SynthesisDrug safety2016
Intravitreal Bevacizumab and Cardiovascular Risk in Patients with Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies.
Synthesis in Drug safety, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- The 20th Anniversary of Pegaptanib (MacugenTM), the First Approved Aptamer Medicine: History, Recent Advances and Future Prospects of Aptamers in Therapy.Pharmaceutics · 2025Review
- Complement factor B knockdown by short hairpin RNA inhibits laser-induced choroidal neovascularization in rats.International journal of ophthalmology · 2020Article
- Association of Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy With Risk of Stroke, Myocardial Infarction, and Death in Patients With Exudative Age-Related Macular Degeneration.JAMA ophthalmology · 2019Article
- Mortality associated with bevacizumab intravitreal injections in age-related macular degeneration patients after acute myocardial infarct: a retrospective population-based survival analysis.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2018Article
- The association between myocardial infarction and intravitreal bevacizumab injection.Medicine · 2018Article
- Overview of the Safety of Anti-VEGF Drugs: Analysis of the Italian Spontaneous Reporting System.Drug safety · 2017Review
- Ganglion Cell Layer Thickness Change in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treated With Anti-VEGF Injections.Journal of vitreoretinal diseasesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIntravitreal bevacizumab (IVTB) is used to treat age-related macular degeneration (ARMD), although its use is off-label and its cardiovascular safety has not been unequivocally established.
objectivesOur objective was to assess the cardiovascular safety of IVTB in patients with ARMD.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies.
resultsOf the 2028 non-duplicate records, five RCTs versus ranibizumab (N = 3038, 12/24 months), four RCTs comparing different regimens (N = 809, 12/23 months), one RCT versus pegaptanib, photodynamic therapy (PDT), or sham (N = 131, 12 months), and three observational studies versus PDT, ranibizumab, or pegaptanib (~150,000 or 1666 patients/12 months and 317 patients/1-2 years, respectively) had a low risk of bias/high quality and ≥20 patients per arm with ≥6 months and ≥3 injections of treatment. RCT-based comparisons with PDT or pegaptanib are negligible. Observational data have not demonstrated differences [all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke], but the level of evidence is "very low" (imprecise, indirect). RCT-based comparisons with ranibizumab did not demonstrate differences regarding some outcomes, although certain point estimates were at the level of a relevant harm/benefit [all-cause mortality odds ratio (OR) 1.103, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.641-1.898; vascular mortality OR 1.380, 95 % CI 0.476-3.997; MI OR 0.551, 95 % CI 0.265-1.146; stroke OR 0.657, 95 % CI 0.260-1.660; transitory ischemic attack OR 1.536, 95 % CI 0.444-5.313; atherothrombotic events (ATEs) OR 1.007, 95 % CI 0.641-1.593; venous thromboembolism OR 2.325, 95 % CI 0.963-5.612] or suggested a higher risk with bevacizumab (hypertension OR 7.512, 95 % CI 1.056-52.3), but estimates were based on sparse data, were extremely imprecise, and commonly exhibited considerable heterogeneity/inconsistency. The level of evidence per outcome was "low" or "very low". Observational data did not demonstrate difference (all-cause mortality, MI, stroke), or suggested a higher risk with bevacizumab (ATE), but were imprecise and indirect (level of evidence "very low"). RCT-based comparisons of different IVTB regimens suffered from the same limitations.
conclusionPublished data on IVTB in AMRD provide only a low level of evidence on its cardiovascular safety and do not support any finite conclusions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.