 95% CI 0.02-0.11). A combination of topical corticosteroids and NSAIDs significantly reduced the odds of developing CME as compared to topical corticosteroids in nondiabetic (OR 0.21; 95% CI 0.10-0.44) and diabetic patients (OR 0.17; 95% CI 0.05-0.50). Intravitreal corticosteroid or anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections did not show any additional benefit in diabetic subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Topical NSAIDs significantly reduced the odds of developing CME, as compared to topical corticosteroids, in nondiabetic and mixed populations. A combination of topical NSAIDs and corticosteroids reduced the odds of developing CME in nondiabetic and diabetic patients, as compared to topical corticosteroids.