摘要
AIM： To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor （VEGF） combined with photodynamic therapy （PDT） versus anti-VEGF monotherapy for polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy （PCV）. METHODS： We conducted a Meta-analysis of 9 studies to compare the efficacy and safety between combined therapy and anti-VEGF monotherapy for PCV. The programs of RevMan 5.3 and Stata 12.0 were used to analyze data. RESULTS： The best corrected visual acuity （BCVA） in combined therapy group were significantly better than those of anti-VEGF monotherapy group at 6, 24 and 36mo, with pooled weighted means differences （WMDs） of 0.12 （0.06, 0.18）, 0.25 （0.12, 0.38） and 0.28 （0.13, 0.43）, respectively. The central retinal thickness （CRT） reductions in combined therapy group were higher than that in anti- VEGF monotherapy group at 1, 3, 6 and 9mo, with pooled WMDs of 63.90 （20.41, 107.38）, 33.47 （4.69, 62.24）, 30.57 （0.12, 60.01） and 28.00 （2.51, 53.49）, respectively. The regression rate of polyps in combined therapy group was much higher than that in anti-VEGF monotherapy group [RD： 0.47 （0.26, 0.68）; P〈0.0001]. The adverse event retinal hemorrhage did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSION： Our findings clearly document that anti- VEGF combined with PDT is a more effective therapy for PCV compared with anti-VEGF monotherapy. Furthermore, combined therapy does not increase the incidence of retinal hemorrhage.
AIM： To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor （VEGF） combined with photodynamic therapy （PDT） versus anti-VEGF monotherapy for polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy （PCV）. METHODS： We conducted a Meta-analysis of 9 studies to compare the efficacy and safety between combined therapy and anti-VEGF monotherapy for PCV. The programs of RevMan 5.3 and Stata 12.0 were used to analyze data. RESULTS： The best corrected visual acuity （BCVA） in combined therapy group were significantly better than those of anti-VEGF monotherapy group at 6, 24 and 36mo, with pooled weighted means differences （WMDs） of 0.12 （0.06, 0.18）, 0.25 （0.12, 0.38） and 0.28 （0.13, 0.43）, respectively. The central retinal thickness （CRT） reductions in combined therapy group were higher than that in anti- VEGF monotherapy group at 1, 3, 6 and 9mo, with pooled WMDs of 63.90 （20.41, 107.38）, 33.47 （4.69, 62.24）, 30.57 （0.12, 60.01） and 28.00 （2.51, 53.49）, respectively. The regression rate of polyps in combined therapy group was much higher than that in anti-VEGF monotherapy group [RD： 0.47 （0.26, 0.68）; P〈0.0001]. The adverse event retinal hemorrhage did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSION： Our findings clearly document that anti- VEGF combined with PDT is a more effective therapy for PCV compared with anti-VEGF monotherapy. Furthermore, combined therapy does not increase the incidence of retinal hemorrhage.
