33
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Systematic literature review of treatments for management of complications of ischemic central retinal vein occlusion

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          To understand the clinical and economic outcomes of treatments for managing complications of ischemic central retinal vein occlusion (iCRVO).

          Methods

          We conducted a systematic literature review by searching multiple databases and ophthalmology conferences from 2004 to 2015. Studies published in English language and populations of age ≥45 years were included. For clinical endpoints, we defined eligibility criteria as randomized controlled trials, prospective before-and-after study designs, and non-randomized studies reporting on treatments in patients with iCRVO. For economic endpoints, all types of study design except cost-of-illness studies were included. We evaluated the definitions of ischemia, clinical and economic endpoints, and rate of development of complications. Risk of bias was assessed for clinical studies using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.

          Results

          A total of 20 studies (1338 patients) were included. Treatments included anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (anti-VEGFs), steroids, and procedures primarily targeting macular edema and neovascularization. Ischemia was not defined consistently in the included studies. The level of evidence was mostly low. Most treatments did not improve visual acuity significantly. Development of treatment complications ranged from 11 to 57 %. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios reported for anti-VEGFs and steroids were below the accepted threshold of GB£30,000, but considering such treatments only ameliorate disease symptoms they seem relatively expensive.

          Conclusions

          There is a lack of evidence for any intervention being effective in iCRVO, especially in the prevention of neovascularisation. iCRVO poses a significant clinical and economic burden. There is a need to standardize the definition of ischemia, and for innovative treatments which can significantly improve visual outcomes and prevent neovascular complications.

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Natural history of central retinal vein occlusion: an evidence-based systematic review.

          To describe the natural history of central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) based on the best available evidence from the literature. Central retinal vein occlusion is a common sight-threatening retinal vascular disease. Despite the introduction of new interventions, the natural history of CRVO is unclear. Systemic review of all English language articles retrieved using a keyword search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, and the Cochrane Library to November 13, 2008. This was supplemented by hand-searching references of review articles published within the last 5 years. Two investigators independently identified all relevant observational studies evaluating the natural history of RVO and all clinical trials evaluating interventions for CRVO; an untreated control arm was included. Of 5966 citations retrieved, 53 studies were reviewed, providing 3271 eyes with CRVO for analysis of its natural history. Visual acuity (VA) was generally poor at baseline (<20/40) and decreased further over time. Although 6 studies reported an improvement in VA, none of these improvements resulted in VA better than 20/40. Up to 34% of eyes with nonischemic CRVO converted to ischemic CRVO over a 3-year period. In ischemic CRVO cases, neovascular glaucoma developed in at least 23% of eyes within 15 months. In nonischemic CRVO cases, macular edema resolved in approximately 30% of eyes over time, and subsequent neovascular glaucoma was rare. Untreated eyes with CRVO generally had poor VA, which declined further over time. One quarter of eyes with nonischemic CRVO converted to ischemic CRVO. Copyright 2010 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Intravitreal aflibercept injection for macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion: 1-year results from the phase 3 COPERNICUS study.

            To evaluate intravitreal aflibercept injections (IAI; also called VEGF Trap-Eye) for patients with macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO). Randomized controlled trial. This multicenter study randomized 189 patients (1 eye/patient) with macular edema secondary to CRVO to receive 6 monthly injections of either 2 mg intravitreal aflibercept (IAI 2Q4) (n = 115) or sham (n = 74). From week 24 to week 52, all patients received 2 mg intravitreal aflibercept as needed (IAI 2Q4 + PRN and sham + IAI PRN) according to retreatment criteria. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who gained ≥15 ETDRS letters from baseline at week 24. Additional endpoints included visual, anatomic, and quality-of-life NEI VFQ-25 outcomes at weeks 24 and 52. At week 24, 56.1% of IAI 2Q4 patients gained ≥15 letters from baseline compared with 12.3% of sham patients (P < .001). At week 52, 55.3% of IAI 2Q4 + PRN patients gained ≥15 letters compared with 30.1% of sham + IAI PRN patients (P < .001). At week 52, IAI 2Q4 + PRN patients gained a mean of 16.2 letters of vision vs 3.8 letters for sham + IAI PRN (P < .001). The most common adverse events for both groups were conjunctival hemorrhage, eye pain, reduced visual acuity, and increased intraocular pressure. Monthly injections of 2 mg intravitreal aflibercept for patients with macular edema secondary to CRVO resulted in a statistically significant improvement in visual acuity at week 24, which was largely maintained through week 52 with intravitreal aflibercept PRN dosing. Intravitreal aflibercept injection was generally well tolerated. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Ranibizumab for macular edema due to retinal vein occlusions: implication of VEGF as a critical stimulator.

              Macular edema is a major cause of vision loss in patients with central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) or branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). It is not clear how much of the edema is due to hydrodynamic changes from the obstruction and how much is due to chemical mediators. Patients with macular edema due to CRVO (n = 20) or BRVO (n = 20) were randomized to receive three monthly injections of 0.3 or 0.5 mg of ranibizumab. At the primary endpoint, month 3, the median improvement in letters read at 4 m was 17 in the 0.3-mg group and 14 in the 0.5-mg group for CRVO, and 10 and 18, respectively for the BRVO group. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) showed that compared to injections of 0.3 mg, injections of 0.5 mg of ranibizumab tended to cause more rapid reductions of central retinal thickening that lasted longer between injections, but in 3 months, excess central retinal thickening which is a quantitative assessment of the macular edema, was reduced by approximately 90% in all four treatment groups. There was no correlation between the amount of improvement and duration of disease or patient age at baseline, but there was some correlation between the aqueous vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) level at baseline and amount of improvement. These data indicate that excess production of VEGF in the retinas of patients with CRVO or BRVO is a major contributor to macular edema and suggest that additional studies investigating the efficacy of intraocular injections of ranibizumab are needed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +44(0)2037509833 , sbradshaw@validinsight.com
                Journal
                BMC Ophthalmol
                BMC Ophthalmol
                BMC Ophthalmology
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2415
                11 July 2016
                11 July 2016
                2016
                : 16
                : 104
                Affiliations
                [ ]Valid Insight®, Kemp House, 152 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX UK
                [ ]Market Access Solutions, 575 State Route 28, Raritan, NJ 08869 USA
                [ ]Cell Therapy Catapult, 12th Floor Tower Wing, Guy’s Hospital, Great Maze Pond, London, SE1 9RT UK
                Article
                282
                10.1186/s12886-016-0282-5
                4940864
                27401800
                fa163c15-b3d3-4a53-a2d8-963df117f42e
                © The Author(s). 2016

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 2 December 2015
                : 13 June 2016
                Funding
                Funded by: Cell Therapy Catapult, London, funded and participated in the design of the study and review of the manuscript
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2016

                Ophthalmology & Optometry
                Ophthalmology & Optometry

                Comments

                Comment on this article