Search

To investigate whether anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) for diabetic macular edema or proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) increases the risk of traction retinal detachment (TRD) among eyes with PDR.Pooled analysis of PDR eyes from Protocols I, J, N, S, or T with Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study level ≥61 (prompt vitrectomy was not planned) randomly assigned to the control group (laser photocoagulation, sham, or intravitreal saline; 396 eyes) or anti-VEGF (487 eyes). The primary outcome was investigator-identified TRD within 1 year of randomization.The 1-year cumulative probability of TRD was 6.8% (95% confidence interval: 4.6%-9.9%, 25 events) in control-group eyes and 4.8% (95% confidence interval: 3.2%-7.3%, 22 events) in anti-VEGF group eyes (hazard ratio = 0.95 [95% confidence interval: 0.54-1.66, P = 0.86]). The cumulative probability of vitrectomy for TRD was 4.4% (16 events) in control-group eyes and 2.2% (9 events) in anti-VEGF group eyes (P = 0.19). Percentage with TRD and vitrectomy for TRD were similar within strata of diabetic retinopathy severity.These findings do not support the hypothesis that anti-VEGF therapy for diabetic macular edema or PDR increases the risk of TRD among eyes with PDR similar to those enrolled in five DRCR Retina Network protocols for which prompt vitrectomy was not planned.

IMPORTANCE: Although there were no differences in mean visual acuity (VA) over 24 weeks after vitrectomy with panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) vs aflibercept in a randomized clinical trial among eyes with vitreous hemorrhage due to proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR), post hoc analyses may influence treatment choices. OBJECTIVE: To compare exploratory outcomes between treatment groups that may affect treatment choices for patients with vitreous hemorrhage due to PDR. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial conducted at 39 DRCR Retina Network sites included adults with vision loss due to PDR-related vitreous hemorrhage for whom vitrectomy was considered. Data were collected from November 2016 to January 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Random assignment to 4 monthly injections of aflibercept vs vitrectomy with PRP. Both groups could receive aflibercept or vitrectomy during follow-up based on protocol-specific criteria. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Visual acuity area under the curve (adjusted for baseline VA) and clearance of vitreous hemorrhage. RESULTS: A total of 205 eyes were included in the analysis (115 male [56%] and 90 [44%] female participants; mean [SD] age, 57 [11] years). Among 89 eyes with a baseline VA of 20/32 to 20/160 (47 receiving aflibercept, including 4 [9%] that had undergone vitrectomy; 42 undergoing vitrectomy, including 3 [7%] that had received aflibercept), the adjusted mean difference in VA letter score over 24 weeks between the aflibercept and vitrectomy groups was −4.3 (95% CI, −10.6 to 1.9) compared with −16.7 (95% CI, −24.4 to −9.1) among 59 eyes with baseline VA worse than 20/800 (P = .02 for interaction; 26 in the aflibercept group, including 6 [23%] that had undergone vitrectomy; 33 in the vitrectomy group, including 8 [24%] that had received aflibercept). In the full cohort, the median time to clearance of the initial vitreous hemorrhage was 36 (interquartile range [IQR], 24-52) weeks in the aflibercept group vs 4 (IQR, 4-4) weeks in the vitrectomy group (difference, 32 [95% CI, 20-32] weeks; P

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate pneumatic vitreolysis (PVL) in eyes with vitreomacular traction (VMT) with and without full-thickness macular hole (FTMH). DESIGN: Two multi-center (28 sites) studies: one randomized clinical trial comparing PVL with observation (sham injection) for VMT without FTMH (Protocol AG), and a single-arm study assessing PVL for closure of FTMH (Protocol AH). PARTICIPANTS: Participants were adults with central VMT in which the vitreomacular adhesion was 3000 μm or less. In AG, visual acuity (VA) was 20/32 to 20/400. In AH, eyes had FTMH (≤250 μm at the narrowest point) and VA of 20/25 to 20/400. INTERVENTION: PVL using C(3)F(8) gas. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Central VMT release without rescue treatment at 24 weeks (AG). FTMH closure without rescue treatment at 8 weeks (AH). RESULTS: From October 2018 to February 2020, 46 participants were enrolled in AG and 35 eligible participants were enrolled in AH. Higher than expected rates of retinal detachments and tears resulted in early termination of both protocols. Combining studies, 7 of 59 (12% [95% CI, 6%–23%]; 2 in AG, 5 in AH) eyes that received PVL developed rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (6) or retinal tear (1). At 24 weeks in AG, 18 of 23 eyes in the PVL group (78%) versus 2 of 22 eyes in the sham group (9%) had central VMT release without rescue vitrectomy (adjusted risk difference = 66% [95% CI, 44%–88%], P < .001). The mean change in VA letter score from baseline at 24 weeks in AG was 6.7 in the PVL group and 6.1 in the sham group (adjusted difference = −0.8 [95% CI, −6.1 to 4.5], P=.77; negative values indicate greater improvement in sham group). In AH,10 of 35 eyes (29% [95% CI, 16%–45%]) had FTMH closure without rescue vitrectomy at 8 weeks. The mean change in VA from baseline at 8 weeks in AH was −1.5 letters (95% CI, −10.3 to 7.3). CONCLUSIONS: In most eyes with VMT, PVL induced hyaloid release. In eyes with FTMH, PVL resulted in hole closure in approximately one third of eyes. These studies were terminated early because of safety concerns related to retinal detachments and retinal tears. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT03677869, NCT03647267

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

IMPORTANCE: Among eyes with center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME) and good visual acuity (VA), randomized clinical trial results showed no difference in VA loss between initial observation plus aflibercept only if VA decreased, initial focal/grid laser plus aflibercept only if VA decreased, or prompt aflibercept. Understanding the initial observation approach is relevant to patient management. OBJECTIVE: To assess the DRCR Retina Network protocol-defined approach and outcomes of initial observation with aflibercept only if VA worsened. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a post hoc secondary analyses of a randomized clinical trial of the DRCR Retina Network Protocol V that included 91 US and Canadian sites from November 2013 to September 2018. Participants were adults (n = 236) with type 1 or 2 diabetes, 1 study eye with CI-DME, and VA letter score at least 79 (Snellen equivalent, 20/25 or better) assigned to initial observation. Data were analyzed from March 2019 to November 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Initial observation and follow-up with aflibercept only for VA loss of at least 10 letters from baseline at 1 visit or 5 to 9 letters at 2 consecutive visits. Follow-up occurred at 8 weeks and then every 16 weeks unless VA or optical coherence tomography central subfield thickness worsened. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Whether individuals received aflibercept. RESULTS: Among 236 eyes in 236 individuals (149 [63%] male; median age, 60 years [interquartile range, 53-67 years]) randomly assigned to initial observation, 80 (34%) were treated with aflibercept during 2 years of follow-up. At 2 years, the median VA letter score was 86.0 (interquartile range, 89.0-81.0; median Snellen equivalent, 20/20 [20/16-20/25]). Receipt of aflibercept was more likely in eyes with baseline central subfield thickness at least 300 μm (Zeiss-Stratus equivalent) vs less than 300 μm (45% vs 26%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.98 [95% CI, 1.26-3.13], continuous P = .005), moderately severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study retinopathy severity level 47) and above vs moderate nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (retinopathy severity level 43) and below (51% vs 27%; HR, 2.22 [95% CI, 1.42-3.47], ordinal P

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.

Purpose Assess follow-up treatment and clinical outcomes at 5 years in eyes initially treated with anti-VEGF therapy for center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME) in a 2-year randomized clinical trial. Design Multicenter cohort study. Participants Participants with diabetic macular edema (DME) and visual acuity (VA) 20/32 to 20/320 enrolled in DRCR.net Protocol T with visits 5 years after randomization (3 years after Protocol T completion). Methods Participants were assigned randomly to aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab with protocol-defined follow-up and re-treatment for 2 years. Thereafter, participants were managed at clinician discretion and recalled for a 5-year visit. Main Outcome Measures Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment, VA letter score, and central subfield thickness (CST). Results Sixty-eight percent (317/463) of eligible participants completed the 5-year visit. Between years 2 and 5, 68% (217/317) of study eyes received at least 1 anti-VEGF treatment (median, 4; interquartile range [IQR], 0–12). At 5 years, mean VA improved from baseline by 7.4 letters (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.9–9.0) but decreased by 4.7 letters (95% CI, 3.3–6.0) between 2 and 5 years. When baseline VA was 20/50 to 20/320, mean 5-year VA was 11.9 letters (95% CI, 9.3–14.5) better than baseline but 4.8 letters (95% CI, 2.5–7.0) worse than 2 years. When baseline VA was 20/32 to 20/40, mean 5-year VA was 3.2 letters (95% CI, 1.4–5.0) better than baseline but 4.6 letters (95% CI, 3.1–6.1) worse than 2 years. Mean CST decreased from baseline to 5 years by 154 μm (95% CI, 142–166) and was stable between 2 and 5 years (−1 μm; 95% CI, −12 to 9). Conclusions Among the two-thirds of eligible Protocol T participants who completed a 5-year visit, mean VA improved from baseline to 5 years without protocol-defined treatment after follow-up ended at 2 years. Although mean retinal thickness was similar at 2 and 5 years, mean VA worsened during this period. Additional investigation into strategies to improve long-term outcomes in eyes with DME seems warranted to determine if VA can be better maintained with different management approaches.

To compare rates and identify predictive factors for events that represent worsening of proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) in eyes treated with panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) or ranibizumab.Randomized clinical trial (55 United States sites).Three hundred ninety-four study eyes from 305 adults with PDR, visual acuity (VA) 20/320 or better, and no history of PRP.Panretinal photocoagulation or intravitreous ranibizumab injections (0.5 mg/0.05 ml).Time from randomization to a composite PDR-worsening outcome defined as the first occurrence of vitreous hemorrhage, retinal detachment, anterior segment neovascularization, or neovascular glaucoma.Through 2 years, the cumulative probability of worsening PDR was 42% (PRP) versus 34% (ranibizumab; hazard ratio [HR], 1.33; 99% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.98; P = 0.063). Worse baseline levels of diabetic retinopathy severity (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study scale) were associated with increased risk of worsening PDR, regardless of treatment group (64% [high-risk PDR or worse] vs. 23% [moderate PDR or better]; HR, 3.97; 99% CI, 2.48 to 6.36; P0.001). In the PRP group, eyes receiving pattern scan versus conventional single-spot PRP also were at higher risk for worsening PDR (60% vs. 39%; HR, 2.04; 99% CI, 1.02 to 4.08; P = 0.008), regardless of the number of spots placed or the number of sittings to complete the initial PRP. Eyes in both groups with vision-impairing (VA 20/32 or worse) center-involved diabetic macular edema (DME) at baseline were required to receive ranibizumab for center-involved DME. Therefore the composite outcome was compared by treatment in the subgroup of eyes that did not have vision-impairing center-involved DME at baseline. For these eyes, the rate of PDR-worsening was greater with PRP than ranibizumab (45% vs. 31%; HR, 1.62; 99% CI, 1.01 to 2.60; P = 0.008).In eyes with PDR, ranibizumab resulted in less PDR worsening compared with PRP, especially in eyes not required to receive ranibizumab for center-involved DME. Although anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy requires a more frequent visit schedule than PRP, these findings provide additional evidence supporting the use of ranibizumab as an alternative therapy to PRP for PDR, at least through 2 years.

Purpose To compare patient-centered outcomes in patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) treated with ranibizumab vs panretinal photocoagulation (PRP). Design Randomized clinical trial. Methods Setting: Multicenter (55 U.S. sites). Patient Population: Total of 216 adults with 1 study eye out of 305 adults (excluding participants with 2 study eyes, because each eye received a different treatment) with PDR, visual acuity 20/320 or better, no history of PRP. Intervention: Ranibizumab (0.5 mg/0.05 mL) vs PRP. Main Outcome Measures: Change from baseline to 2 years in composite and prespecified subscale scores from the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25 (NEI VFQ-25), University of Alabama Low Luminance Questionnaire (UAB-LLQ), and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAIQ). Results For the NEI VFQ-25 and UAB-LLQ composite scores, ranibizumab–PRP treatment group differences (95% CI) were +4.0 (-0.2, +8.3, P = .06) and +1.8 (-3.5, +7.1, P = 0.51) at 1 year, and +2.9 (-1.5, +7.2, P = .20) and +2.3 (-2.9, +7.5, P = .37) at 2 years, respectively. Work productivity loss measured with the WPAIQ was 15.6% less with ranibizumab (-26.3%, −4.8%, P = .005) at 1 year and 2.9% (-12.2%, +6.4%, P = .54) at 2 years. Eighty-three ranibizumab participants (97%) were 20/40 or better in at least 1 eye (visual acuity requirement to qualify for an unrestricted driver's license in many states) at 2 years compared with 82 PRP participants (87%, adjusted risk ratio = 1.1, 95% CI: 1.0, 1.2, P = .005). Conclusions Though differences in some work productivity and driving-related outcomes favored ranibizumab over PRP, no differences between treatment regimens for PDR were identified for most of the other patient-centered outcomes considered.

Among eyes with proliferative diabetic retinopathy, identify whether baseline characteristics impact the benefit of ranibizumab over panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) in DRCR.net Protocol S.Participants had proliferative diabetic retinopathy, visual acuity of 20/320 or better, and no previous PRP. Eyes were randomized to PRP or intravitreous 0.5-mg ranibizumab.Ranibizumab was superior to PRP for change in visual acuity and development of vision-impairing central-involved diabetic macular edema over 2 years (P0.001). Among 25 characteristics, there were none in which participants assigned to PRP had superior outcomes relative to ranibizumab-assigned participants. The relative benefit of ranibizumab over PRP for change in visual acuity seemed greater in participants with higher mean arterial pressure (P = 0.03), without previous focal/grid laser (P = 0.03), with neovascularization of the disk and elsewhere on clinical examination (P = 0.04), and with more advanced proliferative diabetic retinopathy on photographs (P = 0.02). For development of vision-impairing central-involved diabetic macular edema, the relative benefit of ranibizumab over PRP seemed greater among nonwhite participants (P = 0.01) and those with higher mean arterial pressure (P = 0.01).There were no characteristics identified in which outcomes were superior with PRP compared with ranibizumab. These exploratory analyses provide additional support that ranibizumab may be a reasonable alternative to PRP for proliferative diabetic retinopathy over a 2-year period.

Purpose To describe 2.5% low-contrast visual acuity (VA) among eyes with good vision despite center-involved diabetic macular edema and compare changes after initial management with aflibercept, laser, or observation. Methods This was an ancillary study within a multicenter randomized clinical trial (DRCR Retina Network Protocol V). Participants had diabetes and 1 study eye with center-involved diabetic macular edema and a VA of 20/25 or better randomly assigned to aflibercept (n = 112), focal/grid laser (n = 146), or observation (n = 129). Eyes in the laser and observation groups received aflibercept if VA met prespecified worsening criteria. Results Participants had median age of 60 years, 37% were female and 70% were non-Hispanic White. At baseline, the mean ± standard deviation (SD) high-contrast VA was 85.2 ± 3.6 letters (Snellen equivalent 20/20), mean ± SD 2.5% low-contrast VA was 47.6 ± 18.9 letters (Snellen equivalent 20/125), and low-contrast VA letter score was 2 SDs or more below the age-specific normative values in 23%. At 2 years, the mean change ± SD in low-contrast VA in the aflibercept, laser, and observation groups was 2.7 ± 20.1, -2.0 ± 19.6, and -3.1 ± 20.8 letters (adjusted difference, aflibercept vs. laser, 5.3 [95% confidence interval, -0.2 to 10.8], P = 0.06; aflibercept vs. observation, 5.5 [95% confidence interval -0.2 to 11.2], P = 0.06; and laser vs. observation, 0.2 [95% confidence interval -4.6 to 5.0], P = 0.94). Conclusions There was no significant difference between treatment groups in low-contrast VA change from baseline to 2 years. Considering the range of the 95% confidence intervals, however, the study may have been underpowered to detect a clinically meaningful benefit between treatment groups. Translational relevance Low-contrast VA, an important visual function, is decreased in eyes with diabetic macular edema.

OBJECTIVE: Present 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 and five participants with 394 study eyes having PDR without prior PRP. INTERVENTION: Post hoc analyses from a randomized clinical trial of 0.5-mg intravitreous ranibizumab versus panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) for PDR. Eyes assigned to ranibizumab (N=191) received monthly injections for 6 months unless resolution 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. PRP 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 had complete neovascularization resolution (including fibrous proliferans) and an additional 60% (113) were improved. At 6 months, 52% (80 of 153) had neovascularization resolution, 3% (4) were still improving, 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

PURPOSE: Assess associations of 2-year visual acuity (VA) outcomes with VA and optical coherence tomography central subfield thickness (CST) after 12 weeks of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment for diabetic macular edema in DRCR.net Protocol T. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. METHODS: Setting: Multicenter (89 U.S. sites). Patient Population: Eyes with VA and CST data from baseline and 12-week visits (616 of 660 eyes randomized [93.3%]). Intervention: Six monthly injections of 2.0-mg aflibercept, 1.25-mg bevacizumab, or 0.3-mg ranibizumab; subsequent injections and focal/grid laser as needed for stability. Main Outcome Measures: Change in VA from baseline and VA letter score at 2 years. RESULTS: Twelve-week VA response was associated with 2-year change in VA and 2-year VA letter score for each drug (P

OBJECTIVE: Identify baseline factors associated with change in visual acuity or development of vision-impairing central-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME) over 2 years when initiating treatment for proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) with ranibizumab or panretinal photocoagulation. DESIGN: Post hoc analyses of randomized multicenter clinical trial data. PARTICIPANTS: Eyes completing the 2-year visit (N = 328) or eyes without vision-impairing CI-DME at baseline (N = 302) in Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network Protocol S. INTERVENTION: Protocol-defined applications of intravitreous ranibizumab (0.5 mg/0.05 mL) or panretinal photocoagulation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in visual acuity (area under the curve) and development of vision-impairing (20/32 or worse) CI-DME over 2 years. RESULTS: After multivariable model selection with adjustment for baseline visual acuity and central subfield thickness, no baseline factors were identified as having an association with change in visual acuity or development of vision-impairing CI-DME within the ranibizumab group. In the panretinal photocoagulation group, worse change in visual acuity over 2 years was more likely with higher Hemoglobin A(1c) (−0.6 [95% confidence interval (CI), −1.2 to −0.1] letters for every 1% increase, continuous P = .03), more severe diabetic retinopathy (difference between high-risk PDR or worse vs. moderate PDR or better = −2.8 [95% CI, −5.5 to −0.2] letters, continuous P = .003), and higher mean arterial pressure (difference between ≥ 100 mmHg vs. < 100 mmHg = −2.0 [95% CI, −4.6 to 0.5] letters, continuous P = .009). Development of vision-impairing CI-DME was more likely with higher Hemoglobin A(1c) (hazard ratio for a 1% increase = 1.31 [95% CI, 1.13 to 1.52], continuous P

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