IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0305573.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing the efficacy of dexamethasone implant and anti-VEGF for the treatment of macular edema: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Hui-xin Tang
  • Jing-jing Li
  • Ying Yuan
  • Yun Ling
  • Zubing Mei
  • Hong Zou

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of dexamethasone (DEX) implant, for the treatment of macular edema (ME) caused by retinal vein occlusion (RVO) and diabetic retinopathy (DR) through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were comprehensively searched from inception to November 21, 2022, for studies evaluating the clinical efficacy of DEX implant for patients with retinal vein occlusion macular edema (RVO-ME) or diabetic macular edema (DME). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English were considered eligible. The Cochrane Collaboration tool was applied to assess the risk of bias in each study. Effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using the random effects model. We also conducted subgroup analyses to explore the sources of heterogeneity and the stability of the results. Results: This meta-analysis included 8 RCTs (RVO-ME [n = 2] and DME [n = 6]) assessing a total of 336 eyes. Compared with anti-VEGF therapy, DEX implant treatment achieved superior outcomes in terms of best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) (mean difference [MD] = -3.68 ([95% CI, -6.11 to -1.25], P = 0.003), and no heterogeneity was observed (P = 0.43, I2 = 0%). DEX implant treatment also significantly reduced central macular thickness (CMT) compared with anti-VEGF treatment (MD = -31.32 [95% CI, -57.92 to -4.72], P = 0.02), and there was a high level of heterogeneity between trials (P = 0.04, I2 = 54%). In terms of severe adverse events, DEX implant treatment had a higher risk of elevated intraocular pressure than anti-VEGF therapy (RR = 6.98; 95% CI: 2.16 to 22.50; P = 0.001), and there was no significant difference in cataract progression between the two groups (RR = 1.83; 95% CI: 0.63 to 5.27, P = 0.31). Conclusions: Compared with anti-VEGF therapy, DEX implant treatment is more effective in improving BCVA and reducing ME. Additionally, DEX implant treatment has a higher risk of elevated intraocular pressure. Due to the small number of studies and the short follow-up period, the results should be interpreted with caution. The long-term effects of the two treatments need to be further determined. Trial registration: Prospero Registration Number CRD42021243185.

Suggested Citation

  • Hui-xin Tang & Jing-jing Li & Ying Yuan & Yun Ling & Zubing Mei & Hong Zou, 2024. "Comparing the efficacy of dexamethasone implant and anti-VEGF for the treatment of macular edema: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(7), pages 1-18, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0305573
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305573
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0305573
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0305573&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0305573?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0305573. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.