Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40347224›Full record

SynthesisHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2025

Anti-VEGF drugs compared with laser photocoagulation for the treatment of diabetic retinopathy: a systematic review and economic analysis.

Mark Simmonds, Matthew Walton, Rob Hodgson, Alexis Llewellyn, Ruth Walker, Helen Fulbright, Laura Bojke, Lesley Stewart, Sofia Dias, Thomas Rush and 3 more

Abstract readNetwork Meta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

13 authors.

Mark SimmondsCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1999-8515
Matthew WaltonCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1932-3689
Rob HodgsonCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6962-2893
Alexis LlewellynCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4569-5136
Ruth WalkerCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2765-7363
Helen FulbrightCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1073-1099
Laura BojkeCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7921-9109
Lesley StewartCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0287-4724
Sofia DiasCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2172-0221
Thomas RushPatient representative, Belfast, UK.
John LawrensonDepartment of Optometry and Visual Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2031-6390
Tunde PetoCentre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6265-0381
David SteelBiosciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8734-3089

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Diabetic retinopathy is a major cause of sight loss in people with diabetes, with a high risk of macular oedema, vitreous haemorrhage or other complications. Panretinal photocoagulation is the primary treatment for proliferative retinopathy. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drugs are used to treat various eye conditions and may be beneficial for people with proliferative or non-proliferative retinopathy. Methods: The Anti-VEGF In Diabetes project sought to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of using anti-vascular endothelial growth factor to prevent retinopathy progression when compared to panretinal photocoagulation or no treatment. A systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (alone or in combination with panretinal photocoagulation) to treat retinopathy was conducted. The database searches were updated in May 2023. Individual participant data from larger trials were sought. A systematic review of non-randomised studies was performed. Existing cost-effectiveness analyses were reviewed, and a new economic model was developed, informed by the individual participant data meta-analysis. The model also estimated the value of undertaking further research to resolve decision uncertainty. Results: The review found that anti-vascular endothelial growth factors produced a slight, and not clinically meaningful, benefit over panretinal photocoagulation in best corrected visual acuity, after 1 year of follow-up in people with proliferative retinopathy (mean difference of 4.5 ETDRS letters; 95% credible interval -0.7 to 8.2). There was no evidence of a difference in effectiveness among the different anti-vascular endothelial growth factors. The benefit of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor appears to decline over time. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy may be more effective in people with poorer initial visual acuity. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor had no impact on vision in people with non-proliferative retinopathy. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor reduces rates of macular oedema and vitreous haemorrhage and may slow down the progression of retinopathy. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factors were predicted to be more costly but similarly effective to panretinal photocoagulation, with a net health benefit of -0.214 quality-adjusted life-years at a £20,000 willingness-to-pay threshold. Only under very select conditions might anti-vascular endothelial growth factors have the potential for cost-effectiveness to treat proliferative retinopathy. There is potentially significant value in reducing uncertainty through further primary research. Conclusions: Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor has no clinically meaningful benefit over panretinal photocoagulation for preserving visual acuity, but it may delay or prevent progression to macular oedema and vitreous haemorrhage. The long-term effectiveness and safety of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment are unclear, particularly as additional panretinal photocoagulation and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment will be required over time. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factors are therefore unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment for early proliferative retinopathy compared to panretinal photocoagulation. They are generally associated with higher costs and similar health outcomes across various scenarios. The long-term cost-effectiveness of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor is uncertain due to the lack of long-term clinical evidence. Future work: Further, robust studies with more than 2 years follow-up are required to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor use, and the effect of additional anti-vascular endothelial growth factor and panretinal photocoagulation therapy over time. Clinical trials or observational studies focusing on the use of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor in people with poorer vision at time of treatment may also be useful. Funding: This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR132948.

Indexed as

Angiogenesis InhibitorsDiabetic RetinopathyLaser CoagulationVascular Endothelial Growth Factor ACost-Benefit AnalysisHumansQuality-Adjusted Life YearsTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalVisual AcuityAngiogenesis InhibitorsVascular Endothelial Growth Factor AANTI-VEGFCOST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSISDIABETIC RETINOPATHYINDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANT DATAMETA-ANALYSISPANRETINAL PHOTOCOAGULATIONSYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Identifiers

PMID40347224
PMCPMC12278032

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.