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.).

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.