Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32953000›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic advances in chronic disease2020

Comparative efficacy and safety of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor regimens for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Lu Ye, Zhao Jiaqi, Wang Jianchao, Feng Zhaohui, Yao Liang, Zhang Xiaohui

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic advances in chronic disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Anti-VEGF therapies for age-related macular degeneration: a powerful tactical gear or a blunt weapon? The choice is ours.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2021
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lu YeOphthalmology Department, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Medical College, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, PR China.
Zhao JiaqiOphthalmology Department, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Medical College, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, PR China.
Wang JianchaoOphthalmology Department, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Medical College, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, PR China.
Feng ZhaohuiOphthalmology Department, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Medical College, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, PR China.
Yao LiangOphthalmology Department, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Medical College, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, PR China.
Zhang XiaohuiOphthalmology Department, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Medical College, Xi'an Jiaotong University, No. 157 Xiwu Road, Xi'an, 710004, PR China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9020-5410
Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs a debilitating neurodegenerative disease, neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) accounts for more than 90% of severe visual loss or legal blindness among AMD patients. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) had been applied widely in nAMD treatment. To date, debate regarding efficacy and safety still exists among different anti-VEGF regimens as management of nAMD. To provide substantial evidence for clinical nAMD treatment, this study ranks the priority of anti-VEGF regimens

methodsWe searched PubMed Central, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, ISRCTN, ICTRP and ClinicalTrials. gov from a database established until 1 April 2019 systematically for anti-VEGF regimens. Bayesian NMA with random-effect was conducted to compare efficacy and safety and rank priority of anti-VEGF regimens. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were the proportion of patients gaining 15 or more letters, and the incidence of arterial thromboembolic (ATC) events. The effect measure is the standard mean difference (SMD), or the odds ratio (OR) with their 95% confidence interval (CI). The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42019132243.

resultsWe obtained 6467 citations and identified 29 RCTs including 13,596 participants; 86% of these trials were low risk or of uncertain risk bias. In NMA, ORs compared with sham injection for the proportion of patients gaining 15 or more letters (12,699 participants from 23 trials) ranged from 4.05 [95% Bayesian credible interval (CrI) 1.62-10.11] for ranibizumab quarterly regimen to 8.57 (95% CrI 4.66-15.73) for a ranibizumab treat-and-extend regimen. No difference was found between sham injection and anti-VEGF regimens for ATC events (11,500 participants from 18 trials). Results for the primary outcome did not substantially change in sensitivity analyses after removing studies at high risk of bias and small sample size (

conclusionThe treat-and-extend regimen of ranibizumab and aflibercept are the preferred anti-VEGF regimens for nAMD. Bevacizumab treat-and-extend regimens need more head-to-head comparisons with other regimens or sham injection for advanced application. The treat-and-extend regimen proved to be the most effective regimen for each anti-VEGF drug in the NMA. Pegaptanib every 6 weeks and Conbercept quarterly are unable to satisfy the best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improvement requirement of nAMD patients.

Indexed as

anti-VEGFBayesian meta-analysisneovascular macular degenerationregimen

Identifiers

PMID32953000
PMCPMC7475790
OpenAlexW3083332113

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.