Changes in activity impairment and work productivity after treatment for vitreous hemorrhage due to proliferative diabetic retinopathy: Secondary outcomes from a randomized controlled trial (DRCR Retina Network Protocol AB).

BACKGROUND: Vitreous hemorrhage from proliferative diabetic retinopathy can cause severe vision loss. DRCR Retina Network Protocol AB was a randomized clinical trial comparing intravitreal aflibercept versus vitrectomy with panretinal photocoagulation and found no difference in the average rate of visual recovery over 104 weeks. Herein, we describe patient-reported outcome measures from Protocol AB. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a multicenter (39 sites) randomized clinical trial. The Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire was administered at 4, 12, 24, 36, 52, 68, 84, and 104 weeks. Main outcomes were mean change in activity impairment and work productivity loss over 24 and 104 weeks (area under the curve). RESULTS: Mean (SD) activity impairment at baseline was 58% (27%) in the aflibercept group (N = 99) and 56% (30%) in the vitrectomy group (N = 105). The mean reduction in activity impairment from baseline over 24 weeks was 21% (25%) in the aflibercept group and 27% (31%) in the vitrectomy group (adjusted difference = -6.8% [95% CI, -12.7% to -0.9%], P = .02); over 104 weeks, the adjusted mean difference was -3.1% (95% CI, -9.2% to 3.0%, P = .31). Mean work productivity loss at baseline was 51% (28%) in the aflibercept group (N = 44) and 58% (30%) in the vitrectomy group (N = 43). The mean reduction in work productivity loss from baseline over 24 weeks (area under the curve) was 19% (23%) in the aflibercept group and 31% (24%) in the vitrectomy group (adjusted difference = -8.3% [95% CI, -16.8% to 0.2%], P = .06); over 104 weeks, the adjusted mean difference was -9.1% (95% CI, -18.4% to 0.2%, P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: Participants with vitreous hemorrhage from proliferative diabetic retinopathy had less activity impairment over 24 weeks when treated initially with vitrectomy and panretinal photocoagulation versus intravitreal aflibercept. The trend was similar for work productivity but not statistically significant. By 104 weeks, the improvements were similar in the two treatment groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02858076.

Visual Acuity, Vitreous Hemorrhage, and Other Ocular Outcomes After Vitrectomy vs Aflibercept for Vitreous Hemorrhage Due to Diabetic Retinopathy: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Although there were no differences in mean visual acuity (VA) over 24 weeks after vitrectomy with panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) vs aflibercept in a randomized clinical trial among eyes with vitreous hemorrhage due to proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR), post hoc analyses may influence treatment choices. OBJECTIVE: To compare exploratory outcomes between treatment groups that may affect treatment choices for patients with vitreous hemorrhage due to PDR. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial conducted at 39 DRCR Retina Network sites included adults with vision loss due to PDR-related vitreous hemorrhage for whom vitrectomy was considered. Data were collected from November 2016 to January 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Random assignment to 4 monthly injections of aflibercept vs vitrectomy with PRP. Both groups could receive aflibercept or vitrectomy during follow-up based on protocol-specific criteria. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Visual acuity area under the curve (adjusted for baseline VA) and clearance of vitreous hemorrhage. RESULTS: A total of 205 eyes were included in the analysis (115 male [56%] and 90 [44%] female participants; mean [SD] age, 57 [11] years). Among 89 eyes with a baseline VA of 20/32 to 20/160 (47 receiving aflibercept, including 4 [9%] that had undergone vitrectomy; 42 undergoing vitrectomy, including 3 [7%] that had received aflibercept), the adjusted mean difference in VA letter score over 24 weeks between the aflibercept and vitrectomy groups was -4.3 (95% CI, -10.6 to 1.9) compared with -16.7 (95% CI, -24.4 to -9.1) among 59 eyes with baseline VA worse than 20/800 (P = .02 for interaction; 26 in the aflibercept group, including 6 [23%] that had undergone vitrectomy; 33 in the vitrectomy group, including 8 [24%] that had received aflibercept). In the full cohort, the median time to clearance of the initial vitreous hemorrhage was 36 (interquartile range [IQR], 24-52) weeks in the aflibercept group vs 4 (IQR, 4-4) weeks in the vitrectomy group (difference, 32 [95% CI, 20-32] weeks; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Both initial aflibercept and vitrectomy with PRP are viable treatment approaches for PDR-related vitreous hemorrhage. Although this study did not find a significant difference between groups in the primary outcome of mean VA over 24 weeks of follow-up, eyes receiving initial vitrectomy with PRP had faster recovery of vision over 24 weeks when baseline VA was worse than 20/800 and faster vitreous hemorrhage clearance. Approximately one-third of the eyes in each group received the alternative treatment (aflibercept or vitrectomy with PRP). These factors may influence treatment decisions for patients initiating therapy for PDR-related vitreous hemorrhage. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02858076.

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.

Five-Year Outcomes after Initial Aflibercept, Bevacizumab, or Ranibizumab Treatment for Diabetic Macular Edema (Protocol T Extension Study).

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

Phase 1 Study of OPT-302 Inhibition of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factors C and D for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration.

PURPOSE: OPT-302 is a novel inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-C and VEGF-D. A phase 1 trial assessed the safety of intravitreal OPT-302 as monotherapy or combined with ranibizumab (Lucentis; Genentech, South San Francisco, CA) in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). DESIGN: Open-label, dose escalation followed by a randomized dose expansion. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-one patients with nAMD who were either treatment naïve (n = 25) or previously were treated with anti-VEGF A therapy (n = 26). METHODS: In the dose escalation, groups of 5 patients in 4 cohorts received ascending doses of OPT-302 (0.3 mg, 1 mg, or 2 mg) in combination with ranibizumab (0.5 mg), or as monotherapy (2 mg). In the dose expansion, 31 patients were randomized (3:1) to OPT-302 (2 mg) in combination with ranibizumab (n = 23) or as monotherapy (n = 8). Participants received three intravitreal treatments of OPT-302 once every 4 weeks either with or without ranibizumab. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Safety and tolerability, OPT-302 pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity, effects on best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and anatomic changes. RESULTS: Intravitreal OPT-302 with or without ranibizumab was well tolerated with low systemic exposure, no dose-limiting toxicities and no immunogenicity. In patients receiving OPT-302 monotherapy, 7 of 13 (54%) did not require rescue anti-VEGF-A therapy and the mean change in BCVA from baseline to week 12 was +5.6 letters (range, 0-18 letters). Mean BCVA gains from baseline to week 12 following combination OPT-302 with ranibizumab were +10.8 letters (95% confidence interval [CI], 4-17; n = 18) in treatment-naïve patients and +4.9 letters (95% CI, 3-7; n = 19) in previously treated patients, respectively. Corresponding reductions in mean central subfield thickness at week 12 in both groups were -119 µm (95% CI, -176 to -62 µm) and -54 µm (95% CI, -82 to -26 µm), respectively, whilst 50% of treatment-naïve patients also showed no detectable choroidal neovascularization at week 12 on fluorescein angiography. CONCLUSIONS: Intravitreal OPT-302 inhibition of VEGF-C and -D was well tolerated, and OPT-302 combination therapy may overcome an escape mechanism to VEGF-A suppression in the management of nAMD.

Visual Acuity Outcomes after Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Treatment for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 Report Number 19.

PURPOSE: To analyze best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) outcomes after anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD). DESIGN: Prospective cohort study of participants enrolled in a clinical trial of oral supplements and receiving anti-VEGF therapy in routine clinical practice. PARTICIPANTS: Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 (AREDS2) participants (50-85 years of age) whose eyes met AREDS2 inclusion criteria at baseline (no late AMD, BCVA ≥20/100, no previous anti-VEGF injections) but received at least 1 anti-VEGF injection for incident neovascular AMD during follow-up. METHODS: Participants underwent refracted BCVA testing, ophthalmoscopic examination, and stereoscopic color fundus photography at baseline and annual study visits over 5 years. Self-reports of anti-VEGF injections (numbers, dates, and names of drug) were collected at baseline and annual study visits and during telephone calls every 6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measures were mean refracted BCVA and proportions of eyes with BCVA of 20/40 or better and 20/200 or worse. An exploratory outcome measure was the mean number of self-reported anti-VEGF injections. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred five eyes of 986 AREDS2 participants met the inclusion criteria; of these, 977 participants (99.1%) underwent at least 1 posttreatment visit. At the first and subsequent annual examinations after the first injection, mean refracted BCVAs were 68.0 letters (Snellen equivalent, 20/40), 66.1 letters, 64.7 letters, 63.2 letters, and 61.5 letters (Snellen equivalent, 20/60). Proportions of eyes with BCVA of 20/40 or better were 59.3%, 55.1%, 53.5%, 50.6%, and 49.7%, and those with BCVA of 20/200 or worse were 5.5%, 8.6%, 9.4%, 12.4%, and 14.4%. Mean annual numbers of self-reported anti-VEGF injections per eye were 2.9, 3.9, 3.3, 3.1, and 3.0. CONCLUSIONS: Refracted BCVA data were obtained in a clinical trial environment but were related to anti-VEGF treatment administered in normal clinical practice. Visual outcomes declined slowly with increased follow-up time: mean BCVA decreased by approximately 1.5 to 2 letters per year. At 5 years, half of eyes achieved BCVA of 20/40 or better, but approximately one sixth showed BCVA of 20/200 or worse. These data may be useful in assessing the long-term effects of anti-VEGF therapy.

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.

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.

Usability of the Ranibizumab 0.5 mg Prefilled Syringe: Human Factors Studies to Evaluate Critical Task Completion by Healthcare Professionals.

PURPOSE: A ranibizumab prefilled syringe (PFS) has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Here we evaluate the use of the ranibizumab PFS for intravitreal injection by assessing whether the PFS enables healthcare providers to successfully prepare and administer an injection without prior training. DESIGN: Simulated-use and actual-use human factors usability studies. PARTICIPANTS: Retina specialists and ophthalmic medical personnel. METHODS: In a simulated-use summative usability study, retina specialists (n = 15) and ophthalmic medical personnel (n = 15) prepared the ranibizumab PFS and performed injections into a model eye. In an actual-use formative usability study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02698566), three assistants and three retina specialists prepared the PFS and performed intravitreal injections, respectively, in study eyes of patients with retinal diseases (n = 35). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Twelve tasks specific to the unpacking, preparing, and properly administering the PFS for intravitreal injection were evaluated by a study assessor. Task performances were evaluated for use errors, close calls, and operational difficulties. Post-injection subjective user evaluations were performed to assess ease of use. RESULTS: All participants successfully performed all essential and safety-critical tasks without use error in both the simulated-use and actual-use human factors usability studies. The majority of participants rated the tasks required to use the ranibizumab PFS as "Easy" or "Very Easy." CONCLUSIONS: Both the simulated-use and actual-use usability studies yielded consistent data, showing that healthcare professionals are able to use the ranibizumab PFS by successfully performing all critical tasks involved in preparing and delivering an intravitreal injection. The simulated-use usability testing was sufficiently realistic and representative of real-world use, and was appropriate and preferred over actual-use usability testing for proper evaluation of the product user interface.LAY ABSTRACT: Ranibizumab is approved in the United States to treat various eye conditions, including neovascular (wet) age-related macular degeneration, macular edema following retinal vein occlusion, diabetic macular edema, diabetic retinopathy, and myopic choroidal neovascularization. It is administered as an injection into the eye once a month, and is available in a vial from which medication needs to be withdrawn using a standard syringe with a 19-gauge filter needle. The filter needle is then replaced by a smaller gauge needle for the intravitreal injection. The recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of a 0.5 mg ranibizumab prefilled syringe eliminates the need for withdrawing medication from a vial and changing needles prior to use. The studies described in this report assessed the usability of the ranibizumab prefilled syringe by retina specialists and ophthalmic medical personnel in simulated- and actual-use settings. Twelve tasks that included unpacking, preparing, and properly administering the prefilled syringe for intravitreal injection were evaluated by a study assessor. Task performances were evaluated for use errors, close calls, and operational difficulties. Participants successfully performed all the tasks without any critical errors in both simulated-use and actual-use human factors usability studies, and most participants found the syringe to be "Easy" or "Very Easy" to use.

EVALUATION OF FULL-FIELD ELECTRORETINOGRAM REDUCTIONS AFTER OCRIPLASMIN TREATMENT: Results of the OASIS Trial ERG Substudy.

PURPOSE: To explore a possible association between full-field electroretinograms with vitreomacular adhesion resolution and best-corrected visual acuity as part of the prospective, randomized, double-masked, sham-controlled Ocriplasmin for Treatment for Symptomatic Vitreomacular Adhesion Including Macular Hole (OASIS) trial studying ocriplasmin. METHODS: The ERG substudy enrolled 62 of 220 OASIS subjects (randomized 2:1) and analyzed full-field electroretinograms and their association with both vitreomacular adhesion resolution and best-corrected visual acuity from baseline through Month 24. Electroretinogram reductions were defined as acute full-field electroretinogram reductions in amplitude of ≥40% from baseline occurring at postinjection Day 7 or Day 28. RESULTS: In the ocriplasmin group, 16/40 (40%) subjects developed ERG reductions, compared to 1/21 (4.8%) in the sham group; 13/16 (81.3%) and 1/1 (100%) resolved by study end, respectively. A total of 11/16 (68.8%) ocriplasmin-treated subjects with ERG reductions achieved vitreomacular adhesion resolution, compared to those without (9/24, 37.5%). The ocriplasmin-treated subjects with ERG reductions also gained more letters on average (11.3 vs. 9.3 letters) from baseline and had a difference of 6.7 letters in mean best-corrected visual acuity by study end compared to those without ERG reductions. CONCLUSION: Ocriplasmin-treated subjects with ERG reductions had a higher rate of vitreomacular adhesion resolution and showed better visual improvement than their counterparts without ERG reductions or sham subjects by study end.

Baseline Factors Associated With 6-Month Visual Acuity and Retinal Thickness Outcomes in Patients With Macular Edema Secondary to Central Retinal Vein Occlusion or Hemiretinal Vein Occlusion: SCORE2 Study Report 4.

Importance: Macular edema (ME) is the leading cause of decreased visual acuity (VA) associated with retinal vein occlusion (RVO). Identifying factors associated with better outcomes in RVO eyes treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy may provide information useful in counseling patients. Objective: To investigate baseline characteristics associated with 6-month VA and central subfield thickness (CST) outcomes in participants in the Study of Comparative Treatments for Retinal Vein Occlusion 2 (SCORE2). Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 362 patients with central RVO or hemi-RVO were enrolled between September 17, 2014, and November 18, 2015, and randomized 1:1 in a masked fashion to receive bevacizumab or aflibercept. At month 6, 348 participants (96%) had VA outcomes measured and 335 participants (93%) had spectral domain optical coherence tomography outcomes measured. The current data analysis was conducted from February 27, 2017, to April 7, 2017. Interventions: Eyes were randomly assigned to receive an intravitreal injection of bevacizumab, 1.25 mg, or aflibercept, 2.0 mg, at baseline and every 4 weeks, with the primary outcome measured at 6 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: Change from baseline in VA letter score (VALS), VALS gain of 15 or more, change from baseline in CST, CST less than 300 µm, and resolution of ME. Baseline factors associated with 6-month outcome at the 0.05 level in univariate regressions were included in multivariate regressions, with those significant after multiplicity control by the Hochberg method reported. Results: The mean (SD) age of patients was 69 (12) years, and 43% were women. Younger patient age (odds ratio [OR], 0.95 per year of age; 95% CI, 0.93-0.98; P = .007) and lower baseline VALS (OR, 0.96 per letter; 95% CI, 0.94-0.98; P < .001) were associated with a 6-month VALS gain of 15 or greater. Compared with bevacizumab, aflibercept treatment was associated with a higher odds of ME resolution (OR, 3.59; 95% CI, 2.22-5.80; P < .001) and CST less than 300 µm (OR, 5.30; 95% CI, 2.40-11.67; P = .001), but not with a better VA outcome. Macular edema was less likely to resolve in eyes that received anti-VEGF treatment prior to study participation (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.17-0.64; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: In eyes treated with bevacizumab or aflibercept, younger age and worse baseline VALS were associated with better 6-month VA outcomes. Aflibercept treatment was associated with more favorable spectral domain optical coherence tomography outcomes but not VA outcomes. These findings may be useful in assessing expected response at month 6 after monthly injection of anti-VEGF agents for treating ME due to CRVO and HRVO. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01969708.

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.

Assessing the Effect of Personalized Diabetes Risk Assessments During Ophthalmologic Visits on Glycemic Control: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Optimization of glycemic control is critical to reduce the number of diabetes mellitus-related complications, but long-term success is challenging. Although vision loss is among the greatest fears of individuals with diabetes, comprehensive personalized diabetes education and risk assessments are not consistently used in ophthalmologic settings. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the point-of-care measurement of hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) and personalized diabetes risk assessments performed during retinal ophthalmologic visits improve glycemic control as assessed by HbA(1c) level. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Ophthalmologist office-based randomized, multicenter clinical trial in which investigators from 42 sites were randomly assigned to provide either a study-prescribed augmented diabetes assessment and education or the usual care. Adults with type 1 or 2 diabetes enrolled into 2 cohorts: those with a more-frequent-than-annual follow-up (502 control participants and 488 intervention participants) and those with an annual follow-up (368 control participants and 388 intervention participants). Enrollment was from April 2011 through January 2013. INTERVENTIONS: Point-of-care measurements of HbA1c, blood pressure, and retinopathy severity; an individualized estimate of the risk of retinopathy progression derived from the findings from ophthalmologic visits; structured comparison and review of past and current clinical findings; and structured education with immediate assessment and feedback regarding participant's understanding. These interventions were performed at enrollment and at routine ophthalmic follow-up visits scheduled at least 12 weeks apart. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Mean change in HbA(1c) level from baseline to 1-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes included body mass index, blood pressure, and responses to diabetes self-management practices and attitudes surveys. RESULTS: In the cohort with more-frequent-than-annual follow-ups, the mean (SD) change in HbA(1c) level at 1 year was -0.1% (1.5%) in the control group and -0.3% (1.4%) in the intervention group (adjusted mean difference, -0.09% [95% CI, -0.29% to 0.12%]; P = .35). In the cohort with annual follow-ups, the mean (SD) change in HbA(1c) level was 0.0% (1.1%) in the control group and -0.1% (1.6%) in the intervention group (mean difference, -0.05% [95% CI, -0.27% to 0.18%]; P = .63). Results were similar for all secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Long-term optimization of glycemic control is not achieved by a majority of individuals with diabetes. The addition of personalized education and risk assessment during retinal ophthalmologic visits did not result in a reduction in HbA(1c) level compared with usual care over 1 year. These data suggest that optimizing glycemic control remains a substantive challenge requiring interventional paradigms other than those examined in our study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier:NCT01323348.

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.).

Detachable microsphere scalpel tips for potential use in ophthalmic surgery with the erbium:YAG laser.

Vitreoretinal surgery is performed using mechanical dissection that sometimes results in iatrogenic complications, including vitreous hemorrhage, retinal breaks, incomplete membrane delamination, retinal distortion, microscopic damage, etc. An ultraprecise laser probe would be an ideal tool for cutting away pathologic membranes; however, the depth of surgery should be precisely controlled to protect the sensitive underlying retina. The ultraprecise surgical microprobe formed by chains of dielectric spheres for use with the erbium:YAG laser source (λ=2940 nm), with extremely short optical penetration depth in tissue, was optimized. Numerical modeling demonstrated a potential advantage of five-sphere focusing chains of sapphire spheres with index n=1.71 for ablating the tissue with self-limited depth around 10 to 20 µm. Novel detachable microsphere scalpel tips formed by chains of 300 µm sapphire (or ruby) spheres were tested on ophthalmic tissues, ex vivo. Detachable scalpel tips could allow for reusability of expensive mid-infrared trunk fibers between procedures, and offer more surgical customization by interchanging various scalpel tip configurations. An innovative method for aiming beam integration into the microsphere scalpel to improve the illumination of the surgical site was also shown. Single Er:YAG pulses of 0.2 mJ and 75-µs duration produced ablation craters in cornea epithelium for one, three, and five sphere structures with the latter generating the smallest crater depth (10 µm) with the least amount of thermal damage depth (30 µm). Detachable microsphere laser scalpel tips may allow surgeons better precision and safety compared to mechanical scalpels when operating on delicate or sensitive areas like the retina.

Secondary analyses of the effects of lutein/zeaxanthin on age-related macular degeneration progression: AREDS2 report No. 3.

IMPORTANCE: The Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) formulation for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) contains vitamin C, vitamin E, beta carotene, and zinc with copper. The Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 (AREDS2) assessed the value of substituting lutein/zeaxanthin in the AREDS formulation because of the demonstrated risk for lung cancer from beta carotene in smokers and former smokers and because lutein and zeaxanthin are important components in the retina. OBJECTIVE: To further examine the effect of lutein/zeaxanthin supplementation on progression to late AMD. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: The Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 is a multicenter, double-masked randomized trial of 4203 participants, aged 50 to 85 years, at risk for developing late AMD; 66% of patients had bilateral large drusen and 34% had large drusen and late AMD in 1 eye. INTERVENTIONS: In addition to taking the original or a variation of the AREDS supplement, participants were randomly assigned in a factorial design to 1 of the following 4 groups: placebo; lutein/zeaxanthin, 10 mg/2 mg; omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty 3 acids, 1.0 g; or the combination. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURE: S Documented development of late AMD by central, masked grading of annual retinal photographs or by treatment history. RESULTS In exploratory analysis of lutein/zeaxanthin vs no lutein/zeaxanthin, the hazard ratio of the development of late AMD was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.82-0.99; P = .04). Exploratory analyses of direct comparison of lutein/zeaxanthin vs beta carotene showed hazard ratios of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.69-0.96; P = .02) for development of late AMD, 0.78 (95% CI, 0.64-0.94; P = .01) for development of neovascular AMD, and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.70-1.26; P = .67) for development of central geographic atrophy. In analyses restricted to eyes with bilateral large drusen at baseline, the direct comparison of lutein/zeaxanthin vs beta carotene showed hazard ratios of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.61-0.96; P = .02) for progression to late AMD, 0.65 (95% CI, 0.49-0.85; P = .002) for neovascular AMD, and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.69-1.39; P = .91) for central geographic atrophy. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: The totality of evidence on beneficial and adverse effects from AREDS2 and other studies suggests that lutein/zeaxanthin could be more appropriate than beta carotene in the AREDS-type supplements. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00345176.

Lutein/zeaxanthin for the treatment of age-related cataract: AREDS2 randomized trial report no. 4.

IMPORTANCE: Age-related cataract is a leading cause of visual impairment in the United States. The prevalence of age-related cataract is increasing, with an estimated 30.1 million Americans likely to be affected by 2020. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether daily oral supplementation with lutein/zeaxanthin affects the risk for cataract surgery. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: The Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 (AREDS2), a multicenter, double-masked clinical trial, enrolled 4203 participants, aged 50 to 85 years, at risk for progression to advanced age-related macular degeneration. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned to daily placebo; lutein/zeaxanthin, 10mg/2mg; omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids, 1 g; or a combination to evaluate the effects on the primary outcome of progression to advanced age-related macular degeneration. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Cataract surgery was documented at annual study examination with the presence of pseudophakia or aphakia, or reported during telephone calls at 6-month intervals between study visits. Annual best-corrected visual acuity testing was performed. A secondary outcome of AREDS2 was to evaluate the effects of lutein/zeaxanthin on the subsequent need for cataract surgery. RESULTS: A total of 3159 AREDS2 participants were phakic in at least 1 eye and 1389 of 6027 study eyes underwent cataract surgery during the study, with median follow-up of 4.7 years. The 5-year probability of progression to cataract surgery in the no lutein/zeaxanthin group was 24%. For lutein/zeaxanthin vs no lutein/zeaxanthin, the hazard ratios for progression to cataract surgery was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.84-1.10; P = .54). For participants in the lowest quintile of dietary intake of lutein/zeaxanthin, the hazard ratio comparing lutein/zeaxanthin vs no lutein/zeaxanthin for progression to cataract surgery was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.48-0.96; P = .03). The hazard ratio for 3 or more lines of vision loss was 1.03 (95% CI, 0.93-1.13; P = .61 for lutein/zeaxanthin vs no lutein/zeaxanthin). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Daily supplementation with lutein/zeaxanthin had no statistically significant overall effect on rates of cataract surgery or vision loss. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00345176.