Four-Year Visual Outcomes in the Protocol W Randomized Trial of Intravitreous Aflibercept for Prevention of Vision-Threatening Complications of Diabetic Retinopathy.

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.

Comparison of Snellen Visual Acuity Measurements in Retinal Clinical Practice to Electronic ETDRS Protocol Visual Acuity Assessment.

PURPOSE: Evaluate the differences between clinical visual acuity (VA) as recorded in medical records and electronic Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (eETDRS) protocol VA measurements and factors affecting the size of the differences. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. PARTICIPANTS: Study and fellow eyes of participants enrolled in DRCR Retina Network Protocols AC and AE (diabetic macular edema), and W (nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy) with clinical VA recorded within 3 months before the protocol visit. METHODS: Differences and their association with patient and ocular factors were evaluated using linear mixed models with random effects for correlations within sites and participants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Difference between VA letter scores measured by eETDRS during a study visit versus measured by Snellen during a regular clinical visit (Snellen fraction converted to eETDRS). RESULTS: Data from 1016 eyes (511 participants) across 74 sites were analyzed. The mean VA measurements were 68.6 letters (Snellen equivalent 20/50) at the clinical visit and 76.3 letters (Snellen equivalent 20/32) at the protocol visit, with a mean (standard deviation [SD]) of 26 (21) days between visits. Mean (SD) protocol VA was better than clinical VA by 7.6 (9.6) letters overall, 10.7 (12.6) letters in eyes with clinical VA ≤ 20/50 (n = 376), and 5.8 (6.6) letters in eyes with clinical VA ≥ 20/40 (n = 640). On average, the difference between clinical and protocol VA was 1.3 letters smaller for every 1-line (5 letters) increase in clinical VA (P < 0.001). Mean (SD) differences by clinical correction of refractive error were 3.9 (9.0) letters with refraction, 6.9 (9.2) letters with glasses/contact lenses, 7.9 (11.5) letters with pinhole, and 9.8 (9.3) letters without correction (P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: On average, clinical Snellen VA is 1 to 2 lines worse than eETDRS protocol refraction and VA testing, which may partly explain why clinical practice does not always replicate clinical trial results. Eyes with lower clinical measurements and eyes tested without clinical refraction tended to have larger differences. Considering the potential discrepancies between clinical and protocol VA measurements, refracting eyes in the clinic may benefit patients when determining treatment plans and study referrals based on vision. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

A Step Forward in Understanding Treatment Approaches for Diabetic Macular Edema.

This Viewpoint discusses new treatment approaches for diabetic macular edema.

Aflibercept Monotherapy or Bevacizumab First for Diabetic Macular Edema.

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.).

Effect of Initial Aflibercept, Laser, or Observation on Low-Contrast Visual Acuity in Eyes With Diabetic Macular Edema and Good Vision: Ancillary Study Within a Randomized Clinical Trial.

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.

Assessment of the DRCR Retina Network Approach to Management With Initial Observation for Eyes With Center-Involved Diabetic Macular Edema and Good Visual Acuity: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

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 < .001), and among participants whose nonstudy eye received DME treatment within 4 months of randomization vs not (52% vs 25%; HR, 2.55 [95% CI, 1.64-3.99], P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Most eyes managed with initial observation plus aflibercept only if VA worsened maintained good vision at 2 years and did not require aflibercept for VA loss. However, the eyes in the trial were approximately twice as likely to receive aflibercept for VA loss if they had greater baseline central subfield thickness, worse diabetic retinopathy severity level, or a nonstudy eye receiving treatment for DME. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01909791.

Visual Field Changes Over 5 Years in Patients Treated With Panretinal Photocoagulation or Ranibizumab for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy.

Importance: Preservation of peripheral visual field (VF) is considered an advantage for anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents compared with panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) for treatment of proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Long-term data on VF are important when considering either treatment approach. Objective: To further evaluate changes in VF throughout 5 years among eyes enrolled in the Protocol S clinical trial, conducted by the DRCR Retina Network. Design, Setting, and Participants: Post hoc analyses of an ancillary study within a multicenter (55 US sites) randomized clinical trial. Individuals with eyes with proliferative diabetic retinopathy enrolled in Protocol S were included. Data were collected from February 2012 to February 2018. Analysis began in June 2018. Interventions: Panretinal photocoagulation or intravitreous injections of 0.5-mg ranibizumab. Diabetic macular edema, whenever present, was treated with ranibizumab in both groups. Panretinal photocoagulation could be administered to eyes in the ranibizumab group when failure or futility criteria were met. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mean change in total point score on VF testing with the Humphrey Field Analyzer 30-2 and 60-4 test patterns. Results: Of 394 eyes enrolled in Protocol S, 234 (59.4%) were targeted for this ancillary study. Of these, 167 (71.4%) had VF meeting acceptable quality criteria at baseline (median [interquartile range] age, 50 [43-58] years; 90 men [53.9%]). At 5 years, 79 (33.8%) had results available. The mean (SD) change in total point score in the PRP and ranibizumab groups was -305 (521) dB and -36 (486) dB at 1 year, respectively, increasing to -527 (635) dB and -330 (645) dB at 5 years, respectively (P = .04). After censoring VF results after PRP treatments in the ranibizumab group, the 5-year mean change in total point score was -201 (442) dB. In a longitudinal regression analysis of change in total point score including both treatment groups, laser treatment was associated with a mean point decrease of 208 (95% CI, 112-304) dB for the initial PRP session, 77 (95% CI, 21-132) dB for additional PRP sessions, and 325 (95% CI, 211-439) dB for endolaser. No association was found between change in point score and the number of ranibizumab injections during the previous year (-9 per injection [95% CI, -22 to 3]). Conclusions and Relevance: The limited data available from Protocol S suggest that there are factors besides PRP associated with VF loss in eyes treated for proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Further clinical research is warranted to clarify the finding. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01489189.

Effect of Initial Management With Aflibercept vs Laser Photocoagulation vs Observation on Vision Loss Among Patients With Diabetic Macular Edema Involving the Center of the Macula and Good Visual Acuity: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

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.

PANRETINAL PHOTOCOAGULATION VERSUS RANIBIZUMAB FOR PROLIFERATIVE DIABETIC RETINOPATHY: Comparison of Peripapillary Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness in a Randomized Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: Compare changes in retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness between eyes assigned to intravitreous ranibizumab or panretinal photocoagulation and assess correlations between changes in RNFL and visual field sensitivity and central subfield thickness. METHODS: Eyes with proliferative diabetic retinopathy were randomly assigned to ranibizumab or panretinal photocoagulation. Baseline and annual follow-up spectral domain optical coherence tomography RNFL imaging, optical coherence tomography macular imaging, and automated static perimetry (Humphrey visual field 60-4 algorithm) were performed. RESULTS: One hundred forty-six eyes from 120 participants were analyzed. At 2 years, for the ranibizumab (N = 74) and panretinal photocoagulation (N = 66) groups, respectively, mean change in average RNFL thickness was -10.9 ± 11.7 µm and -4.3 ± 11.6 µm (difference, -4.9 µm; 95% confidence interval [-7.2 µm to -2.6 µm]; P < 0.001); the correlation between change in RNFL thickness and 60-4 Humphrey visual field mean deviation was -0.27 (P = 0.07) and +0.33 (P = 0.035); the correlation between change in RNFL thickness and central subfield thickness was +0.63 (P < 0.001) and +0.34 (P = 0.005), respectively. CONCLUSION: At 2 years, eyes treated with ranibizumab had greater RNFL thinning than eyes treated with panretinal photocoagulation. Correlations between changes in RNFL thickness, visual field, and central subfield thickness suggest that the decrease in RNFL thickness with ranibizumab is likely due to decreased edema rather than loss of axons.

Month 12 Outcomes After Treatment Change at Month 6 Among Poor Responders to Aflibercept or Bevacizumab in Eyes With Macular Edema Secondary to Central or Hemiretinal Vein Occlusion: A Secondary Analysis of the SCORE2 Study.

Importance: Information is needed to assess switching treatment in eyes with a poor response to 6 months of monthly administration of aflibercept or bevacizumab for macular edema from central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) or hemiretinal vein occlusion (HRVO). Objective: To investigate visual acuity letter score (VALS) and central subfield thickness (CST) changes from month 6 to 12 among eyes with a poor response at month 6 to monthly dosing of aflibercept or bevacizumab in the Study of Comparative Treatments for Retinal Vein Occlusion 2. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of the Study of Comparative Treatments for Retinal Vein Occlusion 2 (SCORE2) was conducted at 66 private practice or academic centers in the United States. Participants included 49 patients (1 eye from each patient evaluated) with CRVO- or HRVO-associated macular edema and a protocol-defined poor response to aflibercept or bevacizumab treatment at month 6. The first month 6 visit occurred on September 8, 2015, and the last month 12 visit occurred on October 24, 2016. Interventions: Treatment in eyes receiving monthly aflibercept was switched to a dexamethasone implant at month 6 and, if needed, at months 9, 10, or 11. Treatment in eyes receiving monthly bevacizumab was switched to aflibercept at months 6, 7, and 8, and then to a treat-and-extend aflibercept regimen until month 12. Main Outcomes and Measures: Change from month 6 to 12 in VALS and CST. Results: Of the 49 participants at month 6, aflibercept treatment had failed in 14 (6 [43%] women; mean [SD] age, 70.4 [13.0] years). Bevacizumab treatment had failed in 35 patients (16 [46%] women; mean age, 70.0 [13.2] years). In 14 eyes with treatment switched from aflibercept to dexamethasone, the estimated mean change from month 6 to 12 in VALS was 2.63 (95% CI, -3.29 to 8.56; P = .37) and 46.0 µm (95% CI, -80.9 to 172.9 µm; P = .46) for CST. In 35 eyes with treatment switched from bevacizumab to aflibercept, the estimated mean change from month 6 to 12 in VALS was 10.27 (95% CI, 6.05-14.49; P < .001) and -125.4 µm (95% CI, -180.9 to -69.9 µm; P < .001) for CST. Conclusions and Relevance: Eyes treated with aflibercept after a poor response to bevacizumab had improvement in VALS and CST. Few eyes had a poor response to aflibercept, and therefore, few eyes were switched to dexamethasone. Caution is warranted in interpreting these results owing to the small number of eyes and lack of comparison groups. These factors preclude definitive assessment of whether the switching strategy is superior to maintaining treatment.

Five-Year Outcomes of Panretinal Photocoagulation vs Intravitreous Ranibizumab for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Ranibizumab is a viable treatment option for eyes with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) through 2 years. However, longer-term results are needed. Objective: To evaluate efficacy and safety of 0.5-mg intravitreous ranibizumab vs panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) over 5 years for PDR. Design, Setting, and Participants: Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network multicenter randomized clinical trial evaluated 394 study eyes with PDR enrolled February through December 2012. Analysis began in January 2018. Interventions: Eyes were randomly assigned to receive intravitreous ranibizumab (n = 191) or PRP (n = 203). Frequency of ranibizumab was based on a protocol-specified retreatment algorithm. Diabetic macular edema could be managed with ranibizumab in either group. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mean change in visual acuity (intention-to-treat analysis) was the main outcome. Secondary outcomes included peripheral visual field loss, development of vision-impairing diabetic macular edema, and ocular and systemic safety. Results: The 5-year visit was completed by 184 of 277 participants (66% excluding deaths). Of 305 enrolled participants, the mean (SD) age was 52 (12) years, 135 (44%) were women, and 160 (52%) were white. For the ranibizumab and PRP groups, the mean (SD) number of injections over 5 years was 19.2 (10.9) and 5.4 (7.9), respectively; the mean (SD) change in visual acuity letter score was 3.1 (14.3) and 3.0 (10.5) letters, respectively (adjusted difference, 0.6; 95% CI, -2.3 to 3.5; P = .68); the mean visual acuity was 20/25 (approximate Snellen equivalent) in both groups at 5 years. The mean (SD) change in cumulative visual field total point score was -330 (645) vs -527 (635) dB in the ranibizumab (n = 41) and PRP (n = 38) groups, respectively (adjusted difference, 208 dB; 95% CI, 9-408). Vision-impairing diabetic macular edema developed in 27 and 53 eyes in the ranibizumab and PRP groups, respectively (cumulative probabilities: 22% vs 38%; hazard ratio, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7). No statistically significant differences between groups in major systemic adverse event rates were identified. Conclusions and Relevance: Although loss to follow-up was relatively high, visual acuity in most study eyes that completed follow-up was very good at 5 years and was similar in both groups. Severe vision loss or serious PDR complications were uncommon with PRP or ranibizumab; however, the ranibizumab group had lower rates of developing vision-impairing diabetic macular edema and less visual field loss. Patient-specific factors, including anticipated visit compliance, cost, and frequency of visits, should be considered when choosing treatment for patients with PDR. These findings support either anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy or PRP as viable treatments for patients with PDR. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01489189.

Recent advancements in diabetic retinopathy treatment from the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema (DME) are common eye diseases leading to vision loss. The Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network (DRCRnet), a collaboration of private and academic practices supported by the National Eye Institute and the National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases has studied diabetic eye disease for 13 years. This review will discuss the network's findings over the last year, when some of its most important contributions were reported. RECENT FINDINGS: The DRCRnet reported intravitreal bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept all improve visual acuity in DME. With baseline vision of 20/30 to 20/40, all agents had similar efficacy. With baseline vision of 20/50 or worse, aflibercept resulted in superior visual improvement. Protocol S, which compared panretinal photocoagulation with intravitreal injections of ranibizumab for proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR), found vision outcomes and surgery rates were not inferior in the injection group. Secondary outcomes indicate improved functional results with ranibizumab supporting injections as a possible alternative treatment for PDR. SUMMARY: The DRCRnet has helped clarify the role of various treatments for both DME and PDR, and will continue to evaluate treatments for these vision-threatening conditions.

Association of Baseline Visual Acuity and Retinal Thickness With 1-Year Efficacy of Aflibercept, Bevacizumab, and Ranibizumab for Diabetic Macular Edema.

IMPORTANCE: Comparisons of the relative effect of 3 anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents to treat diabetic macular edema warrant further assessment. OBJECTIVE: To provide additional outcomes from a randomized trial evaluating 3 anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents for diabetic macular edema within subgroups based on baseline visual acuity (VA) and central subfield thickness (CST) as evaluated on optical coherence tomography. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Post hoc exploratory analyses were conducted of randomized trial data on 660 adults with diabetic macular edema and decreased VA (Snellen equivalent, approximately 20/32 to 20/320). The original study was conducted between August 22, 2012, and August 28, 2013. Analysis was conducted from January 7 to June 2, 2015. INTERVENTIONS: Repeated 0.05-mL intravitreous injections of 2.0 mg of aflibercept (224 eyes), 1.25 mg of bevacizumab (218 eyes), or 0.3 mg of ranibizumab (218 eyes) as needed per protocol. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: One-year VA and CST outcomes within prespecified subgroups based on both baseline VA and CST thresholds, defined as worse (20/50 or worse) or better (20/32 to 20/40) VA and thicker (≥400 µm) or thinner (250 to 399 µm) CST. RESULTS: In the subgroup with worse baseline VA (n = 305), irrespective of baseline CST, aflibercept showed greater improvement than bevacizumab or ranibizumab for several VA outcomes. In the subgroup with better VA and thinner CST at baseline (61-73 eyes across 3 treatment groups), VA outcomes showed little difference between groups; mean change was +7.2, +8.4, and +7.6 letters in the aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab groups, respectively. However, in the subgroup with better VA and thicker CST at baseline (31-43 eyes), there was a suggestion of worse VA outcomes in the bevacizumab group; mean change from baseline to 1 year was +9.5, +5.4, and +9.5 letters in the aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab groups, respectively, and VA letter score was greater than 84 (approximately 20/20) in 21 of 33 (64%), 7 of 31 (23%), and 21 of 43 (49%) eyes, respectively. The adjusted differences and 95% CIs were 39% (17% to 60%) for aflibercept vs bevacizumab, 25% (5% to 46%) for ranibizumab vs bevacizumab, and 13% (-8% to 35%) for aflibercept vs ranibizumab. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These post hoc secondary findings suggest that for eyes with better initial VA and thicker CST, some VA outcomes may be worse in the bevacizumab group than in the aflibercept and ranibizumab groups. Given the exploratory nature of these analyses and the small sample size within subgroups, caution is suggested when using the data to guide treatment considerations for patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01627249.

Panretinal Photocoagulation vs Intravitreous Ranibizumab for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

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.

Aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema.

BACKGROUND: The relative efficacy and safety of intravitreous aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab in the treatment of diabetic macular edema are unknown. METHODS: At 89 clinical sites, we randomly assigned 660 adults (mean age, 61±10 years) with diabetic macular edema involving the macular center to receive intravitreous aflibercept at a dose of 2.0 mg (224 participants), bevacizumab at a dose of 1.25 mg (218 participants), or ranibizumab at a dose of 0.3 mg (218 participants). The study drugs were administered as often as every 4 weeks, according to a protocol-specified algorithm. The primary outcome was the mean change in visual acuity at 1 year. RESULTS: From baseline to 1 year, the mean visual-acuity letter score (range, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better visual acuity; a score of 85 is approximately 20/20) improved by 13.3 with aflibercept, by 9.7 with bevacizumab, and by 11.2 with ranibizumab. Although the improvement was greater with aflibercept than with the other two drugs (P<0.001 for aflibercept vs. bevacizumab and P=0.03 for aflibercept vs. ranibizumab), it was not clinically meaningful, because the difference was driven by the eyes with worse visual acuity at baseline (P<0.001 for interaction). When the initial visual-acuity letter score was 78 to 69 (equivalent to approximately 20/32 to 20/40) (51% of participants), the mean improvement was 8.0 with aflibercept, 7.5 with bevacizumab, and 8.3 with ranibizumab (P>0.50 for each pairwise comparison). When the initial letter score was less than 69 (approximately 20/50 or worse), the mean improvement was 18.9 with aflibercept, 11.8 with bevacizumab, and 14.2 with ranibizumab (P<0.001 for aflibercept vs. bevacizumab, P=0.003 for aflibercept vs. ranibizumab, and P=0.21 for ranibizumab vs. bevacizumab). There were no significant differences among the study groups in the rates of serious adverse events (P=0.40), hospitalization (P=0.51), death (P=0.72), or major cardiovascular events (P=0.56). CONCLUSIONS: Intravitreous aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab improved vision in eyes with center-involved diabetic macular edema, but the relative effect depended on baseline visual acuity. When the initial visual-acuity loss was mild, there were no apparent differences, on average, among study groups. At worse levels of initial visual acuity, aflibercept was more effective at improving vision. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01627249.).

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.

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.