Short- and long-term safety and efficacy of corneal collagen cross-linking in progressive keratoconus: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

IF 1 Q4 OPHTHALMOLOGY Taiwan Journal of Ophthalmology Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.4103/2211-5056.361974
Phulen Sarma, Hardeep Kaur, Farhad Hafezi, Jaimini Bhattacharyya, Richard Kirubakaran, Manisha Prajapat, Bikash Medhi, Kalyan Das, Ajay Prakash, Ashutosh Singh, Subodh Kumar, Rahul Singh, Dibbanti Harikrishna Reddy, Gurjeet Kaur, Saurabh Sharma, Anusuya Bhattacharyya
{"title":"Short- and long-term safety and efficacy of corneal collagen cross-linking in progressive keratoconus: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Phulen Sarma,&nbsp;Hardeep Kaur,&nbsp;Farhad Hafezi,&nbsp;Jaimini Bhattacharyya,&nbsp;Richard Kirubakaran,&nbsp;Manisha Prajapat,&nbsp;Bikash Medhi,&nbsp;Kalyan Das,&nbsp;Ajay Prakash,&nbsp;Ashutosh Singh,&nbsp;Subodh Kumar,&nbsp;Rahul Singh,&nbsp;Dibbanti Harikrishna Reddy,&nbsp;Gurjeet Kaur,&nbsp;Saurabh Sharma,&nbsp;Anusuya Bhattacharyya","doi":"10.4103/2211-5056.361974","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of the study is to evaluate the safety and outcomes of corneal collagen cross-linking (CXL) and different CXL protocols in progressive keratoconus (PK) population at short and long-term.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. A total of eight literature databases were searched (up to February 15, 2022). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CXL versus placebo/control or comparing different CXL protocols in the PK population were included. The primary objective was assessment of outcomes of CXL versus placebo and comparison of different CXL protocols in terms of maximum keratometry (Kmax) or Kmax change from baseline (Δ), spherical equivalent, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and central corneal thickness (CCT) in both at short term (6 months) and long term (1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup>, and 3<sup>rd</sup> year or more). The secondary objective was comparative evaluation of safety. For the meta-analysis, the RevMan5.3 software was used.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 48 RCTs were included. Compared to control, CXL was associated with improvement in Δ Kmax at 1 year (4 RCTs, mean difference [MD], -1.78 [-2.71, -0.86], P = 0.0002) and 2 and 3 years (1 RCT); ΔBCVA at 1 year (7 RCTs, -0.10 [-0.14, -0.06], P < 0.00001); and Δ CCT at 1 year (2 RCTs) and 3 years (1 RCT). Compared to conventional CXL (C-CXL), deterioration in Δ Kmax, ΔBCVA and endothelial cell density was seen at long term in the transepithelial CXL (TE-CXL, chemical enhancer). Up to 2 years, there was no difference between TE-CXL using iontophoresis (T-ionto) and C-CXL. At 2 and 4 years, C-CXL performed better compared to accelerated CXL (A-CXL) in terms of improving Kmax. Although CCT was higher in the A-CXL arm at 2 years, there was no difference at 4 years. While exploring heterogeneity among studies, selection of control eye (fellow eye of the same patient vs. eye of different patient) and baseline difference in Kmax were important sources of heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CXL outperforms placebo/control in terms of enhancing Kmax and CCT, as well as slowing disease progression over time (till 3 years). T-ionto protocol, on the other hand, performed similarly to C-CXL protocol up to 2 years.</p>","PeriodicalId":44978,"journal":{"name":"Taiwan Journal of Ophthalmology","volume":"13 2","pages":"191-202"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/23/aa/TJO-13-191.PMC10361434.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Taiwan Journal of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/2211-5056.361974","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of the study is to evaluate the safety and outcomes of corneal collagen cross-linking (CXL) and different CXL protocols in progressive keratoconus (PK) population at short and long-term.

Materials and methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. A total of eight literature databases were searched (up to February 15, 2022). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CXL versus placebo/control or comparing different CXL protocols in the PK population were included. The primary objective was assessment of outcomes of CXL versus placebo and comparison of different CXL protocols in terms of maximum keratometry (Kmax) or Kmax change from baseline (Δ), spherical equivalent, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and central corneal thickness (CCT) in both at short term (6 months) and long term (1st, 2nd, and 3rd year or more). The secondary objective was comparative evaluation of safety. For the meta-analysis, the RevMan5.3 software was used.

Results: A total of 48 RCTs were included. Compared to control, CXL was associated with improvement in Δ Kmax at 1 year (4 RCTs, mean difference [MD], -1.78 [-2.71, -0.86], P = 0.0002) and 2 and 3 years (1 RCT); ΔBCVA at 1 year (7 RCTs, -0.10 [-0.14, -0.06], P < 0.00001); and Δ CCT at 1 year (2 RCTs) and 3 years (1 RCT). Compared to conventional CXL (C-CXL), deterioration in Δ Kmax, ΔBCVA and endothelial cell density was seen at long term in the transepithelial CXL (TE-CXL, chemical enhancer). Up to 2 years, there was no difference between TE-CXL using iontophoresis (T-ionto) and C-CXL. At 2 and 4 years, C-CXL performed better compared to accelerated CXL (A-CXL) in terms of improving Kmax. Although CCT was higher in the A-CXL arm at 2 years, there was no difference at 4 years. While exploring heterogeneity among studies, selection of control eye (fellow eye of the same patient vs. eye of different patient) and baseline difference in Kmax were important sources of heterogeneity.

Conclusion: CXL outperforms placebo/control in terms of enhancing Kmax and CCT, as well as slowing disease progression over time (till 3 years). T-ionto protocol, on the other hand, performed similarly to C-CXL protocol up to 2 years.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
角膜胶原交联治疗进展性圆锥角膜的短期和长期安全性和有效性:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:本研究的目的是评估角膜胶原交联(CXL)和不同的CXL方案在进展性圆锥角膜(PK)人群中的短期和长期安全性和结果。材料和方法:进行系统综述和荟萃分析。共检索了8个文献数据库(截至2022年2月15日)。包括比较CXL与安慰剂/对照或比较不同CXL方案在PK人群中的随机对照试验(rct)。主要目的是评估CXL与安慰剂的结果,并比较不同CXL方案在短期(6个月)和长期(1、2、3年或更长时间)的最大角膜度数(Kmax)或Kmax基线变化(Δ)、球形当量、最佳矫正视力(BCVA)和角膜中央厚度(CCT)方面的差异。次要目的是安全性的比较评价。meta分析采用RevMan5.3软件。结果:共纳入48项rct。与对照组相比,CXL与1年(4个RCT,平均差值[MD], -1.78 [-2.71, -0.86], P = 0.0002)和2年和3年(1个RCT) Δ Kmax的改善相关;1年ΔBCVA(7个rct, -0.10 [-0.14, -0.06], P < 0.00001);1年(2个RCT)和3年(1个RCT)的Δ CCT。与常规CXL (C-CXL)相比,经上皮CXL (TE-CXL,化学增强剂)的Δ Kmax、ΔBCVA和内皮细胞密度长期恶化。在长达2年的时间里,使用离子电泳(T-ionto)的TE-CXL与使用C-CXL之间没有差异。在2年和4年,C-CXL在改善Kmax方面比加速CXL (A-CXL)表现更好。虽然2年时A-CXL组的CCT较高,但4年时没有差异。在探索研究间的异质性时,选择对照眼(同一患者的同侧眼与不同患者的同侧眼)和Kmax基线差异是异质性的重要来源。结论:CXL在提高Kmax和CCT以及减缓疾病进展方面优于安慰剂/对照组(至3年)。另一方面,t -ion方案在2年内的表现与C-CXL方案相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
9.10%
发文量
68
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊最新文献
Advancing glaucoma care with big data and artificial intelligence innovations. Application of artificial intelligence in glaucoma care: An updated review. Artificial intelligence and big data integration in anterior segment imaging for glaucoma. Big data and electronic health records for glaucoma research. Big data for imaging assessment in glaucoma.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1