Effect of Fenofibrate on Progression of Diabetic Retinopathy.

BACKGROUND: Findings from cardiovascular outcome trials suggest that fenofibrate therapy may reduce the progression of diabetic retinopathy. METHODS: We recruited and followed adults with nonreferable diabetic retinopathy or maculopathy using the national Diabetic Eye Screening (DES) program in Scotland. We randomly assigned participants to receive 145-mg fenofibrate tablets or placebo (taken daily or, in those with impaired renal function, on alternate days). The primary outcome was a composite of developing referable diabetic retinopathy or maculopathy (based on Scotland's DES grading scheme) or treatment (intravitreal injection, retinal laser, vitrectomy) for retinopathy or maculopathy. RESULTS: A total of 1151 participants were randomly assigned to treatment. During a median of 4.0 years, progression to referable diabetic retinopathy or maculopathy, or treatment thereof, occurred in 131 (22.7%) of 576 participants in the fenofibrate group and 168 (29.2%) of 575 in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.91; P=0.006). In the fenofibrate group compared with the placebo group, the frequencies for any progression of retinopathy or maculopathy were 185 (32.1%) vs. 231 (40.2%); hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.90 and for the development of macular edema were 22 (3.8%) vs. 43 (7.5%); hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.84. Seventeen (3.0%) participants assigned fenofibrate and 28 (4.9%) assigned placebo were given treatment for retinopathy (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.31 to 1.06). There was no effect on visual function, quality of life, or visual acuity. Trial-averaged estimated glomerular filtration rate was 7.9 (95% CI, 6.8 to 9.1) ml/min/1.73 m2 lower in participants in the fenofibrate group compared with the placebo group. Serious adverse events occurred in 208 (36.1%) participants allocated fenofibrate and 204 (35.5%) participants allocated placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Fenofibrate reduced progression of diabetic retinopathy compared with placebo among participants with early retinal changes. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03439345; ISRCTN number, ISRCTN15073006.).

Clinical trial results in context: comparison of baseline characteristics and outcomes of 38,510 RECOVERY trial participants versus a reference population of 346,271 people hospitalised with COVID-19 in England.

BACKGROUND: Randomised trials are essential to reliably assess medical interventions. Nevertheless, interpretation of such studies, particularly when considering absolute effects, is enhanced by understanding how the trial population may differ from the populations it aims to represent. METHODS: We compared baseline characteristics and mortality of RECOVERY participants recruited in England (n = 38,510) with a reference population hospitalised with COVID-19 in England (n = 346,271) from March 2020 to November 2021. We used linked hospitalisation and mortality data for both cohorts to extract demographics, comorbidity/frailty scores, and crude and age- and sex-adjusted 28-day all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Demographics of RECOVERY participants were broadly similar to the reference population, but RECOVERY participants were younger (mean age [standard deviation]: RECOVERY 62.6 [15.3] vs reference 65.7 [18.5] years) and less frequently female (37% vs 45%). Comorbidity and frailty scores were lower in RECOVERY, but differences were attenuated after age stratification. Age- and sex-adjusted 28-day mortality declined over time but was similar between cohorts across the study period (RECOVERY 23.7% [95% confidence interval: 23.3-24.1%]; vs reference 24.8% [24.6-25.0%]), except during the first pandemic wave in the UK (March-May 2020) when adjusted mortality was lower in RECOVERY. CONCLUSIONS: Adjusted 28-day mortality in RECOVERY was similar to a nationwide reference population of patients admitted with COVID-19 in England during the same period but varied substantially over time in both cohorts. Therefore, the absolute effect estimates from RECOVERY were broadly applicable to the target population at the time but should be interpreted in the light of current mortality estimates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN50189673- Feb. 04, 2020, NCT04381936- May 11, 2020.