Port Delivery System Vs Monthly Ranibizumab in VEGF-Driven Macular Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose The comparative efficacy and safety of ranibizumab Port Delivery System (PDS) vs monthly intravitreal ranibizumab in Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF)-driven macular diseases remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PDS vs monthly ranibizumab in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) or diabetic macular edema (DME).Methods PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were searched for randomized controlled trials enrolling adults with neovascular age-related macular degeneration or diabetic macular edema treated with the ranibizumab Port Delivery System (100 mg/mL) versus monthly intravitreal ranibizumab 0.5 mg. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to a predefined PICOTT framework. Continuous and binary outcomes were pooled with mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI), respectively, with a random-effects model. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan.Results Three trials were included, with a total of 1,149 eyes of which 688 (60%) received PDS and 461 (40%) received monthly ranibizumab. No significant differences were observed in BCVA (nAMD: MD − 0.69 letters; 95% CI − 2.52 to 1.14; p = .46; DME: MD 0.20; 95% CI − 1.20 to 1.60; p = .78) or CRT (nAMD: MD 26.67 µm; 95% CI − 16.55 to 69.88; p = .23; DME: MD − 3.80; 95% CI − 17.20 to 9.60; p = .58). Incidence of ocular AEs was significantly higher with PDS (RR 1.80; 95% CI 1.49–2.17; p < .00001; I2=74%). Among specific complications, conjunctival bleb or filtering bleb leak (RR 15.29; 95% CI 2.31–101.35; p = .005), conjunctival erosion (RR 8.87; 95% CI 1.66–47.35; p = .01), vitreous hemorrhage (RR 3.61; 95% CI 1.24–10.49; p = .02), hyphema (RR 5.77; 95% CI 1.03–32.20; p = .05), and conjunctival retraction (RR 5.78; 95% CI 1.04–32.29; p = .05) occurred significantly more often with PDS. Systemic AEs were comparable between treatment arms (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.89–1.13; p = .98).Conclusion In this systematic review and meta-analysis of three randomized controlled trials, PDS was associated with visual and anatomical results comparable to monthly ranibizumab in patients with nAMD. Evidence in DME was limited to a single trial, and conclusions in this population should be considered exploratory. PDS was associated with a higher incidence of procedure- and device-related ocular complications.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Seminars in Ophthalmology
Published
2026-06-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/08820538.2026.2693751
Primary Topic
Retinal Diseases and Treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Port Delivery System Vs Monthly Ranibizumab in VEGF-Driven Macular Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Otávio A.S. Toth, Melis Kabaalioğlu Güner, Matheus Pedrotti Chavez, Edhem Dogru et al.
Seminars in Ophthalmology
Retinal Diseases and Treatments
article

Port Delivery System Vs Monthly Ranibizumab in VEGF-Driven Macular Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Otávio A.S. Toth, Melis Kabaalioğlu Güner, Matheus Pedrotti Chavez, Edhem Dogru, Mirella Serafini
article en

Abstract

Purpose The comparative efficacy and safety of ranibizumab Port Delivery System (PDS) vs monthly intravitreal ranibizumab in Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF)-driven macular diseases remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PDS vs monthly ranibizumab in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) or diabetic macular edema (DME).Methods PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were searched for randomized controlled trials enrolling adults with neovascular age-related macular degeneration or diabetic macular edema treated with the ranibizumab Port Delivery System (100 mg/mL) versus monthly intravitreal ranibizumab 0.5 mg. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to a predefined PICOTT framework. Continuous and binary outcomes were pooled with mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI), respectively, with a random-effects model. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan.Results Three trials were included, with a total of 1,149 eyes of which 688 (60%) received PDS and 461 (40%) received monthly ranibizumab. No significant differences were observed in BCVA (nAMD: MD − 0.69 letters; 95% CI − 2.52 to 1.14; p = .46; DME: MD 0.20; 95% CI − 1.20 to 1.60; p = .78) or CRT (nAMD: MD 26.67 µm; 95% CI − 16.55 to 69.88; p = .23; DME: MD − 3.80; 95% CI − 17.20 to 9.60; p = .58). Incidence of ocular AEs was significantly higher with PDS (RR 1.80; 95% CI 1.49–2.17; p < .00001; I2=74%). Among specific complications, conjunctival bleb or filtering bleb leak (RR 15.29; 95% CI 2.31–101.35; p = .005), conjunctival erosion (RR 8.87; 95% CI 1.66–47.35; p = .01), vitreous hemorrhage (RR 3.61; 95% CI 1.24–10.49; p = .02), hyphema (RR 5.77; 95% CI 1.03–32.20; p = .05), and conjunctival retraction (RR 5.78; 95% CI 1.04–32.29; p = .05) occurred significantly more often with PDS. Systemic AEs were comparable between treatment arms (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.89–1.13; p = .98).Conclusion In this systematic review and meta-analysis of three randomized controlled trials, PDS was associated with visual and anatomical results comparable to monthly ranibizumab in patients with nAMD. Evidence in DME was limited to a single trial, and conclusions in this population should be considered exploratory. PDS was associated with a higher incidence of procedure- and device-related ocular complications.

Seminars in Ophthalmology
Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy (RO), Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (BR), Centro Universitário Maurício de Nassau (BR), University of Louisville Hospital (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Retinal Diseases and Treatments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.