Cochrane · systematic review · CD009734

Anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) drugs for treatment of retinopathy of prematurity

Sankar, MJ, Sankar, J, Chandra, P · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018 · Cochrane Library

Neonatal2 versionsAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
13
current version
GRADE rated
12
No studies
1
Included studies
NR
No studies 1 · 7.7%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 7 · 53.8%Low 5 · 38.5%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.

Questions and results

Show all 2 versions

Anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor therapy compared to conventional laser/cryotherapy in preterm infants with type 1 retinopathy of prematurity

Population: preterm infants with type 1 ROP
9 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Structural outcome ‐ retinal detachment
Anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor therapy vs conventional laser/cryotherapy
RR 1.04 [0.21, 5.13]3 studies · 272 participantsVery low
Structural outcome ‐ complete retinal detachment (unit of analysis: eyes)
Anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor therapy vs conventional laser/cryotherapy
RR 0.33 [0.01, 7.5]1 study · 26 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias
Refractive error ‐ very high myopia ‐ at 30 months of age (unit of analysis: eyes)
Anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor therapy vs conventional laser/cryotherapy
RR 0.06 [0.02, 0.2]1 study · 211 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias
Mortality before discharge from primary hospital
Anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor therapy vs conventional laser/cryotherapy
RR 1.5 [0.26, 8.75]2 studies · 229 participantsLow
Mortality at 30 months of age
Anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor therapy vs conventional laser/cryotherapy
RR 0.86 [0.3, 2.45]1 study · 150 participantsLow
Local adverse effects ‐ corneal opacity requiring corneal transplant (unit of analysis: eyes)
Anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor therapy vs conventional laser/cryotherapy
RR 0.34 [0.01, 8.26]1 study · 286 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias
Local adverse effects ‐ lens opacity requiring cataract removal (unit of analysis: eyes)
Anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor therapy vs conventional laser/cryotherapy
RR 0.15 [0.01, 2.79]3 studies · 544 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias
Recurrence of ROP (up to 6 months of age)
Anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor therapy vs conventional laser/cryotherapy
RR 0.88 [0.47, 1.63]2 studies · 193 participantsVery low
Downgraded: inconsistency
Recurrence of ROP (unit of analysis: eyes)
Anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor therapy vs conventional laser/cryotherapy
RR 5.36 [1.22, 23.5]2 studies · 188 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias

Anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor therapy combined with laser/cryotherapy compared to laser/cryotherapy in preterm infants with type 1 retinopathy of prematurity

Population: preterm infants with type 1 ROP
4 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Outcomes*
Anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor therapy combined with laser/cryotherapy vs laser/cryotherapy
no estimate extractedNRNo studies
Structural outcome ‐ retinal detachment (unit of analysis: eyes)
Anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor therapy combined with laser/cryotherapy vs laser/cryotherapy
RR 0.26 [0.12, 0.55]1 study · 152 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias
Local adverse effects ‐ perioperative retinal haemorrhages (unit of analysis: eyes)
Anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor therapy combined with laser/cryotherapy vs laser/cryotherapy
RR 0.62 [0.24, 1.56]1 study · 152 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias
Recurrence of ROP by 55 weeks' postmenstrual age
Anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor therapy combined with laser/cryotherapy vs laser/cryotherapy
RR 0.29 [0.12, 0.7]1 study · 76 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias