Mariam Issa, Michael Balas, Marko M. Popovic, Yuliya Lytvyn, Peter J. Kertes, Rajeev H. Muni
{"title":"在使用玻璃体内抗血管内皮生长因子药物治疗眼底病时,玻璃体旁切除术与玻璃体内抗生素的比较:荟萃分析。","authors":"Mariam Issa, Michael Balas, Marko M. Popovic, Yuliya Lytvyn, Peter J. Kertes, Rajeev H. Muni","doi":"10.1111/aos.15719","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In this meta-analysis, we aim to compare the efficacy and safety of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) versus tap-and-inject (TAI) of intravitreal antibiotics for the management of endophthalmitis secondary to intravitreal injections of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents. A systematic literature search was conducted on Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central (January 2005–October 2022). The primary analysis compared initial PPV versus TAI and the secondary analysis examined the efficacy and safety of TAI alone compared to TAI followed by PPV. The quality of non-randomized observational studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The quality of the evidence was assessed for each outcome. A random effects meta-analysis was performed. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals were reported. Of the 7474 screened studies, nine studies reporting on 153 eyes were included. The change in mean best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between endophthalmitis presentation and last follow-up did not significantly differ between the initial TAI versus PPV groups (WMD = 0.05 units; 95% CI −0.12 to 0.22; <i>p</i> = 0.59; heterogeneity <i>p</i> = 0.41). The difference in pre- to post-treatment mean BCVA did not significantly differ between eyes that received TAI alone or TAI followed by PPV (WMD = 0.04 units; 95% CI −0.42 to 0.51; <i>p</i> = 0.85; heterogeneity <i>p</i> = 0.74). While the meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in the change in BCVA between PPV and TAI to treat endophthalmitis secondary to anti-VEGF agents, the quality of evidence was low with potential for confounding and selection bias. Further well-designed studies in this setting are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":6915,"journal":{"name":"Acta Ophthalmologica","volume":"102 1","pages":"e11-e21"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/aos.15719","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pars plana vitrectomy versus intravitreal antibiotics for endophthalmitis management following intravitreal anti-VEGF agents: A meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Mariam Issa, Michael Balas, Marko M. Popovic, Yuliya Lytvyn, Peter J. Kertes, Rajeev H. Muni\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/aos.15719\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In this meta-analysis, we aim to compare the efficacy and safety of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) versus tap-and-inject (TAI) of intravitreal antibiotics for the management of endophthalmitis secondary to intravitreal injections of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents. A systematic literature search was conducted on Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central (January 2005–October 2022). The primary analysis compared initial PPV versus TAI and the secondary analysis examined the efficacy and safety of TAI alone compared to TAI followed by PPV. The quality of non-randomized observational studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The quality of the evidence was assessed for each outcome. A random effects meta-analysis was performed. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals were reported. Of the 7474 screened studies, nine studies reporting on 153 eyes were included. The change in mean best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between endophthalmitis presentation and last follow-up did not significantly differ between the initial TAI versus PPV groups (WMD = 0.05 units; 95% CI −0.12 to 0.22; <i>p</i> = 0.59; heterogeneity <i>p</i> = 0.41). The difference in pre- to post-treatment mean BCVA did not significantly differ between eyes that received TAI alone or TAI followed by PPV (WMD = 0.04 units; 95% CI −0.42 to 0.51; <i>p</i> = 0.85; heterogeneity <i>p</i> = 0.74). While the meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in the change in BCVA between PPV and TAI to treat endophthalmitis secondary to anti-VEGF agents, the quality of evidence was low with potential for confounding and selection bias. Further well-designed studies in this setting are needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":6915,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Ophthalmologica\",\"volume\":\"102 1\",\"pages\":\"e11-e21\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/aos.15719\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Ophthalmologica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aos.15719\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Ophthalmologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aos.15719","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在这项荟萃分析中,我们旨在比较玻璃体旁切除术(PPV)与玻璃体内注射抗血管内皮生长因子(VEGF)药物的疗效和安全性。我们在 Ovid MEDLINE、EMBASE 和 Cochrane Central(2005 年 1 月至 2022 年 10 月)上进行了系统性文献检索。主要分析比较了初始 PPV 与 TAI,次要分析考察了单纯 TAI 与 TAI 后再进行 PPV 的疗效和安全性。非随机观察性研究的质量采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表进行评估。对每项结果的证据质量进行了评估。进行了随机效应荟萃分析。报告了加权平均差(WMD)及 95% 置信区间。在筛选出的 7474 项研究中,有 9 项研究报告了 153 只眼睛的情况。从出现眼底病到最后一次随访期间,最佳矫正视力(BCVA)的平均值在初始 TAI 组和 PPV 组之间没有显著差异(WMD = 0.05 个单位;95% CI -0.12 至 0.22;p = 0.59;异质性 p = 0.41)。单纯接受TAI或TAI后再接受PPV治疗的双眼,治疗前与治疗后的平均BCVA差异不大(WMD = 0.04个单位;95% CI -0.42至0.51;P = 0.85;异质性P = 0.74)。荟萃分析显示,在治疗抗血管内皮生长因子药物继发的眼底病方面,PPV 和 TAI 的 BCVA 变化无显著差异,但证据质量较低,可能存在混杂因素和选择偏倚。在这种情况下,需要进一步开展设计良好的研究。
Pars plana vitrectomy versus intravitreal antibiotics for endophthalmitis management following intravitreal anti-VEGF agents: A meta-analysis
In this meta-analysis, we aim to compare the efficacy and safety of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) versus tap-and-inject (TAI) of intravitreal antibiotics for the management of endophthalmitis secondary to intravitreal injections of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents. A systematic literature search was conducted on Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central (January 2005–October 2022). The primary analysis compared initial PPV versus TAI and the secondary analysis examined the efficacy and safety of TAI alone compared to TAI followed by PPV. The quality of non-randomized observational studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The quality of the evidence was assessed for each outcome. A random effects meta-analysis was performed. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals were reported. Of the 7474 screened studies, nine studies reporting on 153 eyes were included. The change in mean best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between endophthalmitis presentation and last follow-up did not significantly differ between the initial TAI versus PPV groups (WMD = 0.05 units; 95% CI −0.12 to 0.22; p = 0.59; heterogeneity p = 0.41). The difference in pre- to post-treatment mean BCVA did not significantly differ between eyes that received TAI alone or TAI followed by PPV (WMD = 0.04 units; 95% CI −0.42 to 0.51; p = 0.85; heterogeneity p = 0.74). While the meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in the change in BCVA between PPV and TAI to treat endophthalmitis secondary to anti-VEGF agents, the quality of evidence was low with potential for confounding and selection bias. Further well-designed studies in this setting are needed.
期刊介绍:
Acta Ophthalmologica is published on behalf of the Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica Foundation and is the official scientific publication of the following societies: The Danish Ophthalmological Society, The Finnish Ophthalmological Society, The Icelandic Ophthalmological Society, The Norwegian Ophthalmological Society and The Swedish Ophthalmological Society, and also the European Association for Vision and Eye Research (EVER).
Acta Ophthalmologica publishes clinical and experimental original articles, reviews, editorials, educational photo essays (Diagnosis and Therapy in Ophthalmology), case reports and case series, letters to the editor and doctoral theses.