Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of local triamcinolone combined with conventional interventional therapy in the treatment of benign airway stenosis. Methods PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMbase, Web of science, wanfang, VIP and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were searched by computer between the establishment of the database and August, 2019, and all literatures on the local treatment of benign airway stenosis using triamcinolone combined with conventional interventional therapy were searched. According to inclusion and exclusion criteria, 2 researchers screened the literatures and performed the data extraction and methodological quality evaluation. Meta-analysis was performed with Revman5.2 and Stata software. Results In total, nine randomized controlled trials were included in this meta-analysis, including 449 patients with airway stenosis. The total result showed that in the comparison of short-term efficacy, there were no statistically significant differences in breathability score (SMD=–0.16, 95%CI –0.45 - 0.13, P=0.27), airway diameter (SMD=0.14, 95%CI –0.13 - 0.41, P=0.30), and cross-sectional stenosis rate (SMD=–0.01, 95%CI –0.36 - 0.34, P=0.96) between the treatment group and the control group. In the comparison of long-term efficacy, the breathability score (SMD=–2.53, 95%CI –3.78 - –1.28, P<0.05), airway diameter (SMD=1.31, 95%CI 0.83 - 1.78, P<0.05), cross-sectional stenosis rate (SMD=2.58, 95%CI: 2.11~3.08, P<0.05), and FEV1(SMD=0.42, 95%CI 0.13 - 0.70, P=0.004) of patients in the treatment group were all better than those in the control group. But in terms of adverse reactions, the incidence of bleeding in the airway between two groups was similar (RR=2.00, 95%CI 0.88 - 4.52, P=0.10), other adverse reactions such as blood glucose and plasma cortisol levels were mild, which can be relieved symptomatically. Conclusion Current evidence suggests that topical triamcinolone combined with conventional interventional therapy for benign airway stenosis has a better long-term clinical efficacy with fewer adverse reactions and better overall patient tolerance, which has clinical application value
目的 评估光动力疗法联合曲安奈德治疗渗出型老年性黄斑变性（AMD）的临床疗效及对患者生活质量的影响。 方法 将2007年12月－2010年12月就诊的35例（38只眼）渗出型AMD患者采用随机数字表法随机分为两组，治疗组18例（20只眼）采用光动力疗法联合玻璃体腔内注射曲安奈德治疗，对照组17例（18只眼）单用光动力疗法。评估患者视力和眼底影像学改变，同时也评估对患者生活质量的影响。两组均随访12个月。 结果 随访12个月后，光动力疗法联合曲安奈德治疗组视力不变者8例9只眼，占45.0%；视力提高者9例10只眼，占50.0%；视力下降者1例1只眼，占5.0%。吲哚青绿血管造影结果显示，脉络膜新生血管（CNV）渗漏停止7例7只眼，占35.0%；持续渗漏或渗漏增加者1例1只眼，占5.0%；渗漏减少者11例12只眼，占60.0%。光动力疗法治疗组视力不变者6例6只眼，占33.3%；视力提高者4例5只眼，占27.8%；视力下降者7例7只眼，占38.9%。吲哚青绿血管造影结果显示，CNV渗漏停止3例3只眼，占16.7%；持续渗漏或渗漏增加者5例6只眼，占33.3%；渗漏减少者9例9只眼，占50.0%。联合治疗组与单用光动力疗法组在视力改变方面差异有统计学意义（χ2=4.67，P=0.03），在吲哚青绿血管造影结果方面差异有统计学意义（χ2=3.35，P=0.01）。中文译本低视力者生存质量量表评估生活质量治疗组平均得分（102.02 ± 16.20）分，对照组平均得分为（91.27 ± 11.81）分，两组比较差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。 结论 光动力疗法联合曲安奈德治疗渗出型AMD疗效优于单用光动力疗法。
Diabetic macular edema (DME) is the most threatening complication of diabetic retinopathy that affects visual function, which is characterized by intractability and recurrent attacks. Currently, the clinical routine treatments for DME mainly include intravitreal injection, grid laser photocoagulation in the macular area, subthreshold micropulse laser, periocular corticosteroid injection, and vitrectomy. Although conventional treatments are effective for some patients, persistent, refractory, and recurrent DME remains a clinical challenge that needs to be urgently addressed. In recent years, clinical studies have found that certain combination therapies are superior to monotherapy, which can not only restore the anatomical structure of the macular area and effectively reduce macular edema but also improve visual function to some extent while reducing the number of treatments and the overall cost. This makes up for the shortcomings of single treatment modalities and is highly anticipated in the clinical setting. However, the application of combination therapy in clinical practice is relatively short, and its safety and long-term effectiveness need further exploration. Currently, new drugs, new formulations, and new therapeutic targets are still under research and development to address different mechanisms of DME occurrence and development, such as anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents designed to anchor repetitive sequence proteins with stronger inhibition of vascular leakage, multiple growth factor inhibitors, anti-inflammatory agents, and stem cell therapy. With the continuous improvement of the combination application of existing drugs and treatments and the development of new drugs and treatment technologies, personalized treatment for DME will become possible.
Objective To evaluate the single-use of laser photocoagulation (LP) and the combined-use of laser photocoagulation plus intravitreal triamcinolone (LP+IVTA) for diabetic macular edema (DME) in terms of clinical therapeutic effect and safety. Methods Such databases as The Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, CBM, CNKI and Wanfang Data were searched from the date of their establishment to September 2011, and the references of all included studies were also traced, so as to identify the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on LP vs. LP+IVTA for DME. The quality assessment and data extraction were conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook 5.0 by two reviewers independently, and then Meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan 5.0 software. Results Ten RCTs involving 525 ill eyes were included, and all of them were classified as Grade B in methodological quality. Results of meta-analysis showed that: at the end of follow-up, there were significant differences between the LP+IVTA group and the LP group in the best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) (RR=–0.14, 95%CI –0.20 to –0.08, Plt;0.000 01), and the central macular thickness (CMT) (RR=–56.78, 95%CI –84.03 to –29.54, Plt;0.000 1). In comparison with the LP group, there were more people in the LP+IVTA group who needed to be treated for their elevated intraocular pressure and to have surgery for the progression of cataract. But no significant difference was found between the two groups in vitreous hemorrhage, retinal detachment, retinal vein occlusion and macular epiretinal membrane. Conclusion Current evidence of clinical research shows that the LP+IVTA is superior to LP in reducing macular edema and improving vision in the treatment of diabetic macular edema, but it may also result in a high incidence of elevated intraocular pressure and cataract. Because the methodological quality limitation of included studies may affect the authenticity of outcomes, this conclusion has to be further proved by more high-quality and large-scale clinical trials.