Anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor for diabetic macular oedema: a network meta‐analysis

Gianni Virgili*, Katie Curran, Ersilia Lucenteforte, Tunde Peto, Mariacristina Parravano

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

19 Citations (Scopus)


Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a common complication of diabetic retinopathy. Antiangiogenic therapy with anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor (anti‐VEGF) can reduce oedema, improve vision, and prevent further visual loss. These drugs have replaced laser photocoagulation as the standard of care for people with DMO. In the previous update of this review, we found moderate‐quality evidence that, at 12 months, aflibercept was slightly more effective than ranibizumab and bevacizumab for improving vision in people with DMO, although the difference may have been clinically insignificant (less than 0.1 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), or five Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters, or one ETDRS line).

The objective of this updated review was to compare the effectiveness and safety of the different anti‐VEGF drugs in RCTs at longer follow‐up (24 months).

Search methods
We searched various electronic databases on 8 July 2022.

Selection criteria
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any anti‐angiogenic drug with an anti‐VEGF mechanism of action versus another anti‐VEGF drug, another treatment, sham, or no treatment in people with DMO.

Data collection and analysis
We used standard Cochrane methods for pairwise meta‐analysis and we augmented this evidence using network meta‐analysis (NMA) methods. We used the Stata 'network' meta‐analysis package for all analyses. We used the CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta‐Analysis) web application to grade the certainty of the evidence.

Main results
We included 23 studies (13 with industry funding) that enrolled 3513 people with DMO (median central retinal thickness (CRT) 460 microns, interquartile range (IQR) 424 to 482) and moderate vision loss (median best‐corrected visual acuity (BCVA) 0.48 logMAR, IQR 0.42 to 0.55). One study that investigated ranibizumab versus sham and one study that mainly enrolled people with subclinical DMO and normal BCVA were not suitable for inclusion in the efficacy NMA.

Consistent with the previous update of this review, we used ranibizumab as the reference drug for efficacy, and control (including laser, observation, and sham) as the reference for systemic safety.

Eight trials provided data on the primary outcome (change in BCVA at 24 months, in logMAR: lower is better). We found no evidence of a difference between the following interventions and ranibizumab alone: aflibercept (mean difference (MD) −0.05 logMAR, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.12 to 0.02; moderate certainty); bevacizumab (MD ‐0.01 logMAR, 95% CI −0.13 to 0.10; low certainty), brolucizumab (MD 0.00 logMAR, 95% CI −0.08 to 0.07; low certainty), ranibizumab plus deferred laser (MD 0.00 logMAR, 95% CI −0.11 to 0.10; low certainty), and ranibizumab plus prompt laser (MD 0.03 logMAR, 95% CI −0.04 to 0.09; very low certainty).

We also analysed BCVA change at 12 months, finding moderate‐certainty evidence of increased efficacy with brolucizumab (MD −0.07 logMAR, 95%CI −0.10 to −0.03 logMAR), faricimab (MD −0.08 logMAR, 95% CI −0.12 to −0.05), and aflibercept (MD −0.07 logMAR, 95 % CI −0.10 to −0.04) compared to ranibizumab alone, but the difference could be clinically insignificant.

Compared to ranibizumab alone, NMA of six trials showed no evidence of a difference with aflibercept (moderate certainty), bevacizumab (low certainty), or ranibizumab with prompt (very low certainty) or deferred laser (low certainty) regarding improvement by three or more ETDRS lines at 24 months.

There was moderate‐certainty evidence of greater CRT reduction at 24 months with brolucizumab (MD −23 microns, 95% CI −65 to −1 9) and aflibercept (MD −26 microns, 95% CI −53 to 0.9) compared to ranibizumab. There was moderate‐certainty evidence of lesser CRT reduction with bevacizumab (MD 28 microns, 95% CI 0 to 56), ranibizumab plus deferred laser (MD 63 microns, 95% CI 18 to 109), and ranibizumab plus prompt laser (MD 72 microns, 95% CI 25 to 119) compared with ranibizumab alone.

Regarding all‐cause mortality at the longest available follow‐up (20 trials), we found no evidence of increased risk of death for any drug compared to control, although effects were in the direction of an increase, and clinically relevant increases could not be ruled out. The certainty of this evidence was low for bevacizumab (risk ratio (RR) 2.10, 95% CI 0.75 to 5.88), brolucizumab (RR 2.92, 95% CI 0.68 to 12.58), faricimab (RR 1.91, 95% CI 0.45 to 8.00), ranibizumab (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.34), and very low for conbercept (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.81) and aflibercept (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.77). Estimates for Antiplatelet Trialists Collaboration arterial thromboembolic events at 24 months did not suggest an increase with any drug compared to control, but the NMA was overall incoherent and the evidence was of low or very low certainty.

Ocular adverse events were rare and poorly reported and could not be assessed in NMAs.

Authors' conclusions
There is limited evidence of the comparative efficacy and safety of anti‐VEGF drugs beyond one year of follow‐up. We found no clinically important differences in visual outcomes at 24 months in people with DMO, although there were differences in CRT change. We found no evidence that any drug increases all‐cause mortality compared to control, but estimates were very imprecise. Evidence from RCTs may not apply to real‐world practice, where people in need of antiangiogenic treatment are often under‐treated, and the individuals exposed to these drugs may be less healthy than trial participants.

Original languageEnglish
Article numberCD007419
Number of pages115
JournalCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Issue number6
Publication statusPublished - 27 Jun 2023


Dive into the research topics of 'Anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor for diabetic macular oedema: a network meta‐analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this