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.

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.).

A Randomized Trial of Photobiomodulation Therapy for Center-Involved Diabetic Macular Edema with Good Visual Acuity (Protocol AE).

PURPOSE: To determine if treatment with a photobiomodulation (PBM) device results in greater improvement in central subfield thickness (CST) than placebo in eyes with center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME) and good vision. DESIGN: Phase 2 randomized clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Participants had CI-DME and visual acuity (VA) 20/25 or better in the study eye and were recruited from 23 clinical sites in the United States. METHODS: One eye of each participant was randomly assigned 1:1 to a 670-nm light-emitting PBM eye patch or an identical device emitting broad-spectrum white light at low power. Treatment was applied for 90 seconds twice daily for 4 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in CST on spectral-domain OCT at 4 months. RESULTS: From April 2019 to February 2020, 135 adults were randomly assigned to either PBM (n = 69) or placebo (n = 66); median age was 62 years, 37% were women, and 82% were White. The median device compliance was 92% with PBM and 95% with placebo. OCT CST increased from baseline to 4 months by a mean (SD) of 13 (53) µm in PBM eyes and 15 (57) µm in placebo eyes, with the mean difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) being -2 (-20 to 16) µm (P = 0.84). CI-DME, based on DRCR Retina Network sex- and machine-based thresholds, was present in 61 (90%) PBM eyes and 57 (86%) placebo eyes at 4 months (adjusted odds ratio [95% CI] = 1.30 (0.44-3.83); P = 0.63). VA decreased by a mean (SD) of -0.2 (5.5) letters and -0.6 (4.6) letters in the PBM and placebo groups, respectively (difference [95% CI] = 0.4 (-1.3 to 2.0) letters; P = 0.64). There were 8 adverse events possibly related to the PBM device and 2 adverse events possibly related to the placebo device. None were serious. CONCLUSIONS: PBM as given in this study, although safe and well-tolerated, was not found to be effective for the treatment of CI-DME in eyes with good vision.

Lapses in Care Among Patients Assigned to Ranibizumab for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The follow-up schedule for individuals with eyes treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents for proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) requires that patients return frequently for monitoring and repeated treatment. The likelihood that a patient will comply should be a consideration in choosing a treatment approach. OBJECTIVE: To describe completion of scheduled examinations among participants assigned to intravitreous injections of ranibizumab for PDR in a multicenter randomized clinical trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This post hoc analysis evaluates data from a randomized clinical trial conducted at 55 US sites among 305 adults with proliferative diabetic retinopathy enrolled between February and December 2012. 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. Data were analyzed from April 2019 to July 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Ranibizumab injections for PDR or macular edema. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: A long lapse in care of 8 or more weeks past a scheduled examination, dropout from follow-up, visual acuity at 5 years. RESULTS: Among 170 participants, the median age was 51 years, and 44.7% were female. Through 5 years of follow-up, 94 of 170 participants (55.3%) had 1 or more long lapse in care. Median time to the first long lapse was 210 weeks, and 69 of 94 participants (73.4%) returned for examination after the first long lapse. Fifty of 170 participants (29.4%) dropped out of follow-up by 5 years. Among the 120 participants who completed the 5-year examination, median change from baseline in visual acuity was -2 letters for participants who had 1 or more long lapse compared with +5 letters for those without a long lapse (P = .02). After multivariable adjustment, the odds ratio (95% CI) for baseline associations with 1 or more long lapse was 1.21 (1.03-1.43) for each 5-letter decrement in visual acuity score, 2.19 (1.09-4.38) for neovascularization of the disc and elsewhere, and 3.48 (1.38-8.78) for no prior laser treatment for diabetic macular edema. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Over 5 years, approximately half of the participants assigned to ranibizumab for PDR had a long lapse in care despite substantial effort by the DRCR Retina Network to facilitate timely completion of examinations. The likelihood of a long lapse in care during long-term follow-up needs to be considered when choosing treatment for PDR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01489189.

Effect of Intravitreous Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor vs Sham Treatment for Prevention of Vision-Threatening Complications of Diabetic Retinopathy: The Protocol W Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The role of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections for the management of nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) without center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME) has not been clearly established. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of intravitreous aflibercept injections compared with sham treatment in preventing potentially vision-threatening complications in eyes with moderate to severe NPDR. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data for this study were collected between January 15, 2016, and May 28, 2020, from the ongoing DRCR Retina Network Protocol W randomized clinical trial, conducted at 64 US and Canadian sites among 328 adults (399 eyes) with moderate to severe NPDR (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study severity level, 43-53), without CI-DME. Analyses followed the intent-to-treat principle. INTERVENTIONS: Eyes were randomly assigned to 2.0 mg of aflibercept injections (n = 200) or sham (n = 199) given at baseline; 1, 2, and 4 months; and every 4 months through 2 years. Between 2 and 4 years, treatment was deferred if the eye had mild NPDR or better. Aflibercept was administered in both groups if CI-DME with vision loss (≥10 letters at 1 visit or 5-9 letters at 2 consecutive visits) or high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) developed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Development of CI-DME with vision loss or PDR through May 2020, when the last 2-year visit was completed. RESULTS: Among the 328 participants (57.6% men [230 of 399 eyes]; mean [SD] age, 56 [11] years), the 2-year cumulative probability of developing CI-DME with vision loss or PDR was 16.3% with aflibercept vs 43.5% with sham. The overall hazard ratio for either outcome was 0.32 (97.5% CI, 0.21-0.50; P < .001), favoring aflibercept. The 2-year cumulative probability of developing PDR was 13.5% in the aflibercept group vs 33.2% in the sham group, and the 2-year cumulative probability of developing CI-DME with vision loss was 4.1% in the aflibercept group vs 14.8% in the sham group. The mean (SD) change in visual acuity from baseline to 2 years was -0.9 (5.8) letters with aflibercept and -2.0 (6.1) letters with sham (adjusted mean difference, 0.5 letters [97.5% CI, -1.0 to 1.9 letters]; P = .47). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this randomized clinical trial, among eyes with moderate to severe NPDR, the proportion of eyes that developed PDR or vision-reducing CI-DME was lower with periodic aflibercept compared with sham treatment. However, through 2 years, preventive treatment did not confer visual acuity benefit compared with observation plus treatment with aflibercept only after development of PDR or vision-reducing CI-DME. The 4-year results will be important to assess longer-term visual acuity outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02634333.

Effect of Intravitreous Aflibercept vs Vitrectomy With Panretinal Photocoagulation on Visual Acuity in Patients With Vitreous Hemorrhage From Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

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.

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 telephone calls from a centralized coordinating center on participant retention in a randomized clinical trial.

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.

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.

Rationale and Application of the Protocol S Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Algorithm for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy.

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.

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.

Elimination of Topical Antibiotics for Intravitreous Injections and the Importance of Using Povidone-Iodine: Update From the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network.

IMPORTANCE: This report provides updated endophthalmitis rates for eyes receiving intravitreous injections with and without povidone-iodine and rates with and without topical antibiotics from Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network clinical trials. OBSERVATIONS: Among 8 Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network clinical trials conducted from 2006 to 2015, 28 786 intravitreous injections were administered (3123 eyes), and 20 617 of those (2264 eyes) were administered between 2012 and 2015. Eleven cases of endophthalmitis occurred; 4 occurred between 2012 and 2015. Thirteen injections in 3 eyes from 2 participants were administered without povidone-iodine; both participants developed endophthalmitis in 1 eye. Of the remaining 28 773 injections (3120 eyes) performed with povidone-iodine, 9 cases of endophthalmitis occurred: 6 cases (0.05% of 11 565 injections) in eyes receiving topical antibiotics and 3 cases (0.02% of 17 208 injections) in eyes not receiving topical antibiotics (P = .17). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: While only a small number of eyes did not receive povidone-iodine just prior to an intravitreous injection, this report provides further evidence regarding the risk of endophthalmitis when povidone-iodine is not used before intravitreous injections. Exclusion of topical antibiotics was not associated with a higher risk of endophthalmitis. Continued use of povidone-iodine and consideration to eliminate topical antibiotics from injection procedures seems warranted.

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.

Evaluation of masking study participants to intravitreal injections in a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the success of masking study participants to treatment allocation using sham intravitreal injections. METHODS: Eyes were randomized to receive sham injections plus prompt laser, intravitreal ranibizumab injections plus prompt laser, intravitreal ranibizumab injections plus deferred laser, or intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injections plus prompt laser up to every 16 weeks with sham injections intermittently. All eyes could receive treatment or sham as often as every 4 weeks. Participants with 2 study eyes had 1 eye randomized to sham plus prompt laser and 1 eye randomized to a real injection group. Sham injections were performed by pressing the syringe hub against the conjunctiva to mimic a real injection. Laser treatment was not masked. At the 1-year visit, participants were asked if they believed that the injections received during the study were real, sham, or sometimes real and sometimes sham. RESULTS: Among 423 participants with 1 study eye, the correct assignment was stated by 9.9% of the sham plus prompt laser group, 88.0% of the ranibizumab plus prompt laser group, 89.6% of the unmasked ranibizumab plus deferred laser group, and 44.0% of the triamcinolone plus prompt laser group. Among 112 participants with 2 study eyes, the correct assignment was stated for 24.1% of the sham plus prompt laser eyes. CONCLUSIONS: Successful masking of an intravitreal injection can be accomplished when a sham injection procedure carefully mimics a real injection procedure. Masking seems less successful when one eye is receiving a real injection and the other eye is receiving a sham injection or when an individual eye receives both real and sham injections.

Rationale for the diabetic retinopathy clinical research network treatment protocol for center-involved diabetic macular edema.

OBJECTIVE: To 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 resulting 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 treatment in eyes with vision loss resulting 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. 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 treatment, 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. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Expanded 2-year follow-up of ranibizumab plus prompt or deferred laser or triamcinolone plus prompt laser for diabetic macular edema.

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.

Randomized trial evaluating short-term effects of intravitreal ranibizumab or triamcinolone acetonide on macular edema after focal/grid laser for diabetic macular edema in eyes also receiving panretinal photocoagulation.

PURPOSE: To evaluate 14-week effects of intravitreal ranibizumab or triamcinolone in eyes receiving focal/grid laser for diabetic macular edema and panretinal photocoagulation. METHODS: Three hundred and forty-five eyes with a visual acuity of 20/320 or better, center-involved diabetic macular edema receiving focal/grid laser, and diabetic retinopathy receiving prompt panretinal photocoagulation were randomly assigned to sham (n = 123), 0.5-mg ranibizumab (n = 113) at baseline and 4 weeks, and 4-mg triamcinolone at baseline and sham at 4 weeks (n = 109). Treatment was at investigator discretion from 14 weeks to 56 weeks. RESULTS: Mean changes (±SD) in visual acuity letter score from baseline were significantly better in the ranibizumab (+1 ± 11; P < 0.001) and triamcinolone (+2 ± 11; P < 0.001) groups compared with those in the sham group (-4 ± 14) at the 14-week visit, mirroring retinal thickening results. These differences were not maintained when study participants were followed for 56 weeks for safety outcomes. One eye (0.9%; 95% confidence interval, 0.02%-4.7%) developed endophthalmitis after receiving ranibizumab. Cerebrovascular/cardiovascular events occurred in 4%, 7%, and 3% of the sham, ranibizumab, and triamcinolone groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: The addition of 1 intravitreal triamcinolone injection or 2 intravitreal ranibizumab injections in eyes receiving focal/grid laser for diabetic macular edema and panretinal photocoagulation is associated with better visual acuity and decreased macular edema by 14 weeks. Whether continued long-term intravitreal treatment is beneficial cannot be determined from this study.

Randomized trial evaluating ranibizumab plus prompt or deferred laser or triamcinolone plus prompt laser for diabetic macular edema.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate 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 (approximate Snellen equivalent) of 20/32 to 20/320 and DME involving the fovea. METHODS: Eyes were randomized to sham injection + prompt laser (n=293), 0.5 mg ranibizumab + prompt laser (n=187), 0.5 mg ranibizumab + deferred (> or =24 weeks) laser (n=188), or 4 mg triamcinolone + prompt laser (n=186). Retreatment followed an algorithm facilitated by a web-based, real-time data-entry system. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Best-corrected visual acuity and safety at 1 year. RESULTS: The 1-year mean change (+/-standard deviation) in the visual acuity letter score from baseline was significantly greater in the ranibizumab + prompt laser group (+9+/-11, P<0.001) and ranibizumab + deferred laser group (+9+/-12, P<0.001) but not in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group (+4+/-13, P=0.31) compared with the sham + prompt laser group (+3+/-13). Reduction in mean central subfield thickness in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group was similar to both ranibizumab groups and greater than in the sham + prompt laser group. In the subset of pseudophakic eyes at baseline (n=273), visual acuity improvement in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group appeared comparable to that in the ranibizumab groups. No systemic events attributable to study treatment were apparent. Three eyes (0.8%) had injection-related endophthalmitis in the ranibizumab groups, whereas elevated intraocular pressure and cataract surgery were more frequent in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group. Two-year visual acuity outcomes were similar to 1-year outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Intravitreal ranibizumab with prompt or deferred laser is more effective through at least 1 year compared with prompt laser alone for the treatment of DME involving the central macula. Ranibizumab as applied in this study, although uncommonly associated with endophthalmitis, should be considered for patients with DME and characteristics similar to those in this clinical trial. In pseudophakic eyes, intravitreal triamcinolone + prompt laser seems more effective than laser alone but frequently increases the risk of intraocular pressure elevation.