Five-Year Outcomes of Ranibizumab With Prompt or Deferred Laser Versus Laser or Triamcinolone Plus Deferred Ranibizumab for Diabetic Macular Edema.

PURPOSE: To compare long-term vision and anatomic effects of ranibizumab with prompt or deferred laser vs laser or triamcinolone + laser with very deferred ranibizumab in diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. METHODS: Eight hundred and twenty-eight study eyes (558 [67%] completed the 5-year visit), at 52 sites, with visual acuity 20/32 to 20/320 and DME involving the central macula were randomly assigned to intravitreous ranibizumab (0.5 mg) with either (1) prompt or (2) deferred laser; (3) sham injection + prompt laser; or (4) intravitreous triamcinolone (4 mg) + prompt laser. The latter 2 groups could initiate ranibizumab as early as 74 weeks from baseline, for persistent DME with vision impairment. The main outcome measures were visual acuity, optical coherence central subfield thickness, and number of injections through 5 years. RESULTS: At 5 years mean (± standard deviation) change in Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study visual acuity letter scores from baseline in the ranibizumab + deferred laser (N = 111), ranibizumab + prompt laser (N = 124), laser/very deferred ranibizumab (N = 198), and triamcinolone + laser/very deferred ranibizumab (N = 125) groups were 10 ± 13, 8 ± 13, 5 ± 14, and 7 ± 14, respectively. The difference (95% confidence interval) in mean change between ranibizumab + deferred laser and laser/very deferred ranibizumab and triamcinolone + laser/very deferred ranibizumab was 4.4 (1.2-7.6, P = .001) and 2.8 (-0.9 to 6.5, P = .067), respectively, at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Recognizing limitations of follow-up available at 5 years, eyes receiving initial ranibizumab therapy for center-involving DME likely have better long-term vision improvements than eyes managed with laser or triamcinolone + laser followed by very deferred ranibizumab for persistent thickening and vision impairment.

RANIBIZUMAB PLUS PROMPT OR DEFERRED LASER FOR DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA IN EYES WITH VITRECTOMY BEFORE ANTI-VASCULAR ENDOTHELIAL GROWTH FACTOR THERAPY.

BACKGROUND: The approach to managing diabetic macular edema in eyes with previous vitrectomy is based on limited evidence. Therefore, an exploratory post hoc assessment of 3-year data from eyes with and without vitrectomy before randomization in a DRCR.net trial that evaluated ranibizumab + prompt or deferred laser for diabetic macular edema is presented. METHODS: Visual acuity and optical coherence tomography outcomes were compared between eyes with and without previous vitrectomy. RESULTS: At baseline, eyes with previous vitrectomy (n = 25) had longer duration of diabetes, worse visual acuity, less thickened central subfield measurements on optical coherence tomography and were more apt to have worse diabetic retinopathy severity level or previous treatment for macular edema or cataract surgery than eyes without a history of vitrectomy (n = 335). Analyses adjusted for these baseline imbalances did not identify substantial differences between eyes with and without previous vitrectomy at each annual visit through 3 years for the favorable visual acuity, optical coherence tomography central subfield thickness, or volume outcomes, although optical coherence tomography improvement appeared slower in vitrectomy eyes during the first year. CONCLUSION: This study provides little evidence that the beneficial clinical outcomes for patients with center-involved diabetic macular edema treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor are affected in the long term by previous vitrectomy.

Repeated intravitreous ranibizumab injections for diabetic macular edema and the risk of sustained elevation of intraocular pressure or the need for ocular hypotensive treatment.

IMPORTANCE: For the management of retinal disease, the use of intravitreous injections of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor has increased. Recent reports have suggested that this therapy may cause sustained elevation of intraocular pressure (IOP) and may potentially increase the risk of glaucoma for patients with retinal disease. OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of sustained IOP elevation or the need for IOP-lowering treatments for eyes with diabetic macular edema following repeated intravitreous injections of ranibizumab. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: An exploratory analysis was conducted within a Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network randomized clinical trial. Study enrollment dates were from March 20, 2007, to December 17, 2008. Of 582 eyes (of 486 participants) with center-involved diabetic macular edema and no preexisting open-angle glaucoma, 260 were randomly assigned to receive a sham injection plus focal/grid laser treatment, and 322 were randomly assigned to receive ranibizumab plus deferred or prompt focal/grid laser treatment. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The cumulative probability of sustained IOP elevation, defined as IOP of at least 22 mm Hg and an increase of at least 6 mm Hg from baseline at 2 consecutive visits, or the initiation or augmentation of ocular hypotensive therapy, through 3 years of follow-up. RESULTS: The mean (SD) baseline IOP in both treatment groups was 16 (3) mm Hg (range, 5-24 mm Hg). The cumulative probability of sustained IOP elevation or of initiation or augmentation of ocular hypotensive therapy by 3 years, after repeated ranibizumab injections, was 9.5% for the participants who received ranibizumab plus prompt or deferred focal/grid laser treatment vs 3.4% for the participants who received a sham injection plus focal/grid laser treatment (difference, 6.1% [99% CI, -0.2% to 12.3%]; hazard ratio, 2.9 [99% CI, 1.0-7.9]; P = .01). The distribution of IOP and the change in IOP from baseline at each visit through 3 years were similar in each group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In eyes with center-involved diabetic macular edema and no prior open-angle glaucoma, repeated intravitreous injections of ranibizumab may increase the risk of sustained IOP elevation or the need for ocular hypotensive treatment. Clinicians should be aware of this risk and should consider this information when following up with patients who have received intravitreous injections of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for the treatment of diabetic macular edema.

Topical nepafenec in eyes with noncentral diabetic macular edema.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of a topical, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug, nepafenac 0.1%, in eyes with noncentral diabetic macular edema. METHODS: Multicenter, double-masked randomized trial. Individuals with good visual acuity and noncentral-involved diabetic macular edema were randomly assigned to nepafenac 0.1% (N = 61) or placebo (nepafenac vehicle, N = 64) 3 times a day for 12 months. The primary outcome was mean change in optical coherence tomography retinal volume at 12 months. RESULTS: Mean baseline retinal volume was 7.8 mm. At 12 months, in the nepafenac and placebo groups respectively, mean change in retinal volume was -0.03 mm and -0.02 mm (treatment group difference: -0.02, 95% confidence interval: -0.27 to 0.23, P = 0.89). Central-involved diabetic macular edema was present in 7 eyes (11%) and 9 eyes (14%) at the 12-month visit (P = 0.79), respectively. No differences in visual acuity outcomes were identified. One study participant developed a corneal melt after using nepafenac in the nonstudy eye, which had a history of severe dry eye. No additional safety concerns were evident. CONCLUSION: In eyes with noncentral diabetic macular edema and good visual acuity, topical nepafenac 0.1% 3 times daily for 1 year likely does not have a meaningful effect on optical coherence tomography-measured retinal thickness.

Green or yellow laser treatment for diabetic macular edema: exploratory assessment within the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network.

PURPOSE: Explore differences in green compared with yellow focal/grid laser treatment on functional and anatomical endpoints in eyes with diabetic macular edema. METHODS: Data from two randomized clinical trials were evaluated for differences in visual acuity and optical coherence tomography parameters for eyes assigned to sham injection + prompt laser, ranibizumab + prompt laser, or prompt laser only: among subgroups of eyes treated exclusively and electively with either green or yellow laser. RESULTS: In the sham injection + prompt laser group, the mean visual acuity letter score change for eyes receiving green and yellow laser treatment, respectively, was +2.4 ± 14 and +5.1 ± 13 at the 52-week visit (P = 0.06) and +2.4 ± 15 and +6.0 ± 13 at the 104-week visit (P = 0.13), with no corresponding evidence of differences in optical coherence tomography thickness. When comparing wavelength groups in the ranibizumab + prompt laser and prompt laser-only groups, meaningful differences in visual acuity and optical coherence tomography thickness were not detected at 1 year or 2 years. CONCLUSION: A trend toward improved vision outcome with yellow laser observed in one trial was not corroborated by anatomical outcomes or by the other trial. In this study, without random assignment to different wavelengths controlling for bias and confounding, it is not possible to determine whether one wavelength is better than the other.

Macular edema after cataract surgery in eyes without preoperative central-involved diabetic macular edema.

IMPORTANCE: The incidence of development or worsening of macular edema (ME) is variable in eyes without diabetic ME (DME) undergoing cataract surgery. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incidence of central-involved ME 16 weeks following cataract surgery in eyes with diabetic retinopathy without definite central-involved DME preoperatively. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In a multicenter, prospective, observational study, 293 participants with diabetic retinopathy without definite central subfield thickening on optical coherence tomography (OCT) underwent cataract surgery. EXPOSURE: Cataract extraction surgery performed within 28 days of enrollment of eyes without DME in individuals with diabetes mellitus. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Development of central-involved ME defined as the following: (1) OCT central subfield thickness of 250 µm or greater (time-domain OCT) or 310 µm or greater (spectral-domain OCT) with at least a 1-step increase in logOCT central subfield thickness preoperatively to the 16-week visit; (2) at least a 2-step increase in logOCT central subfield thickness preoperatively to the 16-week visit; or (3) nontopical treatment for ME received before the 16-week visit with either of the OCT criteria met at the time of treatment. RESULTS: The median participant age was 65 years. The median visual acuity letter score was 69 letters (Snellen equivalent 20/40). Forty-four percent of eyes had a history of treatment for DME. Sixteen weeks postoperatively, central-involved ME was noted in 0% (95% CI, 0%-20%) of 17 eyes with no preoperative DME. Of eyes with non-central-involved DME, 10% (95% CI, 5%-18%) of 97 eyes without central-involved DME and 12% (95% CI, 7%-19%) of 147 eyes with possible central-involved DME at baseline progressed to central-involved ME. History of DME treatment was significantly associated with central-involved ME development (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In eyes with diabetic retinopathy without concurrent central-involved DME, presence of non-central-involved DME immediately prior to cataract surgery or history of DME treatment may increase the risk of developing central-involved ME 16 weeks after cataract extraction.

Comparison of film and digital fundus photographs in eyes of individuals with diabetes mellitus.

PURPOSE: To compare grading of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and diabetic macular edema (DME) from stereoscopic film versus stereoscopic digital photographs obtained from a subset of Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network (DRCR.net) participants. METHODS: In this photographic media comparison study, digital and film images were obtained at a single study visit from some of the subjects enrolled in active DRCR.net clinical study protocols. Digital camera systems and digital and film photographers were certified to obtain images according to standard procedures. Images were graded for DR severity and DME in a masked fashion by Fundus Photograph Reading Center (Madison, WI) graders. Agreement between gradings was assessed by calculating the percentage of agreement and κ statistics. RESULTS: Images obtained with both film and digital media were submitted for 155 eyes of 96 study participants. On a nine-step Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy study DR severity scale, grading agreed exactly in 74%, and was within one step of agreement in 93%, with a weighted κ statistic of 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.92). On a nine-step DME severity scale and three-step clinically significant macular edema (CSME) scale, grading agreed exactly in 39% and 88%, respectively, and within one step in 70% and 92% (weighted κ statistic, 0.44 [95% Cl, 0.34-0.54] and 0.72 [95% Cl, 0.55-0.90], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Among clinical sites participating in the DRCR.net, agreement between film and digital images was substantial to almost perfect for DR severity level and moderate to substantial for DME and CSME severity levels, respectively. Replacement of film fundus images with digital images for DR severity level should not adversely affect clinical trial quality. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00367133, NCT00369486, NCT00444600, NCT00445003, NCT00709319.)