Treat-and-extend versus alternate dosing strategies with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents to treat center involving diabetic macular edema: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 2,346 eyes

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (Anti-VEGF) agents are the standard of care for diabetic macular edema (CI-DME) with vision loss. They are commonly administered using several treatment protocols, including fixed, pro re nata (PRN) and treat-and-extend (T&E) regimens. Because of the lack of evidence defining an ideal treatment paradigm, we systematically compared T&E with fixed or PRN regimens. Visual acuity improvement was similar when comparing T&E to fixed or PRN dosing at 12 and 24 months. Regarding anatomic out-comes, no significant difference was found between T&E and fixed regimens for central reti-nal thickness or central subfoveal thickness at 12 and 24 months. Similarly, no significant difference was found for central retinal thickness at 12 months for T&E versus PRN regi-men. Regarding total number of injections, no significant difference existed between T&E versus fixed regimens at 12 months. PRN regimens delivered fewer injections compared to T&E regimens at 12 months.The results of this analysis support that visual acuity and anatomic outcomes at 12 and 24 months are similar between T&E with either fixed or PRN regimens. More head-to-head trials comparing T&E versus fixed and PRN dosing are needed to provide visual and functional outcome data beyond year 2. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42021249362.(c) 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Automated summary

This study compared different treatment protocols for anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (Anti-VEGF) agents in diabetic macular edema. The results showed that visual acuity and anatomic outcomes at 12 and 24 months were similar between treat-and-extend (T&E) with fixed or pro re nata (PRN) regimens.