Anti‐VEGF and steroid combination therapy relative to anti‐VEGF mono therapy for the treatment of refractory DME: A systematic review of efficacy and meta‐analysis of safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the study was to determine the efficacy and safety of combined anti-VEGF and steroid therapy in treatment refractory DME patients. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of peer-reviewed articles reporting on visual, anatomical and adverse outcomes to compare the efficacy and safety of combined intravitreal anti-VEGF/steroids versus anti-VEGF monotherapy for refractory DME. Seven studies (4 RCTs and 3 observational studies) reporting on 452 eyes were included. Our systematic review showed that combination therapy is significantly more effective for anatomical outcomes in the treatment of resistant DME compared to anti-VEGF monotherapy in six studies. Two studies found that addition of intravitreal steroids promoted faster visual improvement, but not significantly better final visual outcomes compared to anti-VEGF monotherapy. Combination therapy was associated with a higher incidence of IOP-related adverse events (RR = 0.10, 95% CI = [0.02, 0.42], p = 0.002) and cataract-related adverse events (RR = 0.10, 95% CI = [0.01, 0.71], p = 0.02). Our systematic review and meta-analysis of seven studies and 452 eyes revealed that combination therapy of anti-VEGF and steroid intravitreal drugs in the management of treatment refractory DME resulted in superior anatomical outcomes in all but one study. Combination therapy led to superior short-term visual outcomes in two studies, while others reported no difference between treatment groups. Meta-analysis revealed that combination therapy was associated with more adverse events. Future research should provide guidance on the standard definitions for treatment resistance and therapeutic alternatives for DME patients with sub-optimal response to anti-VEGF treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".