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
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
Current version onlyAnti‐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
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / 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 participants | Very 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 participants | Very 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 participants | Low 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 participants | Low |
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 participants | Low |
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 participants | Very 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 participants | Very 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 participants | Very 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 participants | Very 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
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcomes* Anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor therapy combined with laser/cryotherapy vs laser/cryotherapy | no estimate extracted | NR | No 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 participants | Low 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 participants | Very 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 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Intravitreal anti‐VEGF therapy compared to conventional laser/cryotherapy in preterm infants with type 1 ROP
Population: preterm infants with type 1 ROP
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcomes* Intravitreal anti‐VEGF therapy vs conventional laser/cryotherapy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Structural outcome ‐ retinal detachment Intravitreal anti‐VEGF therapy vs conventional laser/cryotherapy | RR 1.04 [0.21, 5.13] | 1 study · 143 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Refractive error ‐ very high myopia ‐ at 30 months of age (unit of analysis: eyes) Intravitreal anti‐VEGF therapy vs conventional laser/cryotherapy | RR 0.06 [0.02, 0.2] | 1 study · 211 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Mortality before discharge from primary hospital Intravitreal anti‐VEGF therapy vs conventional laser/cryotherapy | RR 1.5 [0.26, 8.75] | 1 study · 150 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Mortality at 30 months of age Intravitreal anti‐VEGF therapy vs conventional laser/cryotherapy | RR 0.86 [0.3, 2.45] | 1 study · 150 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Local adverse effects ‐ corneal opacity requiring corneal transplant (unit of analysis: eyes) Intravitreal anti‐VEGF therapy vs conventional laser/cryotherapy | RR 0.34 [0.01, 8.26] | 1 study · 286 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Local adverse effects ‐ lens opacity requiring cataract removal (unit of analysis: eyes) Intravitreal anti‐VEGF therapy vs conventional laser/cryotherapy | RR 0.15 [0.01, 2.79] | 1 study · 286 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Recurrence of ROP by 54 weeks PMA Intravitreal anti‐VEGF therapy vs conventional laser/cryotherapy | RR 0.22 [0.08, 0.62] | 1 study · 143 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Anti‐VEGF combined with laser/cryotherapy compared to laser/cryotherapy in preterm infants with type 1 ROP
Population: preterm infants with type 1 ROP
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcomes* Anti‐VEGF combined with laser/cryotherapy vs laser/cryotherapy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Structural outcome ‐ retinal detachment (unit of analysis: eyes) Anti‐VEGF combined with laser/cryotherapy vs laser/cryotherapy | RR 0.26 [0.12, 0.55] | 1 study · 152 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Local adverse effects ‐ perioperative retinal haemorrhages (unit of analysis: eyes) Anti‐VEGF combined with laser/cryotherapy vs laser/cryotherapy | RR 0.62 [0.24, 1.56] | 1 study · 152 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Recurrence of ROP by 55 weeks' PMA Anti‐VEGF combined with laser/cryotherapy vs laser/cryotherapy | RR 0.29 [0.12, 0.7] | 1 study · 76 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |