A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for myopic macular degeneration.
Journal
Journal of global health
ISSN: 2047-2986
Titre abrégé: J Glob Health
Pays: Scotland
ID NLM: 101578780
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
entrez:
31
3
2022
pubmed:
1
4
2022
medline:
2
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Myopic macular degeneration (MMD) is a primary cause of blindness and visual impairment in many parts of the world. A review of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for intervention selection are required with the increasing demand for MMD management in clinical practice as well as in national health services. Therefore, we aim to systematically review CPGs for MMD and assist the recommendations development of the Package of Eye Care Interventions (PECI) program of the World Health Organization. A systematic review of CPGs published on MMD between 2010 and April 2020 was conducted. Guidelines were evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. Cochrane systematic reviews were also included when the evidence from included CPGs were inadequate or contradict. After applying exclusion criteria and conducting the quality appraisal, two CPGs were finally included. The average of the AGREE II ratings for the identified Guidelines were 56 and 63 respectively (7 for each item). To provide further information on interventions for MMD, one Cochrane review on MMD was additionally identified and included in the study. Intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) drugs were recommended for patients with myopic choroidal neovascularization (mCNV) as first-line therapy to improve vision and reduce central macular thickness, and ranibizumab showed significant effectiveness compared to photodynamic therapy (PDT). PDT was recommended to be performed in those resistant to the treatment by one CPG but lacked of adequate description and support. Data extracted from the Cochrane systematic reviews indicated that anti-VEGF therapy for mCNV had significant effectiveness in improving visual acuity and reducing CMT compared to PDT with moderate to low certainty of evidence. Ranibizumab and bevacizumab were considered as equally effective with moderate certainty. The outcomes of this review suggest that high quality clinical practice guidelines for MMD management are limited. Intravitreal injection of anti-VEGF agents was recommended as an effective intervention to treat myopic CNV as the first-line treatment, while there was inadequate guidance for the application of PDT in myopic CNV management. The use of other interventions for MMD were not recommended at this time and additional evidence is called for.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Myopic macular degeneration (MMD) is a primary cause of blindness and visual impairment in many parts of the world. A review of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for intervention selection are required with the increasing demand for MMD management in clinical practice as well as in national health services. Therefore, we aim to systematically review CPGs for MMD and assist the recommendations development of the Package of Eye Care Interventions (PECI) program of the World Health Organization.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
A systematic review of CPGs published on MMD between 2010 and April 2020 was conducted. Guidelines were evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. Cochrane systematic reviews were also included when the evidence from included CPGs were inadequate or contradict.
Results
UNASSIGNED
After applying exclusion criteria and conducting the quality appraisal, two CPGs were finally included. The average of the AGREE II ratings for the identified Guidelines were 56 and 63 respectively (7 for each item). To provide further information on interventions for MMD, one Cochrane review on MMD was additionally identified and included in the study. Intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) drugs were recommended for patients with myopic choroidal neovascularization (mCNV) as first-line therapy to improve vision and reduce central macular thickness, and ranibizumab showed significant effectiveness compared to photodynamic therapy (PDT). PDT was recommended to be performed in those resistant to the treatment by one CPG but lacked of adequate description and support. Data extracted from the Cochrane systematic reviews indicated that anti-VEGF therapy for mCNV had significant effectiveness in improving visual acuity and reducing CMT compared to PDT with moderate to low certainty of evidence. Ranibizumab and bevacizumab were considered as equally effective with moderate certainty.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
The outcomes of this review suggest that high quality clinical practice guidelines for MMD management are limited. Intravitreal injection of anti-VEGF agents was recommended as an effective intervention to treat myopic CNV as the first-line treatment, while there was inadequate guidance for the application of PDT in myopic CNV management. The use of other interventions for MMD were not recommended at this time and additional evidence is called for.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35356661
doi: 10.7189/jogh.12.04026
pii: jogh-12-04026
pmc: PMC8939288
doi:
Substances chimiques
Angiogenesis Inhibitors
0
Ranibizumab
ZL1R02VT79
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
04026Subventions
Organisme : World Health Organization
ID : 001
Pays : International
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 by the Journal of Global Health. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: The authors completed the ICMJE Unified Competing Interest form (available upon request from the corresponding author), and declare no conflicts of interest.
Références
Am J Ophthalmol. 2004 Nov;138(5):803-8
pubmed: 15531316
Eye (Lond). 2013 Jun;27(6):709-15
pubmed: 23449508
J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2018 Apr-Jun;13(2):158-169
pubmed: 29719645
Pediatrics. 2011 Mar;127(3):569-70
pubmed: 21282266
Singapore Med J. 2011 Apr;52(4):232-40
pubmed: 21552782
Ophthalmology. 2013 Nov;120(11):2292-9
pubmed: 23642856
Ophthalmology. 2006 Aug;113(8):1354-62
pubmed: 16877074
Ophthalmology. 2015 Apr;122(4):803-8
pubmed: 25596618
BMJ Open Ophthalmol. 2020 Aug 11;5(1):e000533
pubmed: 32821853
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 15;12:CD011160
pubmed: 27977064
Am J Ophthalmol. 2007 Mar;143(3):449-54
pubmed: 17317390
Int Ophthalmol. 1994-1995;18(6):339-44
pubmed: 7543889
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019 Nov;100(11):2205-2211
pubmed: 31207218
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005 Aug;243(8):829-33
pubmed: 16133036
Ophthalmology. 2015 Jun;122(6):1220-7
pubmed: 25745875
Ophthalmology. 2010 Jun;117(6):1124-1133.e1
pubmed: 20381871
Ophthalmology. 2003 Apr;110(4):667-73
pubmed: 12689884
Ophthalmology. 2013 Sep;120(9):1944-5.e1
pubmed: 24001532
Retina. 2012 Sep;32(8):1547-52
pubmed: 22481476
Ophthalmologica. 2012;227(1):39-44
pubmed: 22056757
CMAJ. 2018 May 14;190(19):E588-E594
pubmed: 29759965
Ophthalmology. 2010 Sep;117(9):1763-8
pubmed: 20447693
Retina. 2015 Aug;35(8):1489-506
pubmed: 26076215
Int Ophthalmol. 2012 Apr;32(2):119-25
pubmed: 22350116
Ophthalmologica. 2018;239(4):181-193
pubmed: 29393226
Am J Ophthalmol. 2008 Mar;145(3):518-526
pubmed: 18207125
Am J Ophthalmol. 2005 Mar;139(3):421-8
pubmed: 15767049
Arch Ophthalmol. 2011 Sep;129(9):1199-204
pubmed: 21911668
Br J Ophthalmol. 2007 Feb;91(2):174-9
pubmed: 16987898
Retina. 2011 Jun;31(6):1089-94
pubmed: 21358463
Br J Ophthalmol. 2004 Oct;88(10):1315-9
pubmed: 15377558
Ophthalmology. 2012 Sep;119(9):1760-5
pubmed: 22578442
Retina. 2006 Sep;26(7):746-51
pubmed: 16963846
Am J Ophthalmol. 2011 Jan;151(1):137-147.e1
pubmed: 20970774
Br J Ophthalmol. 2007 Feb;91(2):131-3
pubmed: 17244656
JAMA. 2016 Mar 1;315(9):908-14
pubmed: 26934260
Ann Acad Med Singap. 2004 Jan;33(1):27-33
pubmed: 15008558
Clin Exp Optom. 2017 Jul;100(4):341-356
pubmed: 28597930
Ophthalmology. 2017 Nov;124(11):1690-1711
pubmed: 28655539
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012 Nov 01;53(12):7504-9
pubmed: 23060137
Br J Ophthalmol. 2013 Nov;97(11):1447-50
pubmed: 24026146
Eur J Ophthalmol. 2002 Mar-Apr;12(2):117-22
pubmed: 12022283
Eye (Lond). 2009 Nov;23(11):2140-2
pubmed: 18670458
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2004 Oct;242(10):840-4
pubmed: 15221306
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2007 Jun;245(6):903-5
pubmed: 17115175
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2017 Jul;255(7):1259-1273
pubmed: 28527040
Retina. 2011 Jul-Aug;31(7):1337-46
pubmed: 21487342
Ophthalmology. 2014 Nov;121(11):2247-54
pubmed: 25012934
Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2014 Aug;21(4):247-55
pubmed: 24990474
Br J Ophthalmol. 2015 Mar;99(3):289-96
pubmed: 24990871
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2016 Mar;254(3):445-54
pubmed: 26084446
Ophthalmology. 2002 Apr;109(4):704-11
pubmed: 11927427
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Feb 27;18(1):143
pubmed: 29482555
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012 Aug 15;53(9):5579-83
pubmed: 22836765
Br J Ophthalmol. 2016 Oct;100(10):1337-40
pubmed: 26792945
Am J Ophthalmol. 2011 Mar;151(3):529-34
pubmed: 21236413
Am J Ophthalmol. 2006 Aug;142(2):335-7
pubmed: 16876524
Retina. 2013 Feb;33(2):397-402
pubmed: 22990315
Ophthalmology. 2001 May;108(5):841-52
pubmed: 11320011
Br J Ophthalmol. 2003 Feb;87(2):173-6
pubmed: 12543746
Br J Ophthalmol. 2001 Sep;85(9):1041-3
pubmed: 11520751
Ophthalmology. 2014 Mar;121(3):682-92.e2
pubmed: 24326106
Br J Ophthalmol. 2011 May;95(5):657-61
pubmed: 20935305
Lancet Glob Health. 2021 Feb;9(2):e144-e160
pubmed: 33275949
Cell. 2010 Oct 1;143(1):13-6
pubmed: 20887885
Retina. 2007 Sep;27(7):839-45
pubmed: 17891006
Am J Ophthalmol. 2002 Apr;133(4):530-6
pubmed: 11931787
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2018 Sep 4;59(11):4603-4613
pubmed: 30242361
Prog Retin Eye Res. 2018 Mar;63:92-106
pubmed: 29111299