Back to Journals » Drug Design, Development and Therapy » Volume 9

Efficacy and safety of different doses of a slow-release corticosteroid implant for macular edema: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Authors Liu Q, He M, Shi H, Wang Q, Du Y, Liu J, Ren C, Xu D, Yu J

Received 15 February 2015

Accepted for publication 13 March 2015

Published 5 May 2015 Volume 2015:9 Pages 2527—2535

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/DDDT.S82929

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewer comments 3

Editor who approved publication: Professor Shu-Feng Zhou


Qingyu Liu,1,2,* Mengmei He,1,2,* Hui Shi,1,3 Qianyi Wang,1,2 Yaru Du,1,3 Junling Liu,1,2 Chengda Ren,1,2 Ding Xu,1 Jing Yu1

1Department of Ophthalmology, Shanghai Tenth People’s Hospital, Shanghai, 2Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 3Department of First Clinical Medical College, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, People’s Republic of China

*These authors contributed equally to this work

Background: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of intravitreal corticosteroid implants for macular edema.
Methods: A total of 3,586 patients from previously reported randomized controlled trials were included. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2. Summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, employing random-effects or fixed-effects models according to between-study heterogeneity. The main outcome measures were the ORs for effects and safety of intravitreal corticosteroid implants.
Results: Four eligible studies were included. Compared with the sham group, the ORs for ≥15 letter improvement of visual acuity in the high-dose and low-dose groups were 1.89 (95% CI 1.33–2.69, P=0.0004) and 1.62 (95% CI 1.10–2.41, P=0.02), respectively. The weight mean differences in central retinal thickness increases were -75.46 (95% CI -90.29, -60.63, P<0.0001) and -46.47 (95% CI -92.08, -0.86, P=0.05), respectively. However, the ORs for increased intraocular pressure in both intervention groups were higher than in the sham group, and were 11.50 (95% CI 7.24–18.28, P<0.00001) and 10.30 (95% CI 6.49–16.36, P<0.00001), respectively. The incidence of cataract was 7.25 (95% CI 5.68–9.25, P<0.00001) and 3.56 (95% CI 1.28–9.96, P=0.02) in the two intervention groups, respectively. There was no significant difference between the intervention groups except for the incidence of cataract in which the OR was 1.59 (95% CI 1.28–1.97, P<0.001). 
Conclusion: Intravitreal corticosteroid implants are effective in treating macular edema. However, the efficacy is not related to corticosteroid dose.

Keywords: corticosteroid implant, intravitreal, macular edema, randomized controlled trial

A Letter to the Editor has been recieved and published for this article.

 
Corrigendum for this paper has been published
 

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]