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.).

Risk Factors for Meeting Criteria for Switching from Bevacizumab to Aflibercept When Treating Eyes with Diabetic Macular Edema and Visual Acuity of < 20/40.

PURPOSE: To identify factors for meeting prespecified criteria for switching from bevacizumab to aflibercept in eyes with center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME) and moderate vision loss initially treated with bevacizumab in DRCR Retina Network protocol AC. DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred seventy participants with one or both eyes harboring CI-DME with visual acuity (VA) letter score of 69 to 24 (Snellen equivalent, 20/50-20/320). METHODS: Eligible eyes were assigned to receive intravitreal aflibercept monotherapy (n = 158) or bevacizumab followed by aflibercept if prespecified criteria for switching were met between 12 weeks and 2 years (n = 154). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Meeting switching criteria: (1) at any time, (2) at 12 weeks, and (3) after 12 weeks. Associations between meeting the criteria for switching and factors measured at baseline and 12 weeks were evaluated in univariable analyses. Stepwise procedures were used to select variables for multivariable models. RESULTS: In the group receiving bevacizumab first, older participants showed a higher risk of meeting the switching criteria at any time, with a hazard ratio (HR) for a 10-year increase in age of 1.32 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.58). Male participants or eyes with worse baseline VA were more likely to switch at 12 weeks (for male vs. female: odds ratio [OR], 4.84 [95% CI, 1.32-17.81]; 5-letter lower baseline VA: OR, 1.30 [95% CI, 1.03-1.63]). Worse 12-week central subfield thickness (CST; 10-µm greater: HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.04-1.07]) was associated with increased risk of switching after 12 weeks. The mean ± standard deviation improvement in visual acuity after completing the switch to aflibercept was 3.7 ± 4.9 letters compared with the day of switching. CONCLUSIONS: The identified factors can be used to refine expectations regarding the likelihood that an eye will meet protocol criteria to switch to aflibercept when treatment is initiated with bevacizumab. Older patients are more likely to be switched. At 12 weeks, thicker CST was predictive of eyes most likely to be switched in the future. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Efficacy, durability, and safety of intravitreal faricimab with extended dosing up to every 16 weeks in patients with diabetic macular oedema (YOSEMITE and RHINE): two randomised, double-masked, phase 3 trials.

BACKGROUND: To reduce treatment burden and optimise patient outcomes in diabetic macular oedema, we present 1-year results from two phase 3 trials of faricimab, a novel angiopoietin-2 and vascular endothelial growth factor-A bispecific antibody. METHODS: YOSEMITE and RHINE were randomised, double-masked, non-inferiority trials across 353 sites worldwide. Adults with vision loss due to centre-involving diabetic macular oedema were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to intravitreal faricimab 6·0 mg every 8 weeks, faricimab 6·0 mg per personalised treatment interval (PTI), or aflibercept 2·0 mg every 8 weeks up to week 100. PTI dosing intervals were extended, maintained, or reduced (every 4 weeks up to every 16 weeks) based on disease activity at active dosing visits. The primary endpoint was mean change in best-corrected visual acuity at 1 year, averaged over weeks 48, 52, and 56. Efficacy analyses included the intention-to-treat population (non-inferiority margin 4 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] letters); safety analyses included patients with at least one dose of study treatment. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (YOSEMITE NCT03622580 and RHINE NCT03622593). FINDINGS: 3247 patients were screened for eligibility in YOSEMITE (n=1532) and RHINE (n=1715). After exclusions, 940 patients were enrolled into YOSEMITE between Sept 5, 2018, and Sept 19, 2019, and 951 patients were enrolled into RHINE between Oct 9, 2018, and Sept 20, 2019. These 1891 patients were randomly assigned to faricimab every 8 weeks (YOSEMITE n=315, RHINE n=317), faricimab PTI (n=313, n=319), or aflibercept every 8 weeks (n=312, n=315). Non-inferiority for the primary endpoint was achieved with faricimab every 8 weeks (adjusted mean vs aflibercept every 8 weeks in YOSEMITE 10·7 ETDRS letters [97·52% CI 9·4 to 12·0] vs 10·9 ETDRS letters [9·6 to 12·2], difference -0·2 ETDRS letters [-2·0 to 1·6]; RHINE 11·8 ETDRS letters [10·6 to 13·0] vs 10·3 ETDRS letters [9·1 to 11·4] letters, difference 1·5 ETDRS letters [-0·1 to 3·2]) and faricimab PTI (YOSEMITE 11·6 ETDRS letters [10·3 to 12·9], difference 0·7 ETDRS letters [-1·1 to 2·5]; RHINE 10·8 ETDRS letters [9·6 to 11·9], difference 0·5 ETDRS letters [-1·1 to 2·1]). Incidence of ocular adverse events was comparable between faricimab every 8 weeks (YOSEMITE n=98 [31%], RHINE n=137 [43%]), faricimab PTI (n=106 [34%], n=119 [37%]), and aflibercept every 8 weeks (n=102 [33%], n=113 [36%]). INTERPRETATION: Robust vision gains and anatomical improvements with faricimab were achieved with adjustable dosing up to every 16 weeks, demonstrating the potential for faricimab to extend the durability of treatment for patients with diabetic macular oedema. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

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

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

Computational investigation of blood cell transport in retinal microaneurysms.

Microaneurysms (MAs) are one of the earliest clinically visible signs of diabetic retinopathy (DR). MA leakage or rupture may precipitate local pathology in the surrounding neural retina that impacts visual function. Thrombosis in MAs may affect their turnover time, an indicator associated with visual and anatomic outcomes in the diabetic eyes. In this work, we perform computational modeling of blood flow in microchannels containing various MAs to investigate the pathologies of MAs in DR. The particle-based model employed in this study can explicitly represent red blood cells (RBCs) and platelets as well as their interaction in the blood flow, a process that is very difficult to observe in vivo. Our simulations illustrate that while the main blood flow from the parent vessels can perfuse the entire lumen of MAs with small body-to-neck ratio (BNR), it can only perfuse part of the lumen in MAs with large BNR, particularly at a low hematocrit level, leading to possible hypoxic conditions inside MAs. We also quantify the impacts of the size of MAs, blood flow velocity, hematocrit and RBC stiffness and adhesion on the likelihood of platelets entering MAs as well as their residence time inside, two factors that are thought to be associated with thrombus formation in MAs. Our results show that enlarged MA size, increased blood velocity and hematocrit in the parent vessel of MAs as well as the RBC-RBC adhesion promote the migration of platelets into MAs and also prolong their residence time, thereby increasing the propensity of thrombosis within MAs. Overall, our work suggests that computational simulations using particle-based models can help to understand the microvascular pathology pertaining to MAs in DR and provide insights to stimulate and steer new experimental and computational studies in this area.

DEFINING "STRONG" VERSUS "WEAK" RESPONSE TO ANTIVASCULAR ENDOTHELIAL GROWTH FACTOR TREATMENT FOR CENTER-INVOLVED DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: To define "strong" versus "weak" antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment response in eyes with center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME). METHODS: Exploratory analyses of three DRCR Retina Network randomized trials of eyes with CI-DME treated with aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab. Thresholds of 5-, 10-, and 15-letter gain defined strong visual acuity (VA) response when baseline VA was 20/25-20/32, 20/40-20/63, or 20/80-20/320, respectively. Thresholds of 50, 100, or 200- µ m reduction defined strong anatomical response when baseline central subfield thickness (CST) was <75, ≥75 to <175, or ≥175- µ m above standard thresholds. Additional thresholds from regression equations were calculated. RESULTS: At 24 weeks, outcomes for strong response were achieved by 476 of 958 eyes (50%) for VA and 505 eyes (53%) for CST. At 104 weeks among the 32% of eyes with strong VA and CST response at 24 weeks, 195 of 281 (69%) maintained strong VA and CST response, whereas 20 (7%) had neither strong VA nor strong CST response. Outcomes rates were similar across protocols and when defined using regression equations. CONCLUSION: These phenotypes are suitable for efforts to identify predictive biomarkers for response to anti-VEGF therapy for DME and might facilitate comparison of treatment response among diverse cohorts with DME.

INTEGRATING MACULAR OPTICAL COHERENCE TOMOGRAPHY WITH ULTRAWIDE-FIELD IMAGING IN A DIABETIC RETINOPATHY TELEMEDICINE PROGRAM USING A SINGLE DEVICE.

PURPOSE: To determine the effect of combined macular spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) and ultrawide field retinal imaging (UWFI) within a telemedicine program. METHODS: Comparative cohort study of consecutive patients with both UWFI and SD-OCT. Ultrawide field retinal imaging and SD-OOCT were independently evaluated for diabetic macular edema (DME) and nondiabetic macular abnormality. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated with SD-OCT as the gold standard. RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-two eyes from 211 diabetic patients were evaluated. Diabetic macular edema severity by UWFI was as follows: no DME 93.4%, noncenter involved DME (nonciDME) 5.1%, ciDME 0.7%, ungradable DME 0.7%. SD-OCT was ungradable in 0.5%. Macular abnormality was identified in 34 (8.1%) eyes by UWFI and in 44 (10.4%) eyes by SD-OCT. Diabetic macular edema represented only 38.6% of referable macular abnormality identified by SD-OCT imaging. Sensitivity/specificity of UWFI compared with SD-OCT was 59%/96% for DME and 33%/99% for ciDME. Sensitivity/specificity of UWFI compared with SDOCT was 3%/98% for epiretinal membrane. CONCLUSION: Addition of SD-OCT increased the identification of macular abnormality by 29.4%. More than 58.3% of the eyes believed to have any DME on UWF imaging alone were false-positives by SD-OCT. The integration of SD-OCT with UWFI markedly increased detection and reduced false-positive assessments of DME and macular abnormality in a teleophthalmology program.

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.

ASSESSMENT OF FLUORESCEIN ANGIOGRAPHY NONPERFUSION IN EYES WITH DIABETIC RETINOPATHY USING ULTRAWIDE FIELD RETINAL IMAGING.

PURPOSE: Evaluate association of retinal nonperfusion (NP) on ultrawide field (UWF) fluorescein angiography (FA) with diabetic retinopathy (DR) severity and predominantly peripheral lesions (PPL). METHODS: Multicenter observational study, 652 eyes (361 participants) having nonproliferative DR (NPDR) without center-involved diabetic macular edema in at least one eye. Baseline 200° UWF-color and UWF-FA images were graded by a central reading center for color-PPL and FA-PPL, respectively. UWF-FA was graded for NP index within concentric zones: posterior pole (<10 mm from fovea), midperiphery (10-15 mm), and far periphery (>15 mm). RESULTS: Baseline Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study DR severity was 31.7% no DR/mild NPDR, 24.1% moderate NPDR, 14.0% moderately severe NPDR, 25.6% severe/very severe NPDR, and 4.6% proliferative DR. Worse DR severity was associated with increased NP index overall (P = 0.002), in the posterior pole (P < 0.001), midperiphery (P < 0.001), and far periphery (P = 0.03). On average, 29.6% of imaged retinal NP was in the posterior pole, 33.7% in midperiphery, and 36.7% in far periphery. Increased NP index was associated with FA-PPL (P < 0.001) but not with color-PPL (P = 0.65). CONCLUSION: Approximately, 70% of NP in diabetic eyes is located outside the posterior pole. Increased NP is associated with the presence of FA-PPL, suggesting UWF-FA may better predict future DR worsening than UWF-color alone.

Pneumatic Vitreolysis with Perfluoropropane for Vitreomacular Traction with and without Macular Hole: DRCR Retina Network Protocols AG and AH.

PURPOSE: To evaluate pneumatic vitreolysis (PVL) in eyes with vitreomacular traction (VMT) with and without full-thickness macular hole (FTMH). DESIGN: Two multicenter (28 sites) studies: a randomized clinical trial comparing PVL with observation (sham injection) for VMT without FTMH (Protocol AG) and a single-arm study assessing PVL for FTMH (Protocol AH). PARTICIPANTS: Participants were adults with central VMT (vitreomacular adhesion was ≤3000 µm). In Protocol AG, visual acuity (VA) was 20/32 to 20/400. In Protocol AH, eyes had a FTMH (≤250 µm at the narrowest point) and VA of 20/25 to 20/400. METHODS: Pneumatic vitreolysis using perfluoropropane (C3F8) gas. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Central VMT release at 24 weeks (Protocol AG) and FTMH closure at 8 weeks (Protocol AH). RESULTS: From October 2018 through February 2020, 46 participants were enrolled in Protocol AG, and 35 were enrolled in Protocol AH. Higher than expected rates of retinal detachment and tear resulted in early termination of both protocols. Combining studies, 7 of 59 eyes (12% [95% CI, 6%-23%]; 2 eyes in Protocol AG, 5 eyes in Protocol AH) that received PVL developed rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (n = 6) or retinal tear (n = 1). At 24 weeks in Protocol AG, 18 of 23 eyes in the PVL group (78%) versus 2 of 22 eyes in the sham group (9%) achieved central VMT release without rescue vitrectomy (adjusted risk difference, 66% [95% CI, 44%-88%]; P< 0.001). The mean change in VA from baseline at 24 weeks was 6.7 letters in the PVL group and 6.1 letters in the sham group (adjusted difference, -0.8 [95% CI, -6.1 to 4.5]; P = 0.77). In Protocol AH, 10 of 35 eyes (29% [95% CI, 16%-45%]) achieved FTMH closure without rescue vitrectomy at 8 weeks. The mean change in VA from baseline at 8 weeks was -1.5 letters (95% CI, -10.3 to 7.3 letters). CONCLUSIONS: In most eyes with VMT, PVL induced hyaloid release. In eyes with FTMH, PVL resulted in hole closure in approximately one third of eyes. These studies were terminated early because of safety concerns related to retinal detachments and retinal tears.

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.

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.

ANTI-VASCULAR ENDOTHELIAL GROWTH FACTOR THERAPY AND RISK OF TRACTION RETINAL DETACHMENT IN EYES WITH PROLIFERATIVE DIABETIC RETINOPATHY: Pooled Analysis of Five DRCR Retina Network Randomized Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: To investigate whether anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) for diabetic macular edema or proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) increases the risk of traction retinal detachment (TRD) among eyes with PDR. METHODS: Pooled analysis of PDR eyes from Protocols I, J, N, S, or T with Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study level ≥61 (prompt vitrectomy was not planned) randomly assigned to the control group (laser photocoagulation, sham, or intravitreal saline; 396 eyes) or anti-VEGF (487 eyes). The primary outcome was investigator-identified TRD within 1 year of randomization. RESULTS: The 1-year cumulative probability of TRD was 6.8% (95% confidence interval: 4.6%-9.9%, 25 events) in control-group eyes and 4.8% (95% confidence interval: 3.2%-7.3%, 22 events) in anti-VEGF group eyes (hazard ratio = 0.95 [95% confidence interval: 0.54-1.66, P = 0.86]). The cumulative probability of vitrectomy for TRD was 4.4% (16 events) in control-group eyes and 2.2% (9 events) in anti-VEGF group eyes (P = 0.19). Percentage with TRD and vitrectomy for TRD were similar within strata of diabetic retinopathy severity. CONCLUSION: These findings do not support the hypothesis that anti-VEGF therapy for diabetic macular edema or PDR increases the risk of TRD among eyes with PDR similar to those enrolled in five DRCR Retina Network protocols for which prompt vitrectomy was not planned.

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.

Durability of Diabetic Retinopathy Improvement with As-Needed Ranibizumab: Open-Label Extension of RIDE and RISE Studies.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the durability of diabetic retinopathy (DR) improvements after a change in ranibizumab dosing from monthly to individualized pro re nata (PRN) therapy. DESIGN: Pooled analysis of the open-label extension (OLE) of RIDE and RISE (clinicaltrials.gov identifiers, NCT00473382 and NCT00473330) patients with DR and diabetic macular edema (DME). PARTICIPANTS: Patients who completed 36-month participation in RIDE and RISE and entered the OLE. METHODS: In RIDE and RISE, patients (n = 759) were randomized 1:1:1 to ranibizumab 0.3 mg monthly, 0.5 mg monthly, or monthly sham injections with rescue macular laser available after 6 months, per protocol-specified criteria. After 24 months, sham patients crossed over to ranibizumab 0.5 mg monthly. After 36 months in the core studies, patients in the OLE (n = 500) could receive ranibizumab 0.5 mg PRN based on predefined DME re-treatment criteria. Diabetic retinopathy severity was evaluated photographically using the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study DR severity scale. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in DR severity from months 36 to 48 by re-treatment status. RESULTS: Among patients who entered the OLE, 121 of 500 (24%) did not require additional ranibizumab injections. Overall, 367 patients had evaluable DR at months 36 and 48. Among patients not requiring ranibizumab re-treatment from months 36 to 48 (88/367), 57% to 78%, 0% to 7%, and 22% to 36% experienced DR severity stability, 2-step or more improvement, and 2-step or more worsening, respectively. Among patients requiring ranibizumab re-treatment (279/367), 84% to 94%, 2%, and 3% to 14% experienced DR severity stability, 2-step or more improvement, and 2-step or more worsening, respectively. On average, vision improvements were maintained during the OLE regardless of change in DR severity. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetic retinopathy severity improvements with ranibizumab were maintained in over 70% of OLE patients after switching from ranibizumab monthly to an individualized ranibizumab 0.5 mg PRN dosing regimen. Because approximately one third of OLE patients experienced DR worsening, careful monitoring should be part of the long-term management of patients with DR.

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.

The Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network (DRCR.net) and Its Contributions to the Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy.

Over the past two decades, the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network (now known as the DRCR Retina Network) has contributed to multiple and substantial advances in the clinical care of diabetic eye disease. Network studies helped establish anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents as an effective alternative to panretinal photocoagulation for eyes with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) and as first-line therapy for eyes with visual impairment for diabetic macular edema (DME), defined treatment algorithms for the use of intravitreal medications in these conditions, and provided critical data to understand how to better evaluate the diabetic eye using optical coherence tomography and other imaging modalities. Ongoing DRCR.net studies will address whether anti-VEGF therapy is effective at preventing vision-threatening complications in eyes with severe non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy, if photobiomodulation has a beneficial effect in eyes with DME, and whether initiation of DME treatment with bevacizumab and rescue with aflibercept can provide visual outcomes as good as those achieved with aflibercept alone. Future plans for the Network also include the expansion into non-diabetic eye disease in areas such as age-related macular degeneration.

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.

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.).