Subthreshold Compared with Threshold Macular Photocoagulation for Diabetic Macular Edema
Journal Articles
Overview
Research
Identity
Additional Document Info
View All
Overview
abstract
TOPIC: To compare the efficacy and safety of subthreshold macular laser to conventional focal laser photocoagulation for the treatment of vision loss secondary to diabetic macular edema (DME). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Macular laser remains an important and cost effective treatment option for vision loss secondary to DME. Although anti-VEGF therapy is often first-line, macular laser is of utility in low-resource or remote settings, for patients at risk of loss to follow-up, and for DME not meeting country-specific reimbursement criteria for anti-VEGF therapy. Subthreshold laser is a modality that does not produce clinical or histologic evidence of thermal damage, thereby potentially limiting the common complications of conventional laser. METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to September 28, 2022. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects modeling. Data were collected at 12 and 24 months for best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness, diabetic retinopathy severity scale, rate of adverse events, rate of enrolled patients not completing treatment, rate of patients receiving retreatment, and quality-of-life measures. The risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed using Cochrane's Risk-of-Bias version 2 and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) frameworks, respectively. Subgroup analysis was performed between subthreshold laser modalities and evaluated with Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses tool. RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs comprising 514 eyes receiving conventional laser and 574 eyes receiving subthreshold laser were included. Subthreshold laser likely results in no difference to BCVA (moderate GRADE certainty) compared with conventional laser. Conventional laser demonstrated a small, statistically significant improvement in central retinal thickness (low GRADE certainty); however, the magnitude of this improvement is unlikely to be clinically important. There may not be a difference in the rate of adverse events (low GRADE certainty) at 12 months when comparing subthreshold laser to conventional laser for DME. CONCLUSION: Randomized controlled trial literature to date suggests subthreshold laser to be as effective as conventional laser in the treatment of DME. Increased follow-up duration is needed to observe any long-term safety benefit from reduced retinal damage. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
