
==== Front
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology
0721-832X
1435-702X
Springer Berlin Heidelberg Berlin/Heidelberg

38421412
6405
10.1007/s00417-024-06405-0
Review Article
Efficacy of anti-VEGF monotherapy versus anti-VEGF therapy with subthreshold micropulse laser (SML) in the management of diabetic macular oedema (DMO): a systematic review and meta-analysis
Wijeweera Chandana 1
Ni Jing 1
Petocz Peter 2
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5963-5658
Preda Veronica veronica.preda@mq.edu.au

1
Jabbour James 3
1 https://ror.org/01sf06y89 grid.1004.5 0000 0001 2158 5405 Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University Macquarie Park, Sydney, Australia
2 https://ror.org/01sf06y89 grid.1004.5 0000 0001 2158 5405 Graduate Research Academy, Macquarie University Macquarie Park, Sydney, Australia
3 Sydney Eye Specialists, Sydney, Australia
29 2 2024
29 2 2024
2024
262 9 27332749
24 10 2023
31 1 2024
6 2 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Background

Intravitreal injection anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (IVI anti-VEGF) therapy serves as the primary treatment for centre involving diabetic macular oedema (DMO). Conventional laser therapy (CLT) adjunct has proven beneficial; however, it is not widely used due to significant risks of retinal scarring. Subthreshold micropulse laser (SML) therapy has, however, emerged as a comparable alternative to combination therapy, offering a distinct advantage by mitigating the risk of retinal scarring.

Methods

A search of six databases was conducted. A meta-analysis of mean differences was performed including subgroup analyses where appropriate. Primary outcome was the number of injections at 12–14 months; secondary outcomes were changes in central macular thickness (CMT) and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 6–8 months and 12–14 months.

Results

A total of ten papers including six randomised clinical trials and four retrospective clinical studies were included in our study, capturing 563 eyes of 478 patients. Overall, the risk of bias was moderate for these studies. Significantly fewer anti-VEGF therapy injections were administered in the combination therapy versus anti-VEGF monotherapy patients at 12–14 months who had poor visual acuity (6/18 Snellen or worse) at baseline, mean difference − 2.25 (95% CI; − 3.35, − 1.15; p < 0.05). Combination therapy was not associated with significantly fewer intravitreal injections in patients with a higher visual acuity (6/15 Snellen or better) at baseline. Our analysis also showed significant improvements to both BCVA and CMT were reached at 6 − 8 month post-baseline at the 95% confidence intervals: − 1.13 (− 2.09, − 0.16) and − 4.04 (− 7.59, − 0.50). These improvements remained statistically significant at 12–14 months: − 0.94 (− 1.67, − 0.20) and − 1.92 (− 3.52, − 0.32) respectively with combination therapy.

Conclusion

Our findings demonstrate that combination therapy (SML + IVI anti-VEGF) is associated with fewer intravitreal injections. We report a better BCVA and a reduction in CMT at 6 and 12 months from baseline with combination treatment compared to the IVI anti-VEGF monotherapy comparator. SML is a proven non-scarring cost-effective therapy for DMO that should be readily available in the medical retinal therapy as it may reduce the burden of care.

Keywords

Diabetic macular oedema
Diabetic retinopathy
Conventional laser
Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor
Subthreshold micropulse laser therapy
Central macular thickness
Macquarie University Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions

issue-copyright-statement© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmc

Introduction

In 2021, the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) estimated that there were 537 million adults living with diabetes mellitus; this number is projected to rise significantly to around 783 million by 2045 [1]. With the number of adults with diabetes and clinically significant macular oedema projected to rise from an estimated 18.83 million globally in 2020 to 28.61 million by 2045, ease of training and care provision is an important consideration as the need for care increases [2]. Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is defined as an accumulation of fluid between the outer plexiform and the inner nuclear layers of the retina and is the most common sight-threatening microvascular complication of long-standing diabetes among the working-age population (20–74 years) [3]. Diabetes results in capillary non-perfusion and retinal ischemia, creating an environment favourable to the release of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and other vitreous inflammatory factors that modulate angiogenesis and vascular permeability [4].

Currently, the gold standard of care for patients with centre involving DMO is treatment with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections [5]. Data from the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research (DRCR) network’s “Protocol T trial” has shown anti-VEGF agents aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab to be effective in reducing central macular thickness (CMT) and improving visual acuity (VA) in patients with DMO [6]. However, there are several notable limitations to the unhindered adoption of these therapies as sole agents [7]. Anti-VEGF agents aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab have short intraocular half-lives of 10.1, 10.1, and 5.4 days respectively, resulting in high rates of non-compliance due to treatment burden and significant costs to the healthcare system [7]. Moreover, several studies have also demonstrated a significant proportion of patients with DMO have limited or absent response to intravitreal anti-VEGF monotherapy [8, 9]. Furthermore, certain clinical situations, such as a recent cerebrovascular event or pregnancy, may contraindicate the use of anti-VEGF therapy [10].

Prior to the adoption of intravitreal anti-VEGF agents, conventional laser photocoagulation therapy (CLT) was a first-line therapy in clinically significant DMO [11]. The landmark Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) first reported the benefits of CLT, showing a 50% reduction in the risk of moderate visual loss over 3 years compared to no intervention for clinically significant DMO [11]. Several studies have combined anti-VEGF therapy with CLT, including the Protocol T Trial where this was the standard of care [6, 12, 13]. A reduction in the number of injections was noted in the READ-2, RESTORE, and Protocol T trials [14]. Previous studies have also demonstrated superior improvements in BCVA and CMT reduction with CLT [14]. However, the benefits of CLT with conventional laser are limited by substantial adverse effects including retinal scarring, visual field loss, subretinal fibrosis, and choroidal neovascularisation [15]. These side effects are primarily a consequence of thermal damage to the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) leading to photocoagulation necrosis at the focal site of treatment which can rapidly expand into chorioretinal atrophy [15].

Subthreshold micropulse laser (SML) is a newer, non-destructive alternative to conventional laser therapy (CLT). SML does not cause fatal injury to the RPE, nor subsequent macular atrophy and has been shown to have comparable treatment outcomes to CLT in patients with CMT < 400 µm in the 2023 DIAMONDS trial [2]. Several studies evaluating the utility of SML as an adjunctive treatment for anti-VEGF agents have demonstrated improvements in visual outcomes and fewer injections with combined therapy [14, 16–18]. A recent meta-analysis by Chen and colleagues (2023) compared the efficacy of intravitreal anti-VEGF monotherapy with combined anti-VEGF and CLP for the treatment of DMO [7]. However, to our knowledge, there are no previous systematic reviews or meta-analyses evaluating the utility of SML as an adjunctive treatment for anti-VEGF agents. Here, we present a comprehensive systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of the currently available data.

Methods

Protocol

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework and Cochrane Handbook guidelines [19]. The protocol for the study was registered with the PROSPERO International Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023450655).

Search strategy

A comprehensive search of six databases (PubMed, Cochrane MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar) was conducted on July 03, 2023. Search terms were defined according to the PICO tool (see supplementary data). Search parameters were set for studies conducted between January 01, 2000 and July 01, 2023 and limited to full texts to ensure the most recent clinical trials were captured.

We utilised Covidence (Systematic review software, Veritas Health Innovation) to streamline the study selection process. Studies identified from database searches and snowballing were imported into Covidence. Two authors CW and JN independently screened titles and abstracts and categorised them into one of three selections—“include”, “exclude”, and “maybe”. Disagreements between reviewers were resolved with discussion and arbitrated by senior reviewers (VP and JJ) where there was a failure to reach consensus.

Study selection and eligibility criteria

Studies were included in the review if they (1) looked at adult patients with a diagnosis of DMO treated with a combination of anti-VEGF and SLT with anti-VEGF monotherapy as a comparator; (2) papers reporting on at least one of the following outcome measures: best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), or number of injections; and (3) papers reporting outcomes at baseline (0) and at least one of 6–8 months, or 12–14 or more months.

Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, other review articles, case reports, grey literature, and studies where full text was not available in English were excluded. Studies reporting upon conditions other than DMO or a combination of conditions were also excluded from the final synthesis of results.

Data extraction

Primary (CW) and secondary (JN) reviewers independently extracted data from the included studies into a customised data extraction table. The extracted data included key identifying and demographic information including first author, year of publication, location, study design, details of intervention, baseline visual characteristics and HbA1c levels, follow-up time, and sample size. The primary outcome of interest was the number of injections at 12–14 months; secondary outcomes for extraction were CMT (microns) and BCVA (logMAR) at 6–8 months or 12–14 months or more. The extracted dataset was independently cross-checked for accuracy. Any conflicts between extracted datasets were investigated and resolved with discussion. Attempts were made to contact the authors directly for any missing data not available in supplementary information packages.

Risk of bias assessment

Our analysis included both randomised and retrospective controlled trials; therefore, we used the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool for the assessment of the risk of bias in randomised studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for retrospective studies [20, 21]. Primary (CW) and secondary (JN) researchers independently completed the risk of bias assessment and independently scored each item within each domain as “low”, “moderate”, or “high/serious” for risk of bias. Disagreements in scoring were discussed and resolved with a third reviewer. The number of “low” responses for each domain of the RoB 2 and ROBINS-I was tallied, and a score was calculated to determine the overall quality of the study as follows: Low quality: (%Low) < 40%; Some concerns: (%Low) 60 to 80%; High quality: (%Low) > 80%. Studies were not excluded based on quality; however, this was considered during data analysis and in the interpretation of our findings. Results for the overall RoB and individual domains are presented in traffic light and summary plots.

Statistical methods

Data preparation

Extracted data was used to calculate (1) the mean difference between the number of injections for control and intervention groups at 12–14 months, (2) subgroups according to BCVA (< 0.5 logMAR or ≥ 0.5 logMAR) and HbA1c (< 7% or ≥ 7%) at baseline, and (3) the difference of mean differences between baseline and endpoints for both control and intervention groups for BCVA and CMT.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed in consultation with a medical statistician (PP). We conducted a meta-analysis of mean differences utilising a random effects model to account for inter-study variability (Der Simonian and Laird approach). We used Hedge’s g to measure the standardised difference in the means, using an estimate of the pooled standard deviation and corrected for bias.

As no papers explicitly presented a change in standard deviation (SD) from baseline, this was calculated for both control and intervention groups with the standard formula for SD change for correlated values [22, 23]. SDchange=SDbaseline2+SDfinal2-(2Corr.SDbaseline.SDfinal).

No studies were available among our included studies that reported change in SD from baseline; therefore we were unable to calculate a correlation coefficient (Corr) based on any studies reported in considerable detail. We instead hypothesised a Corr of 0.7 to impute change from baseline SDs, a reasonable “middle” value for intra-person biological variability [24]. Sensitivity analyses were conducted with a Corr of 0.6 and 0.8 to ensure the robustness of results [24].

Heterogeneity among studies was first assessed using Cochran’s Q test, and the I2 statistic, where a value of greater than 50% was taken to indicate statistical heterogeneity. To investigate potential sources of heterogeneity, we performed subgroup analyses based on predefined variables including mean age, sex, and sample size.

Subgroup analysis was performed according to BCVA at baseline for the number of injections. We were unable to perform subgroup analysis according to CMT or HbA1c as the baseline characteristics differed between groups. The robustness of our results was further assessed using sensitivity analyses where any outliers were detected. Data was pooled in a meta-analysis when at least four studies reported on the same outcome measures for a given time point. All meta-analyses and subgroup analyses were conducted using Stata v18.0 (Stata Corp; LLC). p values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

Search yield

A total of 132 articles were included, with 121 articles identified from the primary database search, and a further 11 records identified from snowballing of literature and reference lists. Exclusion of duplicates yielded 72 unique articles, 34 of which were further excluded following title and abstract screening. Full-text screening was undertaken for the remaining 38 articles with all papers successfully retrieved. During the full-text screening process, 28 studies were excluded; one study was incomplete at the time of review, four studies did not have the full texts available in English, 13 studies had an incompatible study design and a further ten studies did not report on combination SML therapy with anti-VEGF. The remaining ten results were selected for critical appraisal and included in the synthesis of our results (see Fig. 1). In total, our review included six randomised clinical trials and four retrospective clinical studies.Fig. 1 PRISMA flow diagram of study selection

Risk of bias assessment

A summary of the risk of bias assessment for randomised (Figs. 2 and 3) and retrospective trials (Figs. 4 and 5) are shown below. Overall, the risk of bias was considered “low” for two studies [25, 26], “some concerns” for five studies [14, 17, 18, 27–29], and “high” for two studies [30, 31]. Specifically, bias in the measurement of the outcomes was identified in eight studies [14, 17, 18, 26–28, 30, 31], most commonly due to unblinded outcome measurement. Two studies omitted outcome data [30, 31], while a further two papers reported only partial outcome data [17, 30]. Three studies also reported some deviations from the intended intervention protocol, unaccounted for by their analysis and not corrected for bias [18, 27, 29].Fig. 2 Traffic light plot of RoB assessment of RCTs (Cochrane ROB 2 tool) [32]

Fig. 3 Summary plot of RoB assessment of RCTs (Cochrane ROB 2 tool) [32]

Fig. 4 Traffic light plot of RoB assessment of retrospective studies (ROBINS I tool) [32]

Fig. 5 Summary plot of RoB assessment of retrospective studies (ROBINS I tool) [32]

Demographic and clinical study characteristics

Our final synthesis of data included six randomised clinical trials [18, 25–29], and four retrospective clinical trials [14, 17, 30, 31]. The characteristics of these included studies at baseline and endpoints are shown below in Table 1 and 2 respectively. A total of 563 eyes of 478 patients with DMO were captured in our synthesis, with only 85 patients contributing both eyes. Paired analysis was not considered suitable, due to the small number of studies with both eyes. We also note that the original papers including both eyes do not present paired analyses. Our final meta-analyses included 563 eyes, of which 277 eyes were assigned to IVI anti-VEGF monotherapy, and 286 eyes were assigned to IVI anti-VEGF with SML combination. Sample sizes of the included studies were generally small and varied from 19 to 97 participants. Overall, the mean age of participants across all studies was 61.25 years. There was a slight overrepresentation of male eyes in both monotherapy (176 M:147 F) and combination (172 M:141 F) groups. Table 1 Baseline characteristics of included studies

Study	Population	Exposure	
Author
(year)	Country	Eyes (n)	Mean age (year)	Gender (n)	anti-VEGF agent	Laser wavelength (nm)	
Control	Intervention	Control	Intervention	Control (m/f)	Intervention (m/f)	
Altınel et al. (2021) [30]	Turkey	40	40	59.83 ± 7.7	60.55 ± 7.23	22/18	23/17	Bevacizumab	577	
Bıçak et al. (2022) [14]	Turkey	45	52	61.6 ± 6.7	62.4 ± 7.6	20/25	28/24	Ranibizumab	577	
ElMatri et al. (2021)  [17]	Tunisia	49	49	61.3 ± 4.11	67.7 ± 5.23	20/11	19/13	Bevacizumab	577	
Furashova et al. (2020) [28]	Germany	9	10	70.78 ± 8.96	70.70 ± 7.60	6/3	8/2	Ranibizumab	810	
Kanar et al. (2020) [18]	Turkey	28	28	62.64 ± 9.03	62.64 ± 9.03	32/24	32/24	Aflibercept	577	
Khattab et al. (2019) [25]	Kuwait	27	27	55.7 ± 3.4	59.4 ± 4.3	16/11	11/16	Aflibercept	577	
Koushan et al. (2022) [26]	Canada	15	15	58.8 ± 9.28	59.8 ± 9.47	7/8	10/5	Aflibercept	532	
Tatsumi et al. (2022) [29]	Japan	25	26	69.3 ± 7.4	66.9 ± 9.4	16/8	11/14	Aflibercept	577	
Abouhussein et al. (2019) [27]	Egypt	20	20	59.5 ± 4.3	60.4 ± 4.2	8/12	9/11	Aflibercept	577	
Moisseiev et al. (2017) [31]	Israel/USA	19	19	63.3 ± 8.9	65.3 ± 9.8	13/6	12/7	Ranibizumab	577	
Study	Exposure	Outcomes	
Author
(year)	Country	Dosage and timing	CMT	BCVA	HbA1c %	
IVI anti-VEGF only	IVI anti-VEGF + micropulse adjunct	CMT (cont)	CMT
(int)	BCVA
(cont)	BCVA
(int)	HbA1c
(cont)	HbA1c
(int)	
Altınel et al. (2021) [30]	Turkey	3 × monthly IVI

1.25 mg/0.05 mL IVI + IVI PRN

	3 × monthly IVI

1.25 mg/0.05 mL IVI + SML 4 weeks post loading dose if CMT < 400 um

	384.68 ± 64.11	379.2 ± 70.25	0.39 ± 0.23	0.38 ± 0.21	6.89 ± 0.61	6.94 ± 0.53	
Bıçak et al. (2022) [14]	Turkey	3 × monthly IVI 0.5 mg/0.05 mL + monthly IVI PRN	3 × monthly IVI 0.5 mg/0.05 mL + SML 4 weeks post IVI loading once ONLY	406 ± 130.4	426.6 ± 96.9	0.41 ± 0.25	0.43 ± 0.23	6.85 ± 0.59	6.91 ± 0.54	
ElMatri et al. (2021)  [17]	Tunisia	3 × monthly IVI 1.25 mg/ 0.05 mL + IVI PRN 4 weekly	3 × monthly IVI 1.25 mg/ 0.05 mL + SML within 1 week of 3rd injection	359.9 ± 22.9	479.1 ± 14.3	0.60 ± 0.42	0.69 ± 0.35	7.60 ± 062%	7.70 ± 0.81	
Furashova et al. (2020) [28]	Germany	3 × monthly IVI 0.5 mg/0.05 mL + IVI PRN	3 × monthly IVI 0.5 mg/0.05 mL + 	485 ± 170	434 ± 118	0.78 ± 0.2	0.68 ± 0.2	7.54 ± 1.51	6.80 ± 0.85	
Kanar et al. (2020) [18]	Turkey	3 × monthly IVI 2 mg/0.05 mL + IVI PRN	3 × monthly IVI 2 mg/0.05 mL + SML at 1 month if CMT decreased < 450 um

if > 450 um a second course of IVI + SML applied at 8 weeks

	451.28 ± 44.85	466.07 ± 71.79	0.94 ± 0.1	0.90 ± 0.09	8.02 ± 2.43	7.97 ± 2.47	
Khattab et al. (2019) [25]	Kuwait	3 × monthly IVI of 2 mg/0.05 mL + IVI PRN suspended when CMT reached 250 um or less	3 × monthly IVI of 2 mg/0.05 mL + SML within 1 week of the third injection	462 ± 32.2	457.1 ± 22.6	1.07 ± 0.36	1.00 ± 0.35	NA	NA	
Koushan et al. (2022) [26]	Canada	1 × IVI 2.0 mg/0.05 mL + sham laser on the same day + 4 weekly sham laser	1 × IVI 2.0 mg/0.05 mL + SML on the same day + SML 4 weekly`	433.4 ± 103.5	457.8 ± 92.8	0.38 ± 0.14	0.36 ± 0.21	NA	NA	
Tatsumi et al. (2022) [29]	Japan	3 × monthly IVI of 2.0 mg/mL IVI + IVI PRN	3 × monthly IVI of 2.0 mg/mL IVI + SML within 4 weeks of 3rd IVI + IVI PRN	442.8 ± 91.3	476.4 ± 136.1	0.37 ± 0.24	0.48 ± 0.32	NA	NA	
Abouhussein et al. (2019) [27]	Egypt	3 × monthly IVI of 2 mg/0.05 mL loading + PRN IVI	3 monthly IVI of 2 mg/0.05 mL loading + SML session 1 month later + monthly PRN IVI	457.9 ± 82.2	469.6 ± 78	0.7 ± 0.24	0.26 ± 0.16	8.2 ± 1.2	8.7 ± 1.1	
Moisseiev et al. (2017) [31]	Israel/USA	3 × monthly 0.3 mg/0.05 mL	3 × monthly 0.3 mg/0.05 mL + SML at 2 months post final IVI	408.4 ± 104.2	316.8 ± 91.5	0.41 ± 0.13	0.29 ± 0.12	NA	NA	
anti-VEGF, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor; BCVA, best corrected visual acuity; CMT, central macular thickness change; CLT, combination laser therapy; SML, subthreshold micropulse laser; IVI, intravitreal injection; PRN, pro re nata; NA, not applicable; HbA1c, glycated haemoglobin

Table 2 Characteristics of included studies at endpoints (6–8 months and 12–14 months)

Study	Population	Outcomes	
Author
(year)	Eyes (n)	Mean age (year)	Gender (n)	CMT (6–8 m)	BVCA (6–8 m)	
Control	Intervention	Control	Intervention	Control (m/f)	Intervention (m/f)	CMT (cont)	CMT
(int)	BCVA
(cont)	BCVA
(int)	
Akhlaghi et al. (2019) [16]	21	21	60.86 ± 8.57	60.86 ± 8.57 years	10/11	10/11	NA	NA	NA	NA	
Altınel et al. (2021) [30]	40	40	59.83 ± 7.7	60.55 ± 7.23	22/18	23/17	337.13 ± 103.64	300.45 ± 44.29	0.33 ± 0.28	0.27 ± 0.16	
Bıçak et al. (2022) [14]	45	52	61.6 ± 6.7	62.4 ± 7.6	20/25	28/24	NA	NA	NA	NA	
Cuervo-Lozano et al. (2018) [34]	10	10	56.30 ± 7.78	59.60 ± 5.50	2/4	3/3	NA	NA	NA	NA	
ElMatri et al. (2021)[17]	49	49	61.3 ± 4.11	67.7 ± 5.23	20/11	19/13	NA	353.2 ± 17.2	NA	0.64 ± 0.33	
Furashova et al. (2020) [28]	9	10	70.78 ± 8.96	70.70 ± 7.60	6/3	8/2	NA	NA	NA	NA	
Kanar et al. (2020) [18]	28	28	62.64 ± 9.03	62.64 ± 9.03	32/24	32/24	387.92 ± 47.71	377.3 ± 45.61	0.26 ± 0.09	0.23 ± 0.1	
Khattab et al. (2019) [25]	27	27	55.7 ± 3.4	59.4 ± 4.3	16/11	11/16	295.7 ± 53.1	295.1 ± 29.6	0.85 ± 0.40	0.77 ± 0.31	
Koushan et al. (2022) [25]	15	15	58.8 ± 9.28	59.8 ± 9.47	7/8	10/5	309.3 ± 52	302 ± 61.5	0.32 ± 0.19	0.21 ± 0.13	
Tatsumi et al.(2022) [29]	25	26	69.3 ± 7.4	66.9 ± 9.4	16/8	11/14	NA	NA	NA	NA	
Abouhussein et al. (2019) [27]	20	20	59.5 ± 4.3	60.4 ± 4.2	8/12	9/11	292.3 ± 25.3	288.1 ± 29.6	0.26 ± 0.09	0.26 ± 0.18	
Moisseiev et al. (2017) [31]	19	19	63.3 ± 8.9	65.3 ± 9.8	13/6	12/7	NA	NA	NA	NA	
Study	Outcomes			
Author
(year)	CMT (12–14 m)	BCVA (12–14 m)	Number of injections (mean ± SD)	Subgroup			
CMT
(cont)	CMT
(int)	BCVA
(cont)	BCVA
(int)	Control	Intervention	BVCA	HbA1c			
Akhlaghi et al. (2019) [16]	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	2	NA			
Altınel et al. (2021) [30]	325.8 ± 92.67	292.64 ± 57.22	0.32 ± 0.24	0.25 ± 0.17	5.65 ± 1.51	4.38 ± 0.81	1	1			
Bıçak et al. (2022) [14]	304.25 ± 45.53	311.31 ± 35.77	0.69 ± 0.17	0.71 ± 0.06	4.19 ± 1.01	5.53 ± 1.14	1	1			
Cuervo-Lozano et al. (2018) [34]	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	1	NA			
ElMatri et al. (2021)[17]	305.9 ± 0.38	289.6 ± 15.0	0.49 ± 0.32	0.50 ± 0.37	7.2 ± 1.3	4.1 ± 1.5	2	2			
Furashova et al. (2020) [28]	422.5 ± 67.57	316.62 ± 82.71	NA	NA	6.9 ± 0.83	3.9 ± 0.46	2	2			
Kanar et al. (2020) [18]	328.8 ± 49.69	312 ± 39.29	0.2 ± 0.1	0.17 ± 0.06	5.39 ± 1.54	3.21 ± 0.41	2	2			
Khattab et al. (2019) [25]	279.3 ± 52.7	274 ± 26.9	0.75 ± 0.35	0.65 ± 0.24	7.3 ± 1.1	4.1 ± 1.1	2	NA			
Koushan et al. (2022) [25]	288.3 ± 38.2	289.5 ± 42.7	0.32 ± 0.22	0.36 ± 0.21	8.5 ± 3.3	7.9 ± 3.6	1	NA			
Tatsumi et al.(2022) [29]	347.3 ± 58.9	344.7 ± 73.1	0.22 ± 0.17	0.28 ± 0.22	4.3 ± 1.36	4.48 ± 1.34	1	NA			
Abouhussein et al. (2019) [27]	290.5 ± 49.5	288.5 ± 46.4	0.24 ± 0.22	0.2 ± 0.21	5.4 ± 1.7	4.5 ± 1.4	2	NA			
Moisseiev et al. (2017) [31]	335.9 ± 69.8	282.6 ± 59.1	0.39 ± 0.15	0.24 ± 0.17	5.6 ± 2.1	1.7 ± 2.3	1	NA			
anti-VEGF, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor; BCVA, best corrected visual acuity; CMT, central macular thickness change; SML, subthreshold micropulse laser; IVI, intravitreal injection; PRN, pro re nata; NA, not applicable; HbA1c, glycated haemoglobin

Aflibercept was the most commonly used anti-VEGF agent among the included studies, used in five studies [18, 25–27, 29] followed by ranibizumab which was used in three studies [14, 28, 31] and bevacizumab, used in two studies [17, 30].

In terms of laser characteristics, eight of the included studies used a wavelength of 577 nm [14, 17, 18, 25, 27, 29, 30] which is the standard commercial emphasis. Only Furashova et al. used 810-nm wavelength laser which has a larger therapeutic range [28, 33].

Effect of combination therapy on the number of injections

Ten studies met the criteria for inclusion in our meta-analysis to determine the effect of combination IVI anti-VEGF with SML adjunct upon the number of injections at 12 months (Fig. 6). Overall, our results showed the number of injections required was significantly lower with combination therapy. Patients with DMO who were treated with SML adjunct required greater than one injection (− 1.27) less over 12–14 months compared with those treated with anti-VEGF monotherapy, mean difference: − 1.27 (95% CI: − 2.22, − 0.33; p < 0.05).Fig. 6 REML of required number of injections with combination (IVI anti-VEGF + SML) versus monotherapy (control) at 12–14 months

Effect of baseline BVCA on the number of injections

Subgroup analysis was performed to investigate the effect of baseline visual acuity on the number of injections (NOI) required at 12 months (Fig. 7). Studies were classified into two groups for subgroup analysis according to baseline visual acuity (6/15 Snellen or better, or 6/18 Snellen or worse). Patients with poorer visual acuity (6/18 Snellen or worse at baseline), showed a greater benefit from combination therapy in terms of number of injections, with greater than two fewer injections over 12–14 months compared to monotherapy comparator, mean difference − 2.25 (95% CI; − 3.35, − 1.15; p < 0.05). Patients with a visual acuity of 6/15 Snellen or better at baseline did not show a statistically significant reduction in the number of injections compared to the monotherapy comparator, mean difference − 0.30 (95% CI; − 1.30, 0.70; p > 0.05). Overall, patients with a poorer baseline visual acuity of 6/18 Snellen or worse benefited from a greater, statistically significant injection-sparing effect from the combination SML therapy compared with those with a higher baseline visual acuity of 6/15 Snellen or better.Fig. 7 Subgroup analysis showing the effect of baseline BCVA on NOI with combination (IVI anti-VEGF + SML) versus monotherapy (control) at 12–14 months

Effect of IVI anti-VEGF monotherapy versus micropulse (SML) combination on BCVA

BCVA at 6–8 months

A random effects model (REML) of five RCTs shows the mean change in BCVA with combination treatment minus monotherapy at 6 to 8 months (Fig. 8). Overall, there was a statistically significant overall improvement in BCVA (logMAR) in the combination group compared to monotherapy with anti-VEGF therapy alone, mean difference of − 1.13 (95% CI − 2.09, − 0.16; p < 0.05).Fig. 8 REML of change in BCVA (logMAR) for combination (IVI anti-VEGF + SML) minus monotherapy (IVI anti-VEGF) at 6–8 months

BCVA at 12 – 14 months

Nine RCTs are included in our REML showing the mean change in BCVA with combination therapy minus monotherapy at 12–14 months from baseline (Fig. 9). Overall, there was a statistically significant overall improvement in BCVA with SML adjunct compared to anti-VEGF therapy monotherapy, mean difference of − 0.94 (95% CI − 1.67, − 0.20; p < 0.05).Fig. 9 REML of change in BCVA (logMAR) for combination (IVI anti-VEGF + SML) minus monotherapy (IVI anti-VEGF) at 12–14 months

Effect of IVI anti-VEGF therapy with SML combination versus anti-VEGF therapy alone on CMT

We were unable to stratify studies according to CMT at baseline to perform a subgroup analysis as baseline characteristics for CMT between combination and monotherapy comparators were not homogeneous.

CMT 6 – 8 months combination therapy minus monotherapy

Five RCTs are included in our meta-analysis of mean change in CMT with combination monotherapy at 6 to 8 months from baseline (Fig. 10). Overall, there was a statistically significant improvement in CMT with SML adjunct compared to anti-VEGF therapy alone; mean difference of − 4.04 (95% CI − 7.59, − 0.50; p < 0.05).Fig. 10 REML of change in CMT (µm) for combination (IVI anti-VEGF + SML) minus monotherapy (IVI anti-VEGF) at 6–8 months

CMT 12 – 14 months

Ten RCTs were included in our final REML showing the mean change in CMT with combination therapy minus monotherapy at 12 to 14 months from baseline (Fig. 11). There was a statistically significant overall improvement in CMT in the combination group compared to anti-VEGF therapy alone, mean difference of − 1.92 (95% CI − 3.52, − 0.32; p < 0.05).Fig. 11 REML of change in CMT (µm) for combination (IVI anti-VEGF + SML) minus monotherapy (IVI anti-VEGF) at 12–14 months

Sensitivity analyses

Sensitivity analysis did not alter the pooled estimate of any of our meta-analyses significantly. Visually, two outliers were noted in the REML for CMT at 12 – 14 months (Fig. 11). A REML for the remaining eight studies shows sustained significance at the 95% CI following the exclusion of the Abouhussein et al. and Elmatri et al. datasets (Fig. 12), mean difference of − 0.75 (95% CI − 1.34, − 0.16).Fig. 12 REML showing sensitivity of change in CMT (µm) at 12–14 months for combination (IVI anti-VEGF + SML) minus monotherapy (IVI anti-VEGF) with outliers excluded

Sensitivity analyses were also conducted using 0.6 and 0.8 Corr which did not demonstrate any significant changes to results at the 95% CI for any of the included REMLs (see supplementary files).

Discussion

Summary of findings

In this paper, we present a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the currently available literature comparing the efficacy of anti-VEGF monotherapy against combined anti-VEGF therapy with SML adjunct in the management of DMO. To our knowledge, this is the first such study to do this comprehensively. In total, our study utilised information from 625 eyes of 555 patients, including both eyes in 65 patients. Our findings demonstrate a significant reduction in IVI anti-VEGF injection burden with combination treatment compared to IVI anti-VEGF monotherapy. We also report improved BCVA and a reduction in CMT at 6–8 and 12–14 months from baseline with combination treatment to the IVI anti-VEGF monotherapy comparator.

The implication is that the addition of SML therapy in this context hastens the resolution of macular oedema in the first year of therapy. It is the resolution of macular oedema that will prevent vision loss in the medium term. Moreover, the addition of SML reduces the burden of intravitreal injections and hence the number of visits. It is technically possible to perform SML on the same day as IVI therapy.

Approximately one-third of patients are non-responders to anti-VEGF therapy alone [13, 33]. According to a post-hoc analysis by Bressler of the Protocol T trial, DMO can persist after anti-VEGF injection in 31.6 – 65.6% of diabetic patients [35]. Wells et al. showed a high recurrence rate after DMO resolves which often requires repeat injections of anti-VEGF [36].

Several studies have demonstrated the superiority of SML over conventional therapy (references 24 – 29 per Moisseiev et al. in terms of improving macular sensitivity for example on microperimetry and improving visual function [31]. Micropulse laser is used as first line for centre-involving and non-centre involving DMO in the UK, for patients routinely with a CMT of < 400 μm [2].

Number of injections

Frequent injections are a requirement of all currently available anti-VEGF agents as an inherent function of their short intraocular half-lives [37, 38]. Repeated injections are associated with cumulative ocular and systemic risks, which include endophthalmitis, tractional-rhegmatogenous retinal detachment, ocular inflammation, and thromboembolic events [27, 39, 40] SML has been demonstrated to be safe with no visible scarring and none of the ocular or systemic risks of intravitreal injections. Moreover, it has an additional role in certain clinical situations such as stroke and during pregnancy where anti-VEGF therapy may be contraindicated [41].

Visual acuity

In the study by El Matri, participants were classified as “good responders” and “poor responders” based on improvement in BCVA at 12 months [17]. The proportion of “good responders” reached 93.8% at 32 and 48 weeks [17]. The benefits of SML may not be seen for several months which is consistent with our findings [17]. SML may result in fewer DMO recurrences, and laser may have a longer-lasting benefit than anti-VEGF therapy alone [10, 42].

Central macular thickness

Micropulse laser is more effective in patients with initial CMT of < 450 um [43–45]. Mansouri et al. showed that MPL has better efficacy in moderate DMO (CMT < 400 um). Citrik further suggested that MPL produces significant improvement in BCVA and reduction in CMT when used in eyes with CMT of 300 um or less. Inadequate treatment with SML has been reported in severe DMO, and the reason for this is not completely clear [31, 44]. One possible explanation postulated by Altinel et al. is that severe oedema may change the distribution of laser energy throughout the retina [30].

Contrast sensitivity

Contrast sensitivity is not a commonly assessed parameter in the studies and could be affected even in patients with preserved VA. It could be considered a useful parameter as part of a functional visual assessment in DMO. Vujosevic demonstrated significantly increased retinal sensitivity on microperimetry following SML; with no detectable laser scar at 12-month follow-up, similar findings have been reported by Chhablani et al. [41, 46]. Scholz demonstrated the superiority of SML compared to conventional laser in improving anatomical and functional vision [10].

Type of anti-VEGF agent

Wells (2016) examined the effectiveness of the different anti-VEGF therapies (aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab) and found that changes in BCVA are highly dependent on pre-treatment VA, and aflibercept appeared to be more effective when initial visual acuity is poorer [36]. This is further supported by congruent findings from the protocol T trial. Previous studies have shown conbercept, to be a suitable alternative which has multiple targets with strong affinity and long action time (Liu, 2022). When combined with SML, this study demonstrated a higher total response rate (90.91% versus 67.76%; p < 0.05) and lower injection frequency in the combination group (p < 0.05) [47, 48]. Moreover, the combination group demonstrated higher BCVA and lower CMT after 6 months of treatment (p < 0.05); in addition to lower VF grey value and mean VFD, higher 30°-VF average light threshold sensitivity 1 month post treatment, all reached statistical significance [47].

Type of laser

After demonstrating the superiority of high-density subthreshold micropulse laser (SML) in improving visual acuity and reducing CMT when compared to a standard threshold and low-density SML (2011), Vujosevic subsequently showed that both yellow (577 nm) and infrared (810 nm) lasers are safe in mild centre involving DMO with no significant difference between the two [45]. Chang confirmed that the two are equally effective, although 810-nm MPL appears to have a wider therapeutic range and therefore safety margin [49]. No study has compared their efficacy, particularly in combination with anti-VEGF treatment. Sramek proposed that 810 nm of diode laser supports the recovery of cells, especially those of the retinal pigment epithelium [50]. Midena also showed additional anti-inflammatory benefits of SML [51]. Laser comes at a fraction of the cost of injections and is more readily available, with greater graduate ophthalmologist training availability should increase [2, 10].

Limitations

Most studies in our review are limited by small sample sizes with relatively short periods of follow-up. Many are retrospective studies [14, 17, 31, 47], where there is a lack of pre-defined criteria for the use of SML, which were generally performed at the treating clinician’s discretion. The real world setting may be different to the randomised trials where monthly injections were administered. Clinical practice may be more akin to these retrospective studies where there are lower injection rates. Measures such as microperimetry and contrast sensitivities were not always available. Most studies used a combination of ocular coherence tomography (OCT) and VA assessments to guide retreatment. HbA1C was not uniformly recorded with diabetic therapy and hence sub analysis was not possible.

Conclusions

Combination anti-VEGF therapy with SML adjunct may reduce the burden of intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy, particularly in patients with poorer baseline visual acuity. It may also improve the BCVA and hasten the resolution of macular oedema as measured by CMT. Moreover, it may be additionally beneficial in cohorts of patients who are suboptimal responders or in whom anti-VEGF therapy is contraindicated.

Abbreviations

anti-VEGF Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor

BCVA Best corrected visual acuity

CMT Central macular thickness change

CLT Combination laser therapy

CLP Conventional laser photocoagulation

DMO Diabetic macular oedema

DR Diabetic retinopathy

HbA1c Glycated haemoglobin

IVI Intravitreal injection

logMAR Logarithm of the minimal angle or resolution

MPL Micropulse laser

REML Random effects models

RPE Retinal pigment epithelium

SML Subthreshold micropulse laser

VF(D) Visual field (defect)

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions.

Data availability

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article and supplementary material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Declarations

Ethical approval

The protocol for the study was registered with the PROSPERO International Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023450655).

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Presentation at conference—not applicable.

Clinical Trial—not applicable.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Magliano DJ BE (2021) IDF Diabetes Atlas International Diabetes Federation, Brussels
2. Lois N Campbell C Waugh N Azuara-Blanco A Maredza M Mistry H McAuley D Acharya N Aslam TM Bailey C Chong V Downey L Eleftheriadis H Fatum S George S Ghanchi F Groppe M Hamilton R Menon G Saad A Sivaprasad S Shiew M Steel DH Talks JS Doherty P McDowell C Clarke M Diabetic macular edema and diode subthreshold micropulse laser: a randomized double-masked noninferiority clinical trial Ophthalmology 2023 130 14 27 10.1016/j.ophtha.2022.08.012 35973593
Lois N, Campbell C, Waugh N, Azuara-Blanco A, Maredza M, Mistry H, McAuley D, Acharya N, Aslam TM, Bailey C, Chong V, Downey L, Eleftheriadis H, Fatum S, George S, Ghanchi F, Groppe M, Hamilton R, Menon G, Saad A, Sivaprasad S, Shiew M, Steel DH, Talks JS, Doherty P, McDowell C, Clarke M (2023) Diabetic macular edema and diode subthreshold micropulse laser: a randomized double-masked noninferiority clinical trial. Ophthalmology 130:14–27. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2022.08.01235973593 10.1016/j.ophtha.2022.08.012
3. Lee R Wong TY Sabanayagam C Epidemiology of diabetic retinopathy, diabetic macular edema and related vision loss Eye and Vision 2015 2 17 10.1186/s40662-015-0026-2 26605370
Lee R, Wong TY, Sabanayagam C (2015) Epidemiology of diabetic retinopathy, diabetic macular edema and related vision loss. Eye and Vision 2:17. 10.1186/s40662-015-0026-226605370 10.1186/s40662-015-0026-2
4. Musat O Cernat C Labib M Gheorghe A Toma O Zamfir M Boureanu AM Diabetic macular edema Rom J Ophthalmol 2015 59 133 136 26978879
Musat O, Cernat C, Labib M, Gheorghe A, Toma O, Zamfir M, Boureanu AM (2015) Diabetic macular edema. Rom J Ophthalmol 59:133–13626978879
5. Virgili G Parravano M Evans JR Gordon I Lucenteforte E Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for diabetic macular oedema: a network meta-analysis Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018 10 CD007419 10.1002/14651858.CD007419.pub6 30325017
Virgili G, Parravano M, Evans JR, Gordon I, Lucenteforte E (2018) Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for diabetic macular oedema: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 10:CD007419. 10.1002/14651858.CD007419.pub630325017 10.1002/14651858.CD007419.pub6
6. Cai S Bressler NM Aflibercept, bevacizumab or ranibizumab for diabetic macular oedema: recent clinically relevant findings from DRCR.net Protocol T Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2017 28 636 643 10.1097/icu.0000000000000424 28837425
Cai S, Bressler NM (2017) Aflibercept, bevacizumab or ranibizumab for diabetic macular oedema: recent clinically relevant findings from DRCR.net Protocol T. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 28:636–643. 10.1097/icu.000000000000042428837425 10.1097/icu.0000000000000424
7. Chen J, Wang H, Qiu W (2023) Intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor, laser photocoagulation, or combined therapy for diabetic macular edema: a systematic review and network meta-analysis 14. 10.3389/fendo.2023.1096105
8. Gurung RL FitzGerald LM Liu E McComish BJ Kaidonis G Ridge B Hewitt AW Vote BJ Verma N Craig JE Burdon KP Predictive factors for treatment outcomes with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections in diabetic macular edema in clinical practice Int J Retin Vitr 2023 9 23 10.1186/s40942-023-00453-0
Gurung RL, FitzGerald LM, Liu E, McComish BJ, Kaidonis G, Ridge B, Hewitt AW, Vote BJ, Verma N, Craig JE, Burdon KP (2023) Predictive factors for treatment outcomes with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections in diabetic macular edema in clinical practice. Int J Retin Vitr 9:23. 10.1186/s40942-023-00453-010.1186/s40942-023-00453-0
9. Shimura M Kitano S Muramatsu D Fukushima H Takamura Y Matsumoto M Kokado M Kogo J Sasaki M Morizane Y Kotake O Koto T Sonoda S Hirano T Ishikawa H Mitamura Y Okamoto F Kinoshita T Kimura K Sugimoto M Yamashiro K Suzuki Y Hikichi T Washio N Sato T Ohkoshi K Tsujinaka H Kusuhara S Kondo M Takagi H Murata T Sakamoto T Real-world management of treatment-naïve diabetic macular oedema in Japan: two-year visual outcomes with and without anti-VEGF therapy in the STREAT-DME study Br J Ophthalmol 2020 104 1209 1215 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-315199 31784500
Shimura M, Kitano S, Muramatsu D, Fukushima H, Takamura Y, Matsumoto M, Kokado M, Kogo J, Sasaki M, Morizane Y, Kotake O, Koto T, Sonoda S, Hirano T, Ishikawa H, Mitamura Y, Okamoto F, Kinoshita T, Kimura K, Sugimoto M, Yamashiro K, Suzuki Y, Hikichi T, Washio N, Sato T, Ohkoshi K, Tsujinaka H, Kusuhara S, Kondo M, Takagi H, Murata T, Sakamoto T (2020) Real-world management of treatment-naïve diabetic macular oedema in Japan: two-year visual outcomes with and without anti-VEGF therapy in the STREAT-DME study. Br J Ophthalmol 104:1209–1215. 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-31519931784500 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-315199
10. Scholz P Altay L Fauser S A review of subthreshold micropulse laser for treatment of macular disorders Adv Ther 2017 34 1528 1555 10.1007/s12325-017-0559-y 28540655
Scholz P, Altay L, Fauser S (2017) A review of subthreshold micropulse laser for treatment of macular disorders. Adv Ther 34:1528–1555. 10.1007/s12325-017-0559-y28540655 10.1007/s12325-017-0559-y
11. Scott IU Danis RP Bressler SB Bressler NM Browning DJ Qin H Effect of focal/grid photocoagulation on visual acuity and retinal thickening in eyes with non-center-involved diabetic macular edema Retina (Philadelphia, Pa) 2009 29 613 617 10.1097/IAE.0b013e3181a2c07a 19373126
Scott IU, Danis RP, Bressler SB, Bressler NM, Browning DJ, Qin H (2009) Effect of focal/grid photocoagulation on visual acuity and retinal thickening in eyes with non-center-involved diabetic macular edema. Retina (Philadelphia, Pa) 29:613–617. 10.1097/IAE.0b013e3181a2c07a19373126 10.1097/IAE.0b013e3181a2c07a
12. Glassman AR Wells JA 3rd Josic K Maguire MG Antoszyk AN Baker C Beaulieu WT Elman MJ Jampol LM Sun JK Five-year outcomes after initial aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab treatment for diabetic macular edema (Protocol T Extension Study) Ophthalmology 2020 127 1201 1210 10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.03.021 32402554
Glassman AR, Wells JA 3rd, Josic K, Maguire MG, Antoszyk AN, Baker C, Beaulieu WT, Elman MJ, Jampol LM, Sun JK (2020) Five-year outcomes after initial aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab treatment for diabetic macular edema (Protocol T Extension Study). Ophthalmology 127:1201–1210. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.03.02132402554 10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.03.021
13. Mitchell P Bandello F Schmidt-Erfurth U Lang GE Massin P Schlingemann RO Sutter F Simader C Burian G Gerstner O Weichselberger A The RESTORE study: ranibizumab monotherapy or combined with laser versus laser monotherapy for diabetic macular edema Ophthalmology 2011 118 615 625 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.01.031 21459215
Mitchell P, Bandello F, Schmidt-Erfurth U, Lang GE, Massin P, Schlingemann RO, Sutter F, Simader C, Burian G, Gerstner O, Weichselberger A (2011) The RESTORE study: ranibizumab monotherapy or combined with laser versus laser monotherapy for diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology 118:615–625. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.01.03121459215 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.01.031
14. Bıçak F Kayıkçıoğlu ÖR Altınışık M Doğruya S Kurt E Efficacy of subthreshold micropulse laser combined with ranibizumab in the treatment of diabetic macular edema Int Ophthalmol 2022 42 3829 3836 10.1007/s10792-022-02403-5 35876939
Bıçak F, Kayıkçıoğlu ÖR, Altınışık M, Doğruya S, Kurt E (2022) Efficacy of subthreshold micropulse laser combined with ranibizumab in the treatment of diabetic macular edema. Int Ophthalmol 42:3829–3836. 10.1007/s10792-022-02403-535876939 10.1007/s10792-022-02403-5
15. Dorin G Evolution of retinal laser therapy: minimum intensity photocoagulation (MIP). Can the laser heal the retina without harming it? Semin Ophthalmol 2004 19 62 68 10.1080/08820530490884173 15590536
Dorin G (2004) Evolution of retinal laser therapy: minimum intensity photocoagulation (MIP). Can the laser heal the retina without harming it? Semin Ophthalmol 19:62–68. 10.1080/0882053049088417315590536 10.1080/08820530490884173
16. Akhlaghi M Dehghani A Pourmohammadi R Asadpour L Pourazizi M Effects of subthreshold diode micropulse laser photocoagulation on treating patients with refractory diabetic macular edema J Curr Ophthalmol 2019 31 157 160 10.1016/j.joco.2018.11.006 31317093
Akhlaghi M, Dehghani A, Pourmohammadi R, Asadpour L, Pourazizi M (2019) Effects of subthreshold diode micropulse laser photocoagulation on treating patients with refractory diabetic macular edema. J Curr Ophthalmol 31:157–160. 10.1016/j.joco.2018.11.00631317093 10.1016/j.joco.2018.11.006
17. El Matri L Chebil A El Matri K Falfoul Y Chebbi Z Subthreshold micropulse laser adjuvant to bevacizumab versus bevacizumab monotherapy in treating diabetic macular edema: one- year- follow-up Ther Adv Ophthalmol 2021 13 25158414211040887 10.1177/25158414211040887 34497974
El Matri L, Chebil A, El Matri K, Falfoul Y, Chebbi Z (2021) Subthreshold micropulse laser adjuvant to bevacizumab versus bevacizumab monotherapy in treating diabetic macular edema: one- year- follow-up. Ther Adv Ophthalmol 13:25158414211040890. 10.1177/2515841421104088734497974 10.1177/25158414211040887
18. Kanar HS Arsan A Altun A Akı SF Hacısalihoglu A Can subthreshold micropulse yellow laser treatment change the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor algorithm in diabetic macular edema? A randomized clinical trial Indian J Ophthalmol 2020 68 145 151 10.4103/ijo.IJO_350_19 31856493
Kanar HS, Arsan A, Altun A, Akı SF, Hacısalihoglu A (2020) Can subthreshold micropulse yellow laser treatment change the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor algorithm in diabetic macular edema? A randomized clinical trial. Indian J Ophthalmol 68:145–151. 10.4103/ijo.IJO_350_1931856493 10.4103/ijo.IJO_350_19
19. Higgins J (2009) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
20. Sterne JAC Savović J Page MJ Elbers RG Blencowe NS Boutron I Cates CJ Cheng H-Y Corbett MS Eldridge SM Emberson JR Hernán MA Hopewell S Hróbjartsson A Junqueira DR Jüni P Kirkham JJ Lasserson T Li T McAleenan A Reeves BC Shepperd S Shrier I Stewart LA Tilling K White IR Whiting PF Higgins JPT RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials BMJ 2019 366 l4898 10.1136/bmj.l4898 31462531
Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, Cates CJ, Cheng H-Y, Corbett MS, Eldridge SM, Emberson JR, Hernán MA, Hopewell S, Hróbjartsson A, Junqueira DR, Jüni P, Kirkham JJ, Lasserson T, Li T, McAleenan A, Reeves BC, Shepperd S, Shrier I, Stewart LA, Tilling K, White IR, Whiting PF, Higgins JPT (2019) RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 366:l4898. 10.1136/bmj.l489831462531 10.1136/bmj.l4898
21. Sterne JA Hernán MA Reeves BC Savović J Berkman ND Viswanathan M Henry D Altman DG Ansari MT Boutron I Carpenter JR Chan A-W Churchill R Deeks JJ Hróbjartsson A Kirkham J Jüni P Loke YK Pigott TD Ramsay CR Regidor D Rothstein HR Sandhu L Santaguida PL Schünemann HJ Shea B Shrier I Tugwell P Turner L Valentine JC Waddington H Waters E Wells GA Whiting PF Higgins JP ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions BMJ 2016 355 i4919 10.1136/bmj.i4919 27733354
Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, Henry D, Altman DG, Ansari MT, Boutron I, Carpenter JR, Chan A-W, Churchill R, Deeks JJ, Hróbjartsson A, Kirkham J, Jüni P, Loke YK, Pigott TD, Ramsay CR, Regidor D, Rothstein HR, Sandhu L, Santaguida PL, Schünemann HJ, Shea B, Shrier I, Tugwell P, Turner L, Valentine JC, Waddington H, Waters E, Wells GA, Whiting PF, Higgins JP (2016) ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 355:i4919. 10.1136/bmj.i491927733354 10.1136/bmj.i4919
22. Follmann D Elliott P Suh I Cutler J Variance imputation for overviews of clinical trials with continuous response J Clin Epidemiol 1992 45 769 773 10.1016/0895-4356(92)90054-q 1619456
Follmann D, Elliott P, Suh I, Cutler J (1992) Variance imputation for overviews of clinical trials with continuous response. J Clin Epidemiol 45:769–773. 10.1016/0895-4356(92)90054-q1619456 10.1016/0895-4356(92)90054-q
23. Weir CJ Butcher I Assi V Lewis SC Murray GD Langhorne P Brady MC Dealing with missing standard deviation and mean values in meta-analysis of continuous outcomes: a systematic review BMC Med Res Methodol 2018 18 25 10.1186/s12874-018-0483-0 29514597
Weir CJ, Butcher I, Assi V, Lewis SC, Murray GD, Langhorne P, Brady MC (2018) Dealing with missing standard deviation and mean values in meta-analysis of continuous outcomes: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol 18:25. 10.1186/s12874-018-0483-029514597 10.1186/s12874-018-0483-0
24. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR (2009) Multiple outcomes or time-points within a study Introduction to Meta‐Analysis, 225–238
25. Khattab AM Hagras SM AbdElhamid A Torky MA Awad EA Abdelhameed AG Aflibercept with adjuvant micropulsed yellow laser versus aflibercept monotherapy in diabetic macular edema Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol=Albrecht Von Graefes Arch Klin Exp Ophthalmol 2019 257 1373 1380 10.1007/s00417-019-04355-6
Khattab AM, Hagras SM, AbdElhamid A, Torky MA, Awad EA, Abdelhameed AG (2019) Aflibercept with adjuvant micropulsed yellow laser versus aflibercept monotherapy in diabetic macular edema. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol=Albrecht Von Graefes Arch Klin Exp Ophthalmol 257:1373–1380. 10.1007/s00417-019-04355-610.1007/s00417-019-04355-6
26. Koushan K Eshtiaghi A Fung P Berger AR Chow DR Treatment of diabetic macular edema with aflibercept and micropulse laser (DAM study) Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, NZ) 2022 16 1109 1115 10.2147/opth.S360869
Koushan K, Eshtiaghi A, Fung P, Berger AR, Chow DR (2022) Treatment of diabetic macular edema with aflibercept and micropulse laser (DAM study). Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, NZ) 16:1109–1115. 10.2147/opth.S36086910.2147/opth.S360869
27. Abouhussein MA Gomaa AR Aflibercept plus micropulse laser versus aflibercept monotherapy for diabetic macular edema: 1-year results of a randomized clinical trial Int Ophthalmol 2020 40 1147 1154 10.1007/s10792-019-01280-9 31919773
Abouhussein MA, Gomaa AR (2020) Aflibercept plus micropulse laser versus aflibercept monotherapy for diabetic macular edema: 1-year results of a randomized clinical trial. Int Ophthalmol 40:1147–1154. 10.1007/s10792-019-01280-931919773 10.1007/s10792-019-01280-9
28. Furashova O Strassburger P Becker KA Engelmann K Efficacy of combining intravitreal injections of ranibizumab with micropulse diode laser versus intravitreal injections of ranibizumab alone in diabetic macular edema (ReCaLL): a single center, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority clinical trial BMC Ophthalmol 2020 20 308 10.1186/s12886-020-01576-w 32727496
Furashova O, Strassburger P, Becker KA, Engelmann K (2020) Efficacy of combining intravitreal injections of ranibizumab with micropulse diode laser versus intravitreal injections of ranibizumab alone in diabetic macular edema (ReCaLL): a single center, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority clinical trial. BMC Ophthalmol 20:308. 10.1186/s12886-020-01576-w32727496 10.1186/s12886-020-01576-w
29. Tatsumi T Takatsuna Y Oshitari T Kaiho T Kawasaki Y Shiko Y Sugawara T Baba T Yamamoto S Randomized clinical trial comparing intravitreal aflibercept combined with subthreshold laser to intravitreal aflibercept monotherapy for diabetic macular edema Sci Rep 2022 12 10672 10.1038/s41598-022-14444-y 35739147
Tatsumi T, Takatsuna Y, Oshitari T, Kaiho T, Kawasaki Y, Shiko Y, Sugawara T, Baba T, Yamamoto S (2022) Randomized clinical trial comparing intravitreal aflibercept combined with subthreshold laser to intravitreal aflibercept monotherapy for diabetic macular edema. Sci Rep 12:10672. 10.1038/s41598-022-14444-y35739147 10.1038/s41598-022-14444-y
30. Altınel MG Acikalin B Alis MG Demir G Mutibayraktaroglu KM Totuk OMG Ardagil A Comparison of the efficacy and safety of anti-VEGF monotherapy versus anti-VEGF therapy combined with subthreshold micropulse laser therapy for diabetic macular edema Lasers Med Sci 2021 36 1545 1553 10.1007/s10103-021-03306-0 33813612
Altınel MG, Acikalin B, Alis MG, Demir G, Mutibayraktaroglu KM, Totuk OMG, Ardagil A (2021) Comparison of the efficacy and safety of anti-VEGF monotherapy versus anti-VEGF therapy combined with subthreshold micropulse laser therapy for diabetic macular edema. Lasers Med Sci 36:1545–1553. 10.1007/s10103-021-03306-033813612 10.1007/s10103-021-03306-0
31. Moisseiev E Abbassi S Thinda S Yoon J Yiu G Morse LS Subthreshold micropulse laser reduces anti-VEGF injection burden in patients with diabetic macular edema Eur J Ophthalmol 2018 28 68 73 10.5301/ejo.5001000 28731494
Moisseiev E, Abbassi S, Thinda S, Yoon J, Yiu G, Morse LS (2018) Subthreshold micropulse laser reduces anti-VEGF injection burden in patients with diabetic macular edema. Eur J Ophthalmol 28:68–73. 10.5301/ejo.500100028731494 10.5301/ejo.5001000
32. McGuinness LA, Higgins JPT (2020) Risk-of-bias VISualization (robvis): an R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk-of-bias assessments. Res Synth Methods n/a. 10.1002/jrsm.1411
33. Ishibashi T Li X Koh A Lai TY Lee FL Lee WK Ma Z Ohji M Tan N Cha SB Shamsazar J Yau CL The REVEAL study: ranibizumab monotherapy or combined with laser versus laser monotherapy in Asian patients with diabetic macular edema Ophthalmology 2015 122 1402 1415 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.02.006 25983216
Ishibashi T, Li X, Koh A, Lai TY, Lee FL, Lee WK, Ma Z, Ohji M, Tan N, Cha SB, Shamsazar J, Yau CL (2015) The REVEAL study: ranibizumab monotherapy or combined with laser versus laser monotherapy in Asian patients with diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology 122:1402–1415. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.02.00625983216 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.02.006
34. Cuervo-Lozano E González-Cortés JH Olvera-Barrios A Treviño-Cavazos E Rodríguez-Pedraza J Mohamed-Noriega K Mohamed-Hamsho J Short-term outcomes after the loading phase of intravitreal bevacizumab and subthreshold macular laser in non-center involved diabetic macular edema Int J Ophthalmol 2018 11 981 985 10.18240/ijo.2018.06.14 29977811
Cuervo-Lozano E, González-Cortés JH, Olvera-Barrios A, Treviño-Cavazos E, Rodríguez-Pedraza J, Mohamed-Noriega K, Mohamed-Hamsho J (2018) Short-term outcomes after the loading phase of intravitreal bevacizumab and subthreshold macular laser in non-center involved diabetic macular edema. Int J Ophthalmol 11:981–985. 10.18240/ijo.2018.06.1429977811 10.18240/ijo.2018.06.14
35. Bressler NM Beaulieu WT Maguire MG Glassman AR Blinder KJ Bressler SB Gonzalez VH Jampol LM Melia M Sun JK Wells JA 3rd Early response to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor and two-year outcomes among eyes with diabetic macular edema in protocol T Am J Ophthalmol 2018 195 93 100 10.1016/j.ajo.2018.07.030 30077569
Bressler NM, Beaulieu WT, Maguire MG, Glassman AR, Blinder KJ, Bressler SB, Gonzalez VH, Jampol LM, Melia M, Sun JK, Wells JA 3rd (2018) Early response to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor and two-year outcomes among eyes with diabetic macular edema in protocol T. Am J Ophthalmol 195:93–100. 10.1016/j.ajo.2018.07.03030077569 10.1016/j.ajo.2018.07.030
36. Wells JA Glassman AR Ayala AR Jampol LM Bressler NM Bressler SB Brucker AJ Ferris FL Hampton GR Jhaveri C Melia M Beck RW Aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema: two-year results from a comparative effectiveness randomized clinical trial Ophthalmology 2016 123 1351 1359 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.02.022 26935357
Wells JA, Glassman AR, Ayala AR, Jampol LM, Bressler NM, Bressler SB, Brucker AJ, Ferris FL, Hampton GR, Jhaveri C, Melia M, Beck RW (2016) Aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema: two-year results from a comparative effectiveness randomized clinical trial. Ophthalmology 123:1351–1359. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.02.02226935357 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.02.022
37. Arevalo JF Garcia-Amaris RA Intravitreal bevacizumab for diabetic retinopathy Curr Diabetes Rev 2009 5 39 46 10.2174/157339909787314121 19199897
Arevalo JF, Garcia-Amaris RA (2009) Intravitreal bevacizumab for diabetic retinopathy. Curr Diabetes Rev 5:39–46. 10.2174/15733990978731412119199897 10.2174/157339909787314121
38. Korobelnik JF Do DV Schmidt-Erfurth U Boyer DS Holz FG Heier JS Midena E Kaiser PK Terasaki H Marcus DM Nguyen QD Jaffe GJ Slakter JS Simader C Soo Y Schmelter T Yancopoulos GD Stahl N Vitti R Berliner AJ Zeitz O Metzig C Brown DM Intravitreal aflibercept for diabetic macular edema Ophthalmology 2014 121 2247 2254 10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.05.006 25012934
Korobelnik JF, Do DV, Schmidt-Erfurth U, Boyer DS, Holz FG, Heier JS, Midena E, Kaiser PK, Terasaki H, Marcus DM, Nguyen QD, Jaffe GJ, Slakter JS, Simader C, Soo Y, Schmelter T, Yancopoulos GD, Stahl N, Vitti R, Berliner AJ, Zeitz O, Metzig C, Brown DM (2014) Intravitreal aflibercept for diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology 121:2247–2254. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.05.00625012934 10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.05.006
39. Dossarps D Bron AM Koehrer P Aho-Glélé LS Creuzot-Garcher C Endophthalmitis after intravitreal injections: incidence, presentation, management, and visual outcome Am J Ophthalmol 2015 160 17 25.e11 10.1016/j.ajo.2015.04.013 25892127
Dossarps D, Bron AM, Koehrer P, Aho-Glélé LS, Creuzot-Garcher C (2015) Endophthalmitis after intravitreal injections: incidence, presentation, management, and visual outcome. Am J Ophthalmol 160:17-25.e11. 10.1016/j.ajo.2015.04.01325892127 10.1016/j.ajo.2015.04.013
40. Jonas JB Spandau UH Schlichtenbrede F Short-term complications of intravitreal injections of triamcinolone and bevacizumab Eye (Lond) 2008 22 590 591 10.1038/eye.2008.10 18292795
Jonas JB, Spandau UH, Schlichtenbrede F (2008) Short-term complications of intravitreal injections of triamcinolone and bevacizumab. Eye (Lond) 22:590–591. 10.1038/eye.2008.1018292795 10.1038/eye.2008.10
41. Vujosevic S Bottega E Casciano M Pilotto E Convento E Midena E Microperimetry and fundus autofluorescence in diabetic macular edema: subthreshold micropulse diode laser versus modified early treatment diabetic retinopathy study laser photocoagulation Retina (Philadelphia, Pa) 2010 30 908 916 10.1097/IAE.0b013e3181c96986 20168272
Vujosevic S, Bottega E, Casciano M, Pilotto E, Convento E, Midena E (2010) Microperimetry and fundus autofluorescence in diabetic macular edema: subthreshold micropulse diode laser versus modified early treatment diabetic retinopathy study laser photocoagulation. Retina (Philadelphia, Pa) 30:908–916. 10.1097/IAE.0b013e3181c9698620168272 10.1097/IAE.0b013e3181c96986
42. Jorge E, Jorge E, Botelho M, Farat J, Virgili G, Dib R (2018) Monotherapy laser photocoagulation for diabetic macular oedema. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 10. 10.1002/14651858.CD010859.pub2
43. Lavinsky D Cardillo JA Melo LA Jr Dare A Farah ME Belfort R Jr Randomized clinical trial evaluating mETDRS versus normal or high-density micropulse photocoagulation for diabetic macular edema Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011 52 4314 4323 10.1167/iovs.10-6828 21345996
Lavinsky D, Cardillo JA, Melo LA Jr, Dare A, Farah ME, Belfort R Jr (2011) Randomized clinical trial evaluating mETDRS versus normal or high-density micropulse photocoagulation for diabetic macular edema. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 52:4314–4323. 10.1167/iovs.10-682821345996 10.1167/iovs.10-6828
44. Mansouri A Sampat KM Malik KJ Steiner JN Glaser BM Efficacy of subthreshold micropulse laser in the treatment of diabetic macular edema is influenced by pre-treatment central foveal thickness Eye 2014 28 1418 1424 10.1038/eye.2014.264 25359290
Mansouri A, Sampat KM, Malik KJ, Steiner JN, Glaser BM (2014) Efficacy of subthreshold micropulse laser in the treatment of diabetic macular edema is influenced by pre-treatment central foveal thickness. Eye 28:1418–1424. 10.1038/eye.2014.26425359290 10.1038/eye.2014.264
45. Vujosevic S Martini F Longhin E Convento E Cavarzeran F Midena E Subthreshold micropulse yellow laser versus subthreshold micropulse infrared laser in center-involving diabetic macular edema: morphologic and functional safety Retina (Philadelphia, Pa) 2015 35 1594 1603 10.1097/iae.0000000000000521 25719988
Vujosevic S, Martini F, Longhin E, Convento E, Cavarzeran F, Midena E (2015) Subthreshold micropulse yellow laser versus subthreshold micropulse infrared laser in center-involving diabetic macular edema: morphologic and functional safety. Retina (Philadelphia, Pa) 35:1594–1603. 10.1097/iae.000000000000052125719988 10.1097/iae.0000000000000521
46. Chhablani J Alshareef R Kim DT Narayanan R Goud A Mathai A Comparison of different settings for yellow subthreshold laser treatment in diabetic macular edema BMC Ophthalmol 2018 18 168 10.1186/s12886-018-0841-z 29996798
Chhablani J, Alshareef R, Kim DT, Narayanan R, Goud A, Mathai A (2018) Comparison of different settings for yellow subthreshold laser treatment in diabetic macular edema. BMC Ophthalmol 18:168. 10.1186/s12886-018-0841-z29996798 10.1186/s12886-018-0841-z
47. Kun L Hanying W Wei H Jian Y Yanping S Yusheng W Xiaoling L Zhifeng W Shaojun C Ke F Yuling L Feng Z Zhiqing L Lin L Junjun Z Xuedong Z Junjie Y Xiaoling L Xiaoxin L Xiao K Quan W Jie L Shanshan T Xinguo W Philip R Jeffrey SH Peter K Xun X Intravitreal conbercept for diabetic macular oedema: 2-year results from a randomised controlled trial and open-label extension study Br J Ophthalmol 2022 106 1436 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-318690 34001667
Kun L, Hanying W, Wei H, Jian Y, Yanping S, Yusheng W, Xiaoling L, Zhifeng W, Shaojun C, Ke F, Yuling L, Feng Z, Zhiqing L, Lin L, Junjun Z, Xuedong Z, Junjie Y, Xiaoling L, Xiaoxin L, Xiao K, Quan W, Jie L, Shanshan T, Xinguo W, Philip R, Jeffrey SH, Peter K, Xun X (2022) Intravitreal conbercept for diabetic macular oedema: 2-year results from a randomised controlled trial and open-label extension study. Br J Ophthalmol 106:1436. 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-31869034001667 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-318690
48. Sun X Wei W Intravitreal conbercept with grid/focal photocoagulation for the treatment of diabetic macular edema: a systematic review and meta-analysis J Ophthalmol 2022 2022 2256779 10.1155/2022/2256779 35251705
Sun X, Wei W (2022) Intravitreal conbercept with grid/focal photocoagulation for the treatment of diabetic macular edema: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Ophthalmol 2022:2256779. 10.1155/2022/225677935251705 10.1155/2022/2256779
49. Chang DB Luttrull JK Comparison of subthreshold 577 and 810 nm micropulse laser effects on heat-shock protein activation kinetics: implications for treatment efficacy and safety Transl Vis Sci Technol 2020 9 23 10.1167/tvst.9.5.23 32821495
Chang DB, Luttrull JK (2020) Comparison of subthreshold 577 and 810 nm micropulse laser effects on heat-shock protein activation kinetics: implications for treatment efficacy and safety. Transl Vis Sci Technol 9:23. 10.1167/tvst.9.5.2332821495 10.1167/tvst.9.5.23
50. Sramek C Mackanos M Spitler R Leung L-S Nomoto H Contag CH Palanker D Non-damaging retinal phototherapy: dynamic range of heat shock protein expression Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011 52 1780 1787 10.1167/iovs.10-5917 21087969
Sramek C, Mackanos M, Spitler R, Leung L-S, Nomoto H, Contag CH, Palanker D (2011) Non-damaging retinal phototherapy: dynamic range of heat shock protein expression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 52:1780–1787. 10.1167/iovs.10-591721087969 10.1167/iovs.10-5917
51. Midena E Micera A Frizziero L Pilotto E Esposito G Bini S Sub-threshold micropulse laser treatment reduces inflammatory biomarkers in aqueous humour of diabetic patients with macular edema Sci Rep 2019 9 10034 10.1038/s41598-019-46515-y 31296907
Midena E, Micera A, Frizziero L, Pilotto E, Esposito G, Bini S (2019) Sub-threshold micropulse laser treatment reduces inflammatory biomarkers in aqueous humour of diabetic patients with macular edema. Sci Rep 9:10034. 10.1038/s41598-019-46515-y31296907 10.1038/s41598-019-46515-y
