↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) drugs for treatment of retinopathy of prematurity
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009734.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mari Jeeva Sankar, Jhuma Sankar, Manisha Mehta, Vishnu Bhat, Renuka Srinivasan

Abstract

Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) plays a key role in angiogenesis in fetal life. Recently, researchers have attempted to use anti-VEGF agents for the treatment of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), a vasoproliferative disorder. There is currently uncertainty regarding the safety and efficacy of these agents in preterm infants with ROP. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anti-VEGF drugs when used either as monotherapy, i.e. without concomitant cryotherapy or laser therapy or in combination with planned cryo/laser therapy in preterm infants with type 1 ROP (defined as zone I any stage with plus disease, zone I stage 3 with or without plus disease or zone II stage 2 or 3 with plus disease). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to January 1, 2016), EMBASE (1980 to January 1, 2016), CINAHL (1982 to January 1, 2016), conference proceedings, and previous reviews. Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that evaluated the efficacy and safety of administration, or both, of anti-VEGF agents compared with conventional therapy in premature infants with ROP. We used standard Cochrane and Cochrane Neonatal methods for data collection and analysis. Three trials, in which 239 infants participated, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Two trials compared intravitreal bevacizumab with conventional laser therapy (monotherapy) while the third compared intravitreal pegaptanib plus laser treatment with laser and cryotherapy (combination therapy) in infants with type 1 ROP.Of the two studies that evaluated intravitreal bevacizumab, one randomized infants while the other randomized eyes of the infants to the intervention and control groups. The former did not report any difference in the incidence of complete or partial retinal detachment between the groups (143 infants; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.21 to 5.13; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.07; very low quality evidence) but reported a significant reduction in the risk of refractive errors - very high myopia - at 30 months of age (211 eyes; RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.20; RD -0.40, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.30; low quality evidence) and recurrence of ROP by 54 weeks' postmenstrual age (143 infants; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.62; RD -0.20, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.09; moderate quality evidence) in the bevacizumab group. The study found no difference in the risk of mortality before discharge from the hospital (150 infants; RR 1.50; 95% CI 0.26 to 8.75; RD 0.01; 95% CI -0.04 to 0.07; low quality evidence), mortality at 30 months of age (150 infants; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.45; RD -0.01; 95% CI -0.10 to 0.08; low quality evidence), corneal opacity requiring corneal transplant (286 eyes; RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.26; RD -0.01; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.02; very low quality evidence), or lens opacity requiring cataract removal (286 eyes; RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.79; RD -0.02; 95% CI -0.05 to 0.01; very low quality evidence). The second trial that randomized eyes of the infants did not find any difference in the risk of complete retinal detachment between the eyes randomized to bevacizumab and those that were randomized to laser therapy (13 eyes; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.50; RD -0.08, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.11).When used in combination with laser therapy, intravitreal pegaptanib was found to reduce the risk of retinal detachment when compared to laser/cryotherapy alone (152 eyes; RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.55; RD -0.29, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.16; low quality evidence). The incidence of recurrence of ROP by 55 weeks' postmenstrual age was also lower in the pegaptanib + laser therapy group (76 infants; RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.7; RD -0.35, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.16; low quality evidence). There was no difference in the risk of perioperative retinal haemorrhages between the two groups (152 eyes; RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.56; RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.05; very low quality evidence). The risk of delayed systemic adverse effects with either of the drugs is, however, not known. Implications for practice: Intravitreal bevacizumab reduces the risk of refractive errors during childhood when used as monotherapy while intravitreal pegaptanib reduces the risk of retinal detachment when used in conjunction with laser therapy in infants with type 1 ROP. Quality of evidence was, however, low for both the outcomes because of the risk of detection and other biases. Effect on other critical outcomes and, more importantly, the long-term systemic adverse effects of the drugs are not known. The insufficient data precludes strong conclusions favouring routine use of intravitreal anti-VEGF agents in preterm infants with type 1 ROP. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effect of anti-VEGF agents on structural and functional outcomes in childhood and delayed systemic adverse effects such as myocardial dysfunction and adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
China 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 101 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 13 13%
Student > Master 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 11%
Other 24 23%
Unknown 21 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 26 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 March 2018.
All research outputs
#3,022,363
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,645
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,292
of 312,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#128
of 239 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,067 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 239 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.