To compare the efficacy and safety of different anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents combined with different delivery methods for neovascular glaucoma (NVG).
Systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA).
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN and Chinese databases including the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Science Periodical Database (Wanfang Database), VIP Journal Integration Platform and China Biology Medicine Database were searched from inception to 5 September 2022.
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the treatment of NVG using different anti-VEGF agents combined with various methods of drug administration, without any language limitations. All patients included underwent panretinal laser photocoagulation and there were no restrictions on prior glaucoma surgery.
Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Random-effect Bayesian NMA was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety and rank priority of anti-VEGF regimens. The source of heterogeneity and the related factors affecting the stability of the results were also explored. CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis) was used to assess the certainty of evidence.
Our analysis included 17 RCTs involving a total of 1311 eyes from 1228 patients. We examined five different treatment regimens, which used three different anti-VEGF drugs. The following treatments showed a significant decrease in intraocular pressure (IOP) compared with the control group at 1 month after glaucoma surgery: simultaneous intravitreal and intracameral injection of conbercept (ICCIVC) (mean difference (MD)=–11.56, 95% credible interval (CrI) –20.8 to –2.24), intravitreal injection of conbercept (MD=–8.88, 95% CrI –13.93 to –3.78), intravitreal injection of ranibizumab (MD=–7.62, 95% CrI –10.91 to –4.33) and intravitreal injection of bevacizumab IVB) (MD=–5.51, 95% CrI –10.79 to –0.35). The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) analysis indicated that ICCIVC (82.0%) may be the most effective regimen in reducing IOP. In terms of safety, there were no statistically significant differences among the interventions. According to the SUCRA analysis, ICCIVC (68.0%) was considered the safest choice with the fewest complications. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses showed that mean age was the main source of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated the robustness of the study results.
ICCIVC was more effective and safer than other anti-VEGF regimens for NVG. Simultaneous intravitreal and intracameral injection was found to be the best route of administration, and conbercept was found to be the superior drug selection when compared with ranibizumab and bevacizumab.
CRD42022309676.
Decisions regarding the optimal timing of intervention for asymptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) are controversial. The study aims to identify potential risk factors for asymptomatic patients with severe AS that are associated with worse prognosis and to evaluate the benefits of early interventions for asymptomatic patients presenting with one or more additional risk factors.
This is a non-interventional, prospective, open-label, multicentre registry study across China. A total of 1000 patients will be enrolled and categorised as symptomatic or asymptomatic. The primary endpoint is the occurrence of all-cause mortality, stroke, acute myocardial infarction and heart failure-related hospitalisation at 1-year follow-up. In asymptomatic severe AS patients presenting with one or more risk factors, the occurrence rate of the primary endpoint between those who undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and those who do not will be compared. We will also compare the occurrence rate of the primary endpoint for asymptomatic severe AS patients with additional risk factors who undergo TAVR with those presenting with symptoms. This study is believed to provide additional evidence to help clinicians identify and refer severe AS patients who are asymptomatic but present with additional risk factors for early intervention of TAVR.
The study protocol has been approved by the local ethics committee of each participating site: West China Hospital, Sichuan University; Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine; Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University; Tianjin Chest Hospital; and First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University. All participants will provide written informed consent. Study results will be published through academic conferences and peer-reviewed journals.
This study was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (https:// www.chictr.org.cn), with the registration number ChiCTR2200064853.