↓ 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 (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 1 Mendeley reader of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 1 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 1 100%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 1 100%

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
#1,189,049
of 12,706,057 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,662
of 10,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,479
of 267,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#78
of 183 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,706,057 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,402 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 267,021 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 183 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.