BACKGROUND: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a leading cause of vision loss. Photobiomodulation (PBM) offers a controversial approach for managing dry AMD, aiming to halt or reverse progression through mitochondrial activity modulation. However, the efficacy and clinical relevance of PBM as a potential approach for managing dry AMD remain debated.
METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PBM versus a sham in patients with dry AMD. We performed trial sequential analysis (TSA) and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) calculations to assess statistical and clinical significance applying a random-effects model with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS: We included three RCTs comprising 247 eyes. The pooled analysis showed that PBM significant improved BCVA (MD 1.76 letters; 95% CI: 0.04 to 3.48) and drusen volume (MD -0.12 mm³; 95% CI: -0.22 to -0.02) as compared with a sham control. However, the TSA indicated that the current sample sizes were insufficient for reliable conclusions. No significant differences were observed in GA area. The MCID analysis suggested that the statistically significant results did not translate into clinically significant benefits. In the quality assessment, all studies were deemed to have a high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis points limitations in the current evidence base for PBM in dry AMD treatment, with issues around small sample sizes. Statistically significant improvements do not translate into clinical benefits. The research underscores need for larger RCTs to validate PBM\'s therapeutic potential for dry AMD.

BACKGROUND: Key clinical guidelines recommend anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy as first-line treatment for visual impairment due to diabetic macular oedema (DMO). A systematic literature review (SLR) and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted comparing the relative efficacy of the anti-VEGF brolucizumab with a focused network of the most relevant comparator dosing regimens approved in countries other than the USA (aflibercept, ranibizumab). The safety and tolerability of brolucizumab were also assessed.
METHODS: A broad SLR was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials to ensure all relevant potential comparators were captured. Identified studies were refined to those appropriate for inclusion in the NMA. A Bayesian NMA was conducted comparing brolucizumab 6 mg (every 12 [Q12W]/every 8 weeks [Q8W]) with relevant aflibercept 2 mg and ranibizumab 0.5 mg regimens.
RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included in the NMA. At 1-year follow-up, the various aflibercept 2 mg and ranibizumab 0.5 mg regimens were mostly comparable with brolucizumab 6 mg Q12W/Q8W across key visual and anatomical outcomes, except brolucizumab 6 mg was favoured over ranibizumab 0.5 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) for the change from baseline (CFB) in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and BCVA loss/gain of pre-specified numbers of letters, and over ranibizumab 0.5 mg pro re nata for CFB in diabetic retinopathy severity scale, and retinal thickness. At year 2, where data were available, brolucizumab 6 mg showed similar results across efficacy outcomes versus all other anti-VEGFs. In most cases, discontinuation rates (all cause, and due to adverse events [AE]) and serious and overall rates of AEs excluding ocular inflammatory events were similar (in unpooled and pooled-treatment analyses) versus comparators.
CONCLUSIONS: Brolucizumab 6 mg Q12W/Q8W was comparable or superior to aflibercept 2 mg and ranibizumab 0.5 mg regimens for various visual and anatomical efficacy outcomes and discontinuation rates.

BACKGROUND: Myopic atrophic maculopathy is prevalent among patients with pathologic myopia and frequently leads to relentless vision loss. Several grading systems were established to facilitate the understanding of myopic atrophic maculopathy. However, the anatomical details in different stages of myopic maculopathy are so far not clearly elucidated. This study aims to investigate the visual acuity and retinal sublayer features in highly myopic eyes with varying severities of myopic atrophic maculopathy (MAM).
METHODS: The clinical records of 111 consecutive patients (158 eyes) with high myopia (refractive error ≤ -6.0 D and axial length ≥ 26.0 mm) were reviewed. Fundus photography, optical coherence tomography (OCT), and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) were measured. MAM was graded according to the META-analysis for Pathologic Myopia (META-PM) classification system. Myopic choroidal neovascularization (mCNV) and dome-shaped macula (DSM) were also investigated.
RESULTS: Among the 158 eyes, 18 (11%), 21(13%), 24 (15%), 25 (16%), 23 (15%), and 24 (15%) had tessellated fundus, diffuse chorioretinal atrophy, diffuse chorioretinal atrophy with DSM, patchy atrophy, patchy atrophy with DSM, and MAM with mCNV, respectively. A total of 23 (15%) eyes had macular atrophy without mCNV. Progressive thinning in the Henle\'s fiber and outer nuclear layers, myoid and ellipsoid zone (MEZ), outer segment (OS), and interdigitation zone and retinal pigmented epithelium based on the severity of MAM (p-value < 0.001) was found. MEZ and OS were most significantly reduced in thickness (p-value < 0.001). The presence of mCNV demonstrated significant outer retinal layer thinning compared with that of the tessellated fundus (p-value = 0.031). Patchy atrophy with DSM showed statistically poorer BCVA compared with that without (p-value = 0.008).
CONCLUSIONS: Visual acuity and outer retinal sublayer characteristics were correlated with the severity of MAM. Outer retinal sublayer analysis by spectrum-domain OCT shed some light on the mechanisms of MAM progression.

BACKGROUND: Recalcitrant neovascular age-related macular degeneration (rnAMD) despite intensive intravitreal anti-neovascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment, can be handled by switching to another anti-VEGF agent. This first systematic review and meta-analysis presents long-term data after switching from another anti-VEGF agent to brolucizumab.
METHODS: Retrospective case series over two years of patients switched to brolucizumab, and a systematic review and meta-analysis of peer-reviewed studies presenting patients switched to brolucizumab. Weighted mean differences based on the random-effects models were calculated for best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central subfield thickness (CST).
RESULTS: The systematic review draws on 1200 eyes switched to brolucizumab. The meta-analysis showed a clinically irrelevant decrease in BCVA after one and two months, together with significant decreases in CST for up to one year after the switch but lacking power over 2 years. Of twelve eyes (twelve patients) in our case series, five continued treatment for two years without experiencing significant changes.
CONCLUSIONS: After switch to brolucizumab, a significant morphological improvement with CST reduction was shown in eyes with rnAMD. The small worsening of BCVA may be owing to the chronically active nature of rnAMD. Brolucizumab thus remains a treatment option in rnAMD despite its potential side effects.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of intravitreal aflibercept with dexamethasone implant in the treatment of macular edema (ME) associated with diabetic retinopathy (DR) or retinal vein occlusion (RVO).
METHODS: A comprehensive search of studies comparing dexamethasone and aflibercept in patients with ME was conducted at PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from the beginning of library to April 16, 2021. Extracting the data including best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), number of injections and serious adverse events (SAEs) from the final qualified articles. RevMan 5.3 software was used for Meta-analysis of the included studies.
RESULTS: Totally 7 studies with 369 eyes were included. The causes of ME in the final screening study included RVO and DR. Compared with the aflibercept treatment group, the BCVA of the dexamethasone implant treatment group showed no significant difference in the follow-up for 3mo [mean difference (MD): -0.05, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.11, 0.02; P=0.17] and 12mo (MD: -0.01, 95%CI: -0.38, 0.37; P=0.98), but it was slightly worse than the aflibercept group at 6mo (MD: 0.12, 95%CI: 0.03, 0.21; P=0.008). In terms of CRT reduction, there was no significant difference between the two groups at 3mo (MD: -28.14, 95%CI: -79.95, 23.67; P=0.29), 6mo (MD: 27.67, 95%CI: -84.89, 140.24; P=0.63), and 12mo (MD: -59.00, 95%CI: -127.37, 9.37; P=0.09). However, dexamethasone implant had fewer injections, but more adverse events such as elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) and cataract.
CONCLUSIONS: Intravitreal injection of aflibercept and dexamethasone implant can both effectively increase BCVA and reduce CRT. Compared with aflibercept, dexamethasone implant is not inferior in improving vision and reducing CRT in the initial treatment period (3mo) and long-term treatment period (12mo). Besides, it has fewer injections and more likely to cause elevated IOP and cataract.

UNASSIGNED: To assess early real-world outcomes with brolucizumab in Canadian patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) for which they previously received ≥1 anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agent(s).
UNASSIGNED: This multisite, real-world, retrospective chart review included data from a consecutive sample of 73 patients who received brolucizumab for nAMD after treatment with ≥1 other anti-VEGF agents. The principal reasons for switching to brolucizumab were to extend the treatment interval (51.6% of patients) and to treat persistent macular fluid (34.2%). The primary outcomes were best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and the incidence rates of intraocular inflammation (IOI), retinal vasculitis (RV), and retinal vascular occlusion (RVO). Secondary outcomes included central retinal thickness (CRT), injection interval, and presence of intraretinal and subretinal fluid (IRF and SRF). All parameters were measured at baseline until the last treatment visit between April 27, 2020, and August 31, 2021.
UNASSIGNED: Over a mean follow-up of 28 weeks, a nonsignificant mean improvement in BCVA was identified (4.3 [standard deviation (SD) 8.3] letters; P=0.057), with 47.9% experiencing a gain of ≥5 letters. IOI was detected in 3 patients (4.1%), one of whom also developed RV and RVO (1.4%), which is consistent with existing brolucizumab data. Significant reductions were observed in mean CRT (-36.6 μm [SD 56.1 μm]; P=0.0002) and presence of any macular fluid (56.1% [SD 5.6%]; P<0.001), IRF (66.6% [SD 6.3%]; P<0.001), and SRF (62.7% [SD 6.3%]; P<0.001). The mean injection interval increased significantly by 2.1 weeks (SD 2.7; P<0.001).
UNASSIGNED: In the first real-world Canadian analysis, brolucizumab was associated with improvements in functional outcomes in treatment-experienced patients, consistent with other real-world studies. The incidence of IOI, RV, and RVO were in line with the post hoc safety analysis of HAWK and HARRIER data.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) with alteplase in patients with central retinal artery occlusion (CRAO).
METHODS: We searched the database of PubMed and EMBASE for potentially eligible studies that reported IVT in CRAO patients from their dates of inception to May 19, 2021. The rate and odds ratios (OR) of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improvement, mean difference (MD) of BCVA with 95% confidence interval (CI) were pooled with random effects model.
RESULTS: We included 8 studies enrolling 316 CRAO patients, among them, 157 patients received IVT with alteplase while 159 patients did not. The rate of best BCVA improvement was 47% (95% CI 33-62%) in the CRAO patients treated with IVT, which was higher than that of 12% (95% CI 1-23%) in those without IVT (OR 5.97, 95% CI [2.77-12.86]). In the setting of similar baseline BCVA (MD [logMAR] 0.16, 95% CI [- 0.15 to 0.46]), compared with those who did not receive IVT, the CRAO patients who received IVT had better best BCVA (MD [logMAR] - 0.23, 95% CI [- 0.44 to - 0.02]), but had no significant better final BCVA (MD [logMAR] - 0.10, 95% CI [- 0.32 to 0.12]). Two CRAO patients had complicated symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage after IVT.
CONCLUSIONS: IVT treatment might be effective and safe for CRAO patients, but ocular-specific complications which were not associated with thrombolysis could affect final visual acuity.

Objectives: To present the clinical features of and diagnostic methods used for macular coloboma (MC), and to analyze the factors associated with best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in patients with MC.Methods: A systematic review using the MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, LILACS, and Cochrane databases was performed. The factors associated with BCVA were analyzed.Results: A total of 21 patients (mean age at diagnosis, 18.1 ± 14.6 years) with 36 eyes affected by MC (5 unilateral, 16 bilateral) were included in the study. All 21 patients (100%) had undergone a good-quality fundus examination. The size of the MC lesions ranged from 1.0 × 1.2 to 4.0 × 4.0 disc diameters (DD). Twenty-seven (73%) eyes had pigmented MC, seven (19%) had non-pigmented MC, and one (3%) had an unspecific type. The diagnosis was confirmed using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) in 16 (43.2%) eyes. A positive correlation was found between BCVA and the type of MC (β = 0.876, p = .006) and abnormal eye movement (β = 0.087, p = .018), and a negative correlation was found between BCVA and a contributory medical history of ventricular septal defect (β = -0.327, p = .001).Conclusions: Pigmented MC was the most common type and had the highest possibility of causing impaired vision in the affected eyes. Additionally, joint examinations should be applied for diagnostic confirmation of MC. Furthermore, fundoscopy, electroretinogram, electrooculography, fundus fluorescein angiography, and SD-OCT are all critical for differential diagnosis of MC-like lesions.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of intravitreal injection of conbercept (IVC) and ranibizumab (IVR) in patients with diabetic macular edema.
METHODS: Reviewers have searched 12 databases, including PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, Springer, ScienceDirect, OVID, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, cqVIP, WanFangdata and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), up to December 28, 2018. RevMan 5.3 (Cochrane Library Software, Oxford, UK) was employed for statistical analysis. Fixed and random effects models were applied to assess heterogeneity. Odds ratio (OR) was applied for dichotomous variables; weighted mean difference (WMD) was applied for continuous variables. The confidence interval (CI) was set at 95%. Central macular thickness (CMT) and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) were employed to analyze the improvement of DME patients. Inclusion criteria for picking out studies were retrospective studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared IVC and IVR for the treatment of diabetic macular edema.
RESULTS: Four retrospective studies and five RCTs were included with a total of 609 patients. No statistically significant difference was observed in mean CMT and mean BCVA in the baseline parameters [BCVA (WMD: -0.48; 95%CI: -1.06 to 0.10; P=0.1), CMT (WMD: -0.83; 95%CI: -15.15 to 13.49; P=0.91). No significant difference was found in the improvement of BCVA and adverse event (AE) in IVC group, compared with IVR group after treatment of loading dosage [the 1st month BCVA (WMD: 0.01; 95%CI: -0.26 to 0.27; P=0.96), the 3rd month BCVA (WMD: -0.04; 95%CI: -0.14 to 0.06; P=0.46); the 6th month BCVA (WMD: -0.24; 95%CI: -1.62 to 1.14; P=0.73)], AE (OR: 0.84; 95%CI: 0.38 to 1.84; P=0.66)]. A slight difference was found in the effectiveness rate (OR: 1.70; 95%CI: 0.97 to 2.96; P=0.06), There were statistically significant differences between IVC and IVR treatment in terms of CMT [1st month CMT (WMD: -19.88; 95%CI: -27.94 to -11.82; P<0.001), 3rd month CMT (WMD: -23.31; 95%CI: -43.30 to -3.33; P=0.02), 6th month CMT (WMD: -74.74; 95%CI: -106.22 to -43.26; P<0.001)].
CONCLUSIONS: Pooled evidence suggests that both IVC and IVR are effective in the therapy of diabetic macular edema and affirms that IVC presents superiority over IVR therapy in regard of CMT in patients with diabetic macular edema, but no statistically significant difference with regard to visual improvement. Relevant RCTs with longer-term follow-up are necessary to back up our conclusion.