↓ 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, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
39 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
152 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, January 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009734.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mari Jeeva Sankar, Jhuma Sankar, Parijat Chandra

Abstract

Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) plays a key role in angiogenesis in foetal life. Researchers have recently attempted to use anti-VEGF agents for the treatment of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), a vasoproliferative disorder. The safety and efficacy of these agents in preterm infants with ROP is currently uncertain. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anti-VEGF drugs when used either as monotherapy, that is 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 11), MEDLINE (1966 to 11 December 2016), Embase (1980 to 11 December 2016), CINAHL (1982 to 11 December 2016), and conference proceedings. Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that evaluated the efficacy or safety of administration, or both, of anti-VEGF agents compared with conventional therapy in preterm infants with ROP. We used standard Cochrane and Cochrane Neonatal methods for data collection and analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence. Six trials involving a total of 383 infants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Five trials compared intravitreal bevacizumab (n = 4) or ranibizumab (n = 1) with conventional laser therapy (monotherapy), while the sixth study compared intravitreal pegaptanib plus conventional laser therapy with laser/cryotherapy (combination therapy).When used as monotherapy, bevacizumab/ranibizumab did not reduce the risk of complete or partial retinal detachment (3 studies; 272 infants; risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 5.13; risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.04; very low-quality evidence), mortality before discharge (2 studies; 229 infants; RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.26 to 8.75), corneal opacity requiring corneal transplant (1 study; 286 eyes; RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.26), or lens opacity requiring cataract removal (3 studies; 544 eyes; RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.79). The risk of recurrence of ROP requiring retreatment also did not differ between groups (2 studies; 193 infants; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.63; RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.07; very low-quality evidence). Subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction in the risk of recurrence in infants with zone I ROP (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.62), but an increased risk of recurrence in infants with zone II ROP (RR 2.53, 95% CI 1.01 to 6.32). Pooled analysis of studies that reported eye-level outcomes also revealed significant increase in the risk of recurrence of ROP in the eyes that received bevacizumab (RR 5.36, 95% CI 1.22 to 23.50; RD 0.10, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.17). Infants who received intravitreal bevacizumab had a significantly lower risk of refractive errors (very high myopia) at 30 months of age (1 study; 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).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). However, the risk of delayed systemic adverse effects with any of the three anti-VEGF drugs is not known. Implications for practice: Intravitreal bevacizumab/ranibizumab, when used as monotherapy, reduces the risk of refractive errors during childhood but does not reduce the risk of retinal detachment or recurrence of ROP in infants with type 1 ROP. While the intervention might reduce the risk of recurrence of ROP in infants with zone I ROP, it can potentially result in higher risk of recurrence requiring retreatment in those with zone II ROP. Intravitreal pegaptanib, when used in conjunction with laser therapy, reduces the risk of retinal detachment as well as the recurrence of ROP in infants with type 1 ROP. However, the quality of the evidence was very low to low for most outcomes due to risk of detection bias and other biases. The effects on other critical outcomes and, more importantly, the long-term systemic adverse effects of the drugs are not known. Insufficient data precludes strong conclusions favouring routine use of intravitreal anti-VEGF agents - either as monotherapy or in conjunction with laser therapy - 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 effects including adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
China 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 150 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 16%
Researcher 17 11%
Student > Bachelor 17 11%
Other 17 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Other 31 20%
Unknown 31 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 69 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Unspecified 3 2%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 41 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. 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 19 April 2020.
All research outputs
#562,670
of 15,465,490 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,515
of 11,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,206
of 405,811 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#42
of 202 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,465,490 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,195 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 405,811 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 202 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.