Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 24, 2025
Quantification of Vascular Parameters in Whole Mount Retinas of Mice with Non-Proliferative and Proliferative Retinopathies
Published on: March 12, 2022
The Association between Retinal Thickness Fluctuations and Visual Outcomes under Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth
Bhadra Pandya1, Andrew Mihalache2, Amin Hatamnejad3
1Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, bhadra.pandya@mail.utoronto.ca.
Introduction:
The objective of this study was to examine the association between retinal thickness (RT) fluctuations and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in eyes with neovascular AMD, macular edema secondary to RVO, and DME treated with anti-VEGF therapy.
Methods:
A systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was performed from January 2006 to March 2024. Studies comparing visual or anatomic outcomes of patients treated with anti-VEGF therapy, stratified by magnitudes of RT fluctuation, were included. ROBINS-I and Cochrane RoB 2 tools were used to assess risk of bias, and certainty of evidence was evaluated with GRADE criteria. Meta-analysis was performed with a random-effects model. Primary outcomes were final BCVA and change in BCVA relative to baseline.
Results:
15,725 articles were screened; 15 studies were identified in the systematic review and 5 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Final ETDRS VA was significantly worse in eyes with the highest level of RT fluctuation (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 7.86 letters; 95% CI, 4.97, 10.74; p < 0.00001; I2 = 81%; 3,136 eyes). RT at last observation was significantly greater in eyes with high RT fluctuations (WMD = -27.35 μm; 95% CI, -0.04, 54.75; p = 0.05; I2 = 88%; 962 eyes).
Conclusions:
Final visual outcome is associated with magnitude of RT fluctuation over the course of therapy. It is unclear whether minimizing RT fluctuations would help optimize visual outcomes in patients treated with anti-VEGF therapy. These findings are limited by a small set of studies, risk of bias, and considerable heterogeneity.
