Search

Key Points: Question: In patients with nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) and good vision but without center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME), does early aflibercept reduce disease progression and improve long-term visual acuity compared with initial observation and treatment only if disease worsens? Findings: This study presents 4-year primary outcomes of a randomized clinical trial that included 328 patients (399 eyes), randomized to 2.0 mg aflibercept injections or sham injections. Among those receiving aflibercept, proliferative diabetic retinopathy or CI-DME developed in 33.9% vs 56.9% among those who received sham—a difference that was statistically significant. Change in visual acuity was −2.7 vs −2.4 letters, a difference that was not statistically significant. Meaning: At 4 years, treatment of NPDR with aflibercept vs sham treatment resulted in statistically significant anatomic improvement, but no improvement in visual acuity. Importance: Anti–vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections in eyes with nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) without center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME) reduce development of vision-threatening complications from diabetes over at least 2 years, but whether this treatment has a longer-term benefit on visual acuity is unknown. Objective: To compare the primary 4-year outcomes of visual acuity and rates of vision-threatening complications in eyes with moderate to severe NPDR treated with intravitreal aflibercept compared with sham. The primary 2-year analysis of this study has been reported. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted at 64 clinical sites in the US and Canada from January 2016 to March 2018, enrolling 328 adults (399 eyes) with moderate to severe NPDR (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] severity level 43-53; range, 0 [worst] to 100 [best]) without CI-DME. Interventions: Eyes were randomly assigned to 2.0 mg aflibercept (n = 200) or sham (n = 199). Eight injections were administered at defined intervals through 2 years, continuing quarterly through 4 years unless the eye improved to mild NPDR or better. Aflibercept was given in both groups to treat development of high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) or CI-DME with vision loss. Main Outcomes and Measures: Development of PDR or CI-DME with vision loss (≥10 letters at 1 visit or ≥5 letters at 2 consecutive visits) and change in visual acuity (best corrected ETDRS letter score) from baseline to 4 years. Results: Among participants (mean age 56 years; 42.4% female; 5% Asian, 15% Black, 32% Hispanic, 45% White), the 4-year cumulative probability of developing PDR or CI-DME with vision loss was 33.9% with aflibercept vs 56.9% with sham (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.40 [97.5% CI, 0.28 to 0.57]; P <.001). The mean (SD) change in visual acuity from baseline to 4 years was −2.7 (6.5) letters with aflibercept and −2.4 (5.8) letters with sham (adjusted mean difference, −0.5 letters [97.5% CI, −2.3 to 1.3]; P =.52). Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration cardiovascular/cerebrovascular event rates were 9.9% (7 of 71) in bilateral participants, 10.9% (14 of 129) in unilateral aflibercept participants, and 7.8% (10 of 128) in unilateral sham participants. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with NPDR but without CI-DME at 4 years treatment with aflibercept vs sham, initiating aflibercept treatment only if vision-threatening complications developed, resulted in statistically significant anatomic improvement but no improvement in visual acuity. Aflibercept as a preventive strategy, as used in this trial, may not be generally warranted for patients with NPDR without CI-DME. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02634333 This randomized clinical trial analyzes the effects of aflibercept injections vs sham for reducing disease progression and improving long-term visual acuity in patients with nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Vitreous hemorrhage from proliferative diabetic retinopathy can cause loss of vision. The best management approach is unknown.Objective: To compare initial treatment with intravitreous aflibercept vs vitrectomy with panretinal photocoagulation for vitreous hemorrhage from proliferative diabetic retinopathy.Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial at 39 DRCR Retina Network sites in the US and Canada including 205 adults with vison loss due to vitreous hemorrhage from proliferative diabetic retinopathy who were enrolled from November 2016 to December 2017. The final follow-up visit was completed in January 2020.Interventions: Random assignment of eyes (1 per participant) to aflibercept (100 participants) or vitrectomy with panretinal photocoagulation (105 participants). Participants whose eyes were assigned to aflibercept initially received 4 monthly injections. Both groups could receive aflibercept or vitrectomy during follow-up based on protocol criteria.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was mean visual acuity letter score (range, 0-100; higher scores indicate better vision) over 24 weeks (area under the curve); the study was powered to detect a difference of 8 letters. Secondary outcomes included mean visual acuity at 4 weeks and 2 years.Results: Among 205 participants (205 eyes) who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 57 [11] years; 115 [56%] men; mean visual acuity letter score, 34.5 [Snellen equivalent, 20/200]), 95% (195 of 205) completed the 24-week visit and 90% (177 of 196, excluding 9 deaths) completed the 2-year visit. The mean visual acuity letter score over 24 weeks was 59.3 (Snellen equivalent, 20/63) (95% CI, 54.9 to 63.7) in the aflibercept group vs 63.0 (Snellen equivalent, 20/63) (95% CI, 58.6 to 67.3) in the vitrectomy group (adjusted difference, -5.0 [95% CI, -10.2 to 0.3], P = .06). Among 23 secondary outcomes, 15 showed no significant difference. The mean visual acuity letter score was 52.6 (Snellen equivalent, 20/100) in the aflibercept group vs 62.3 (Snellen equivalent, 20/63) in the vitrectomy group at 4 weeks (adjusted difference, -11.2 [95% CI, -18.5 to -3.9], P = .003) and 73.7 (Snellen equivalent, 20/40) vs 71.0 (Snellen equivalent, 20/40) at 2 years (adjusted difference, 2.7 [95% CI, -3.1 to 8.4], P = .36). Over 2 years, 33 eyes (33%) assigned to aflibercept received vitrectomy and 34 eyes (32%) assigned to vitrectomy received subsequent aflibercept.Conclusions and Relevance: Among participants whose eyes had vitreous hemorrhage from proliferative diabetic retinopathy, there was no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome of mean visual acuity letter score over 24 weeks following initial treatment with intravitreous aflibercept vs vitrectomy with panretinal photocoagulation. However, the study may have been underpowered, considering the range of the 95% CI, to detect a clinically important benefit in favor of initial vitrectomy with panretinal photocoagulation.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02858076. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Aims: In clinical trials, participant retention is critical to reduce bias and maintain statistical power for hypothesis testing. Within a multi-center clinical trial of diabetic retinopathy, we investigated whether regular phone calls to participants from the coordinating center improved long-term participant retention. Methods: Among 305 adults in the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Retina Network Protocol S randomized trial, 152 participants were randomly assigned to receive phone calls at baseline, 6 months, and annually through 3 years (annual contact group) while 153 participants were assigned to receive a phone call at baseline only (baseline contact group). All participants could be contacted if visits were missed. The main outcomes were visit completion, excluding deaths, at 2 years (the primary outcome time point) and at 5 years (the final time point). Results: At baseline, 77% (117 of 152) of participants in the annual contact group and 76% (116 of 153) in the baseline contact group were successfully contacted. Among participants in the annual contact group active at each annual visit (i.e. not dropped from the study or deceased), 85% (125 of 147), 79% (108 of 136), and 88% (110 of 125) were contacted successfully by telephone around the time of the 1-, 2-, and 3-year visits, respectively. In the annual and baseline contact groups, completion rates for the 2-year primary outcome visit were 88% (129 of 147) versus 87% (125 of 144), respectively, with a risk ratio of 1.01 (95% confidence interval: 0.93–1.10, p =.81). At 5 years, the final study visit, participant completion rates were 67% (96 of 144) versus 66% (88 of 133) with a risk ratio of 1.01 (95% confidence interval = 0.85–1.19, p =.93). At 2 years, the completion rate of participants successfully contacted at baseline was 89% (202 of 226) versus 80% (52 of 65) among those not contacted successfully (risk ratio = 1.12, 95% confidence interval = 0.98–1.27, p =.09); at 5 years, the completion percentages by baseline contact success were 69% (148 of 213) versus 56% (36 of 64; risk ratio = 1.24, 95% confidence interval = 0.98–1.56, p =.08). Conclusion: Regular phone calls from the coordinating center to participants during follow-up in this randomized clinical trial did not improve long-term participant retention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Intravitreous injections of antivascular endothelial growth factor agents are effective for treating diabetic macular edema (DME) involving the center of the macula (center-involved DME [CI-DME]) with visual acuity impairment (20/32 or worse). The best approach to treating patients with CI-DME and good visual acuity (20/25 or better) is unknown.Objective: To compare vision loss at 2 years among eyes initially managed with aflibercept, laser photocoagulation, or observation.Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted at 91 US and Canadian sites among 702 adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Participants had 1 study eye with CI-DME and visual acuity of 20/25 or better. The first participant was randomized on November 8, 2013, and the final date of follow-up was September 11, 2018.Interventions: Eyes were randomly assigned to 2.0 mg of intravitreous aflibercept (n = 226) as frequently as every 4 weeks, focal/grid laser photocoagulation (n = 240), or observation (n = 236). Aflibercept was required for eyes in the laser photocoagulation or observation groups that had decreased visual acuity from baseline by at least 10 letters (≥ 2 lines on an eye chart) at any visit or by 5 to 9 letters (1-2 lines) at 2 consecutive visits.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was at least a 5-letter visual acuity decrease from baseline at 2 years. Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration adverse events (defined as myocardial infarction, stroke, or vascular or unknown death) were reported.Results: Among 702 randomized participants (mean age, 59 years; 38% female [n=264]), 625 of 681 (92% excluding deaths) completed the 2-year visit. For eyes with visual acuity that decreased from baseline, aflibercept was initiated in 25% (60/240) and 34% (80/236) in the laser photocoagulation and observation groups, respectively. At 2 years, the percentage of eyes with at least a 5-letter visual acuity decrease was 16% (33/205), 17% (36/212), and 19% (39/208) in the aflibercept, laser photocoagulation, and observation groups, respectively (aflibercept vs laser photocoagulation risk difference, -2% [95% CI, -9% to 5%]; relative risk, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.57-1.35; P = .79]; aflibercept vs observation risk difference, -3% [95% CI, -11% to 4%]; relative risk, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.55-1.27; P = .79]; laser photocoagulation vs observation risk difference, -1% [95% CI, -9% to 6%]; relative risk, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.64-1.41; P = .79]). Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration vascular events occurred in 15 (7%), 13 (5%), and 8 (3%) participants in the aflibercept, laser photocoagulation, and observation groups.Conclusions and Relevance: Among eyes with CI-DME and good visual acuity, there was no significant difference in vision loss at 2 years whether eyes were initially managed with aflibercept or with laser photocoagulation or observation and given aflibercept only if visual acuity worsened. Observation without treatment unless visual acuity worsens may be a reasonable strategy for CI-DME.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01909791. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) is the standard treatment for reducing severe visual loss from proliferative diabetic retinopathy. However, PRP can damage the retina, resulting in peripheral vision loss or worsening diabetic macular edema (DME).Objective: To evaluate the noninferiority of intravitreous ranibizumab compared with PRP for visual acuity outcomes in patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy.Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted at 55 US sites among 305 adults with proliferative diabetic retinopathy enrolled between February and December 2012 (mean age, 52 years; 44% female; 52% white). Both eyes were enrolled for 89 participants (1 eye to each study group), with a total of 394 study eyes. The final 2-year visit was completed in January 2015.Interventions: Individual eyes were randomly assigned to receive PRP treatment, completed in 1 to 3 visits (n = 203 eyes), or ranibizumab, 0.5 mg, by intravitreous injection at baseline and as frequently as every 4 weeks based on a structured re-treatment protocol (n = 191 eyes). Eyes in both treatment groups could receive ranibizumab for DME.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was mean visual acuity change at 2 years (5-letter noninferiority margin; intention-to-treat analysis). Secondary outcomes included visual acuity area under the curve, peripheral visual field loss, vitrectomy, DME development, and retinal neovascularization.Results: Mean visual acuity letter improvement at 2 years was +2.8 in the ranibizumab group vs +0.2 in the PRP group (difference, +2.2; 95% CI, -0.5 to +5.0; P < .001 for noninferiority). The mean treatment group difference in visual acuity area under the curve over 2 years was +4.2 (95% CI, +3.0 to +5.4; P < .001). Mean peripheral visual field sensitivity loss was worse (-23 dB vs -422 dB; difference, 372 dB; 95% CI, 213-531 dB; P < .001), vitrectomy was more frequent (15% vs 4%; difference, 9%; 95% CI, 4%-15%; P < .001), and DME development was more frequent (28% vs 9%; difference, 19%; 95% CI, 10%-28%; P < .001) in the PRP group vs the ranibizumab group, respectively. Eyes without active or regressed neovascularization at 2 years were not significantly different (35% in the ranibizumab group vs 30% in the PRP group; difference, 3%; 95% CI, -7% to 12%; P = .58). One eye in the ranibizumab group developed endophthalmitis. No significant differences between groups in rates of major cardiovascular events were identified.Conclusions and Relevance: Among eyes with proliferative diabetic retinopathy, treatment with ranibizumab resulted in visual acuity that was noninferior to (not worse than) PRP treatment at 2 years. Although longer-term follow-up is needed, ranibizumab may be a reasonable treatment alternative, at least through 2 years, for patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy.Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01489189. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Describe the underlying principles used to develop a web-based algorithm that incorporated intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment for diabetic macular edema (DME) in a Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network (DRCR.net) randomized clinical trial. Design: Discussion of treatment protocol for DME. Participants: Subjects with vision loss from DME involving the center of the macula. Methods: The DRCR.net created an algorithm incorporating anti-VEGF injections in a comparative effectiveness randomized clinical trial evaluating intravitreal ranibizumab with prompt or deferred (≥24 weeks) focal/grid laser in eyes with vision loss from center-involved DME. Results confirmed that intravitreal ranibizumab with prompt or deferred laser provides superior visual acuity outcomes, compared with prompt laser alone through at least 2 years. Duplication of this algorithm may not be practical for clinical practice. In order to share their opinion on how ophthalmologists might emulate the study protocol, participating DRCR.net investigators developed guidelines based on the algorithm's underlying rationale. Main Outcome Measures: Clinical guidelines based on a DRCR.net protocol. Results: The treatment protocol required real time feedback from a web-based data entry system for intravitreal injections, focal/grid laser, and follow-up intervals. Guidance from this system indicated whether treatment was required or given at investigator discretion and when follow-up should be scheduled. Clinical treatment guidelines, based on the underlying clinical rationale of the DRCR.net protocol, include repeating treatment monthly as long as there is improvement in edema compared with the previous month, or until the retina is no longer thickened. If thickening recurs or worsens after discontinuing treatment, treatment is resumed. Conclusions: Duplication of the approach used in the DRCR.net randomized clinical trial to treat DME involving the center of the macula with intravitreal ranibizumab may not be practical in clinical practice, but likely can be emulated based on an understanding of the underlying rationale for the study protocol. Inherent differences between a web-based treatment algorithm and a clinical approach may lead to differences in outcomes that are impossible to predict. The closer the clinical approach is to the algorithm used in the study, the more likely the outcomes will be similar to those published.

Background: In eyes with diabetic macular edema, the relative efficacy of administering aflibercept monotherapy as compared with bevacizumab first with a switch to aflibercept if the eye condition does not improve sufficiently (a form of step therapy) is unclear.Methods: At 54 clinical sites, we randomly assigned eyes in adults who had diabetic macular edema involving the macular center and a visual-acuity letter score of 24 to 69 (on a scale from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better visual acuity; Snellen equivalent, 20/320 to 20/50) to receive either 2.0 mg of intravitreous aflibercept or 1.25 mg of intravitreous bevacizumab. The drug was administered at randomization and thereafter according to the prespecified retreatment protocol. Beginning at 12 weeks, eyes in the bevacizumab-first group were switched to aflibercept therapy if protocol-specified criteria were met. The primary outcome was the mean change in visual acuity over the 2-year trial period. Retinal central subfield thickness and visual acuity at 2 years and safety were also assessed.Results: A total of 312 eyes (in 270 adults) underwent randomization; 158 eyes were assigned to receive aflibercept monotherapy and 154 to receive bevacizumab first. Over the 2-year period, 70% of the eyes in the bevacizumab-first group were switched to aflibercept therapy. The mean improvement in visual acuity was 15.0 letters in the aflibercept-monotherapy group and 14.0 letters in the bevacizumab-first group (adjusted difference, 0.8 letters; 95% confidence interval, -0.9 to 2.5; P = 0.37). At 2 years, the mean changes in visual acuity and retinal central subfield thickness were similar in the two groups. Serious adverse events (in 52% of the patients in the aflibercept-monotherapy group and in 36% of those in the bevacizumab-first group) and hospitalizations for adverse events (in 48% and 32%, respectively) were more common in the aflibercept-monotherapy group.Conclusions: In this trial of treatment of moderate vision loss due to diabetic macular edema involving the center of the macula, we found no evidence of a significant difference in visual outcomes over a 2-year period between aflibercept monotherapy and treatment with bevacizumab first with a switch to aflibercept in the case of suboptimal response. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; Protocol AC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03321513.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose To present the rationale, guidelines, and results of ranibizumab treatment for proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) in Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network (DRCR.net) Protocol S. Design Post hoc analyses from a randomized clinical trial. Participants Three hundred five participants (394 study eyes) having PDR without prior panretinal photocoagulation (PRP). Methods Intravitreous ranibizumab (0.5 mg) versus PRP for PDR. Ranbizumab-assigned eyes (n = 191) received monthly injections for 6 months unless resolution was achieved after 4 injections. After 6 months, injections could be deferred if neovascularization was stable over 3 consecutive visits (sustained stability). If neovascularization worsened, monthly treatment resumed. Panretinal photocoagulation could be initiated for failure or futility criteria. Main Outcome Measures Neovascularization status through 2 years. Results At 1 month, 19% (35 of 188) of ranibizumab-assigned eyes showed complete neovascularization resolution and an additional 60% (113) showed improvement. At 6 months, 52% (80 of 153) showed neovascularization resolution, 3% (4) were improved, 37% (56) were stable, and 8% (13) had worsened since the last visit. Among eyes with versus without resolved neovascularization at 6 months, the median (interquartile range) number of injections between 6 months and 2 years was 4 (1–7; n = 73) versus 7 (4–11; n = 67; P < 0.001). Injections were deferred in 68 of 73 eyes (93%) meeting sustained stability at least once during the study; 62% (42 of 68) resumed injections within 16 weeks after deferral. At 2 years, 43% (66 of 154) showed neovascularization resolution, 5% (7) showed improvement, 23% (36) were stable, and 27% (42) had worsened since the last visit. Only 3 eyes met criteria for failure or futility through 2 years. Conclusions The DRCR.net treatment algorithm for PDR can provide excellent clinical outcomes through 2 years for patients initiating anti–vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy for PDR. When choosing between anti-VEGF and PRP as first-line therapy for PDR, treatment decisions should be guided by consideration of the relative advantages of each therapeutic method and anticipated patient compliance with follow-up and treatment recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To report expanded 2-year follow-up of a previously reported randomized trial evaluating intravitreal 0.5 mg ranibizumab or 4 mg triamcinolone combined with focal/grid laser compared with focal/grid laser alone for treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME). Design: Multicenter, randomized clinical trial. Participants: A total of 854 study eyes of 691 participants with visual acuity of 20/32 to 20/320 (approximate Snellen equivalent) and DME involving the fovea. Methods: Continuation of procedures previously reported for the randomized trial. Main Outcome Measures: Best-corrected visual acuity and safety at the 2-year visit. Results: At the 2-year visit, compared with the sham + prompt laser group, the mean change in the visual acuity letter score from baseline was 3.7 letters greater in the ranibizumab + prompt laser group (95% confidence interval adjusted for multiple comparisons [aCI], −0.4 to +7.7), 5.8 letters greater in the ranibizumab + deferred laser group (95% aCI, +1.9 to +9.8), and 1.5 letters worse in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group (95% aCI, −5.5 to +2.4). After the 1- to 2-year visit in the ranibizumab + prompt or deferred laser groups, the median numbers of injections were 2 and 3 (potential maximum of 13), respectively. At the 2-year visit, the percentages of eyes with central subfield thickness ≥250 μm were 59% in the sham + prompt laser group, 43% in the ranibizumab + prompt laser group, 42% in the ranibizumab + deferred laser group, and 52% in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group. No systemic events attributable to study treatment were apparent. Three eyes in 3 (0.8%) of 375 participants had injection-related endophthalmitis in the ranibizumab groups, whereas elevated intraocular pressure and cataract surgery were more frequent in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group. Conclusions: The expanded 2-year results reported are similar to results published previously and reinforce the conclusions originally reported: Ranibizumab should be considered for patients with DME and characteristics similar to those of the cohort in this clinical trial, including vision impairment with DME involving the center of the macula. Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]