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.

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.

Accuracy of Autorefraction in Children: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate the accuracy of autorefraction compared with cycloplegic retinoscopy in children. METHODS: Literature searches were last conducted in October 2019 in the PubMed and the Cochrane Library databases for studies published in English. The combined searches yielded 118 citations, of which 53 were reviewed in full text. Of these, 31 articles were deemed appropriate for inclusion in this assessment and subsequently assigned a level of evidence rating by the panel methodologists. Four articles were rated level I, 11 were rated level II, and 16 were rated level III articles. The 16 level III articles were excluded from this review. RESULTS: Thirteen of the 15 studies comparing cycloplegic autorefraction with cycloplegic retinoscopy found a mean difference in spherical equivalent or sphere of less than 0.5 diopters (D); most were less than 0.25 D. Even lower mean differences were found when evaluating the cylindrical component of cycloplegic autorefraction versus cycloplegic retinoscopy. Despite low mean variability, there was significant individual measurement variability; the 95% limits of agreement were wide and included clinically relevant differences. Comparisons of noncycloplegic with cycloplegic autorefractions found that noncyloplegic refraction tends to over minus by 1 to 2 D. CONCLUSIONS: Cycloplegic autorefraction is appropriate to use in pediatric population-based studies. Cycloplegic retinoscopy can be valuable in individual clinical cases to confirm the accuracy of cycloplegic autorefraction, particularly when corrected visual acuity is worse than expected or the autorefraction results are not consistent with expected findings.

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.

PANRETINAL PHOTOCOAGULATION VERSUS RANIBIZUMAB FOR PROLIFERATIVE DIABETIC RETINOPATHY: Comparison of Peripapillary Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness in a Randomized Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: Compare changes in retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness between eyes assigned to intravitreous ranibizumab or panretinal photocoagulation and assess correlations between changes in RNFL and visual field sensitivity and central subfield thickness. METHODS: Eyes with proliferative diabetic retinopathy were randomly assigned to ranibizumab or panretinal photocoagulation. Baseline and annual follow-up spectral domain optical coherence tomography RNFL imaging, optical coherence tomography macular imaging, and automated static perimetry (Humphrey visual field 60-4 algorithm) were performed. RESULTS: One hundred forty-six eyes from 120 participants were analyzed. At 2 years, for the ranibizumab (N = 74) and panretinal photocoagulation (N = 66) groups, respectively, mean change in average RNFL thickness was -10.9 ± 11.7 µm and -4.3 ± 11.6 µm (difference, -4.9 µm; 95% confidence interval [-7.2 µm to -2.6 µm]; P < 0.001); the correlation between change in RNFL thickness and 60-4 Humphrey visual field mean deviation was -0.27 (P = 0.07) and +0.33 (P = 0.035); the correlation between change in RNFL thickness and central subfield thickness was +0.63 (P < 0.001) and +0.34 (P = 0.005), respectively. CONCLUSION: At 2 years, eyes treated with ranibizumab had greater RNFL thinning than eyes treated with panretinal photocoagulation. Correlations between changes in RNFL thickness, visual field, and central subfield thickness suggest that the decrease in RNFL thickness with ranibizumab is likely due to decreased edema rather than loss of axons.

PHOTOCOAGULATION VERSUS RANIBIZUMAB FOR PROLIFERATIVE DIABETIC RETINOPATHY: Should Baseline Characteristics Affect Choice of Treatment?

PURPOSE: Among eyes with proliferative diabetic retinopathy, identify whether baseline characteristics impact the benefit of ranibizumab over panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) in DRCR.net Protocol S. METHODS: Participants had proliferative diabetic retinopathy, visual acuity of 20/320 or better, and no previous PRP. Eyes were randomized to PRP or intravitreous 0.5-mg ranibizumab. RESULTS: Ranibizumab was superior to PRP for change in visual acuity and development of vision-impairing central-involved diabetic macular edema over 2 years (P < 0.001). Among 25 characteristics, there were none in which participants assigned to PRP had superior outcomes relative to ranibizumab-assigned participants. The relative benefit of ranibizumab over PRP for change in visual acuity seemed greater in participants with higher mean arterial pressure (P = 0.03), without previous focal/grid laser (P = 0.03), with neovascularization of the disk and elsewhere on clinical examination (P = 0.04), and with more advanced proliferative diabetic retinopathy on photographs (P = 0.02). For development of vision-impairing central-involved diabetic macular edema, the relative benefit of ranibizumab over PRP seemed greater among nonwhite participants (P = 0.01) and those with higher mean arterial pressure (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: There were no characteristics identified in which outcomes were superior with PRP compared with ranibizumab. These exploratory analyses provide additional support that ranibizumab may be a reasonable alternative to PRP for proliferative diabetic retinopathy over a 2-year period.

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.).

Panretinal Photocoagulation Versus Ranibizumab for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: Factors Associated with Vision and Edema Outcomes.

PURPOSE: To identify baseline factors associated with change in visual acuity or development of vision-impairing central-involved diabetic macular edema (DME) over 2 years when treating proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) with ranibizumab or panretinal photocoagulation (PRP). DESIGN: Post hoc analyses of randomized, multicenter clinical trial data. PARTICIPANTS: Eyes completing the 2-year visit (n = 328) or without vision-impairing central-involved DME at baseline (n = 302) in Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network Protocol S. METHODS: Intravitreous ranibizumab (0.5 mg/0.05 ml) or PRP. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in visual acuity (area under the curve) and development of vision-impairing (20/32 or worse) central-involved DME over 2 years. RESULTS: After multivariable model selection with adjustment for baseline visual acuity and central subfield thickness, no factors were identified as associated with change in visual acuity or development of vision-impairing central-involved DME within the ranibizumab group. In the PRP group, worse change in visual acuity was more likely with higher hemoglobin A1c level (-0.6 letters per 1% increase; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.2 to -0.1 letters; continuous P = 0.03), more severe diabetic retinopathy (difference between high-risk PDR or worse vs. moderate PDR or better, -2.8 letters [95% CI, -5.5 to -0.2 letters]; continuous P = 0.003), and higher mean arterial pressure (difference between ≥100 mmHg vs. <100 mmHg, -2.0 letters [95% CI, -4.6 to 0.5 letters]; continuous P = 0.009). Development of vision-impairing central-involved DME was more likely with higher hemoglobin A1c level (hazard ratio [HR] per 1% increase, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.13-1.52]; continuous P < 0.001), more severe diabetic retinopathy (HR for high-risk PDR or worse vs. moderate PDR or better, 1.46 [95% CI, 0.73-2.92]; continuous P = 0.03), and the presence of cystoid abnormalities within 500 µm of the macula center (HR, 2.90 [95% CI, 1.35-6.24]; P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: For eyes managed with PRP, higher hemoglobin A1c level and more severe diabetic retinopathy were associated with less vision improvement and an increased risk of vision-impairing central-involved DME developing. When managing PDR with ranibizumab, eyes gained vision, on average, with no baseline characteristics identified as associated with visual acuity or central-involved DME outcomes.

CHANGES IN DIABETIC RETINOPATHY SEVERITY WHEN TREATING DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA WITH RANIBIZUMAB: DRCR.net Protocol I 5-Year Report.

PURPOSE: To explore 5-year changes from baseline in diabetic retinopathy severity among eyes treated with ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema. METHODS: Diabetic retinopathy severity was assessed from study visits and annual fundus photographs among participants in Protocol I (DRCR.net). The proportion of eyes that improved at annual examinations and the cumulative probability of worsening through 5 years were estimated. RESULTS: Among 235 participants with nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy at baseline, there were 29%, 28%, and 32% of eyes with retinopathy improvement at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. Among 111 participants with proliferative diabetic retinopathy, corresponding improvement percentages were 38%, 35%, and 23%. The 5-year cumulative probability of worsening was 18% (95% CI: 14%-25%) among nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy eyes and 31% (95% CI: 23%-42%) among proliferative diabetic retinopathy eyes (P = 0.01). In Years 1, 3, and 5, the mean (SD) number of ranibizumab injections was 8.1 (2.5), 2.2 (2.6), and 1.8 (2.6) for nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy eyes, and 9.0 (2.8), 2.3 (2.9), and 1.7 (2.6) for proliferative diabetic retinopathy eyes, respectively. Proportions with improvement or rates of worsening did not change with time. CONCLUSION: Individuals receiving ranibizumab therapy for diabetic macular edema may have favorable changes in DR severity throughout a 5-year period concomitant with sequential reduction in anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy.

Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy for Primary Treatment of Type 1 Retinopathy of Prematurity: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

PURPOSE: To review the available evidence on the ocular safety and efficacy of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents for the treatment of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) compared with laser photocoagulation therapy. METHODS: A literature search of the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases was conducted last on September 6, 2016, with no date restrictions and limited to articles published in English. This search yielded 311 citations, of which 37 were deemed clinically relevant for full-text review. Thirteen of these were selected for inclusion in this assessment. The panel methodologist assigned ratings to the selected articles according to the level of evidence. RESULTS: Of the 13 citations, 6 articles on 5 randomized clinical trials provided level II evidence supporting the use of anti-VEGF agents, either as monotherapy or in combination with laser therapy. The primary outcome for these articles included recurrence of ROP and the need for retreatment (3 articles), retinal structure (2 articles), and refractive outcome (1 article). Seven articles were comparative case series that provided level III evidence. The primary outcomes included the effects of anti-VEGF treatment on development of peripheral retinal vessels (1 article), refractive outcomes (1 article), or both structural and refractive or visual outcomes (5 articles). CONCLUSIONS: Current level II and III evidence indicates that intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy is as effective as laser photocoagulation for achieving regression of acute ROP. Although there are distinct ocular advantages to anti-VEGF pharmacotherapy for some cases (such as eyes with zone I disease or aggressive posterior ROP), the disadvantages are that the ROP recurrence rate is higher, and vigilant and extended follow-up is needed because retinal vascularization is usually incomplete. After intravitreal injection, bevacizumab can be detected in serum within 1 day, and serum VEGF levels are suppressed for at least 8 to 12 weeks. The effects of lowering systemic VEGF levels on the developing organ systems of premature infants are unknown, and there are limited long-term data on potential systemic and neurodevelopmental effects after anti-VEGF use for ROP treatment. Anti-VEGF agents should be used judiciously and with awareness of the known and unknown or potential side effects.

Factors Associated with Worsening Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy in Eyes Treated with Panretinal Photocoagulation or Ranibizumab.

PURPOSE: To compare rates and identify predictive factors for events that represent worsening of proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) in eyes treated with panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) or ranibizumab. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial (55 United States sites). PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred ninety-four study eyes from 305 adults with PDR, visual acuity (VA) 20/320 or better, and no history of PRP. INTERVENTION: Panretinal photocoagulation or intravitreous ranibizumab injections (0.5 mg/0.05 ml). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time from randomization to a composite PDR-worsening outcome defined as the first occurrence of vitreous hemorrhage, retinal detachment, anterior segment neovascularization, or neovascular glaucoma. RESULTS: Through 2 years, the cumulative probability of worsening PDR was 42% (PRP) versus 34% (ranibizumab; hazard ratio [HR], 1.33; 99% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.98; P = 0.063). Worse baseline levels of diabetic retinopathy severity (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study scale) were associated with increased risk of worsening PDR, regardless of treatment group (64% [high-risk PDR or worse] vs. 23% [moderate PDR or better]; HR, 3.97; 99% CI, 2.48 to 6.36; P < 0.001). In the PRP group, eyes receiving pattern scan versus conventional single-spot PRP also were at higher risk for worsening PDR (60% vs. 39%; HR, 2.04; 99% CI, 1.02 to 4.08; P = 0.008), regardless of the number of spots placed or the number of sittings to complete the initial PRP. Eyes in both groups with vision-impairing (VA 20/32 or worse) center-involved diabetic macular edema (DME) at baseline were required to receive ranibizumab for center-involved DME. Therefore the composite outcome was compared by treatment in the subgroup of eyes that did not have vision-impairing center-involved DME at baseline. For these eyes, the rate of PDR-worsening was greater with PRP than ranibizumab (45% vs. 31%; HR, 1.62; 99% CI, 1.01 to 2.60; P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: In eyes with PDR, ranibizumab resulted in less PDR worsening compared with PRP, especially in eyes not required to receive ranibizumab for center-involved DME. Although anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy requires a more frequent visit schedule than PRP, these findings provide additional evidence supporting the use of ranibizumab as an alternative therapy to PRP for PDR, at least through 2 years.

Clinical Models and Algorithms for the Prediction of Retinopathy of Prematurity: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy with which available retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) predictive models detect clinically significant ROP and to what extent and at what risk these models allow for the reduction of screening examinations for ROP. METHODS: A literature search of the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases was conducted last on May 1, 2015, and yielded 305 citations. After screening the abstracts of all 305 citations and reviewing the full text of 30 potentially eligible articles, the panel members determined that 22 met the inclusion criteria. One article included 2 studies, for a total of 23 studies reviewed. The panel extracted information about study design, study population, the screening algorithm tested, interventions, outcomes, and study quality. The methodologist divided the studies into 2 categories-model development and model validation-and assigned a level of evidence rating to each study. One study was rated level I evidence, 3 studies were rated level II evidence, and 19 studies were rated level III evidence. RESULTS: In some cohorts, some models would have allowed reductions in the number of infants screened for ROP without failing to identify infants requiring treatment. However, the small sample size and limited generalizability of the ROP predictive models included in this review preclude their widespread use to make all-or-none decisions about whether to screen individual infants for ROP. As an alternative, some studies proposed approaches to apply the models to reduce the number of examinations performed in low-risk infants. CONCLUSIONS: Additional research is needed to optimize ROP predictive model development, validation, and application before such models can be used widely to reduce the burdensome number of ROP screening examinations.

Aflibercept, Bevacizumab, or Ranibizumab for Diabetic Macular Edema: Two-Year Results from a Comparative Effectiveness Randomized Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: To provide 2-year results comparing anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents for center-involved diabetic macular edema (DME) using a standardized follow-up and retreatment regimen. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Six hundred sixty participants with visual acuity (VA) impairment from DME. METHODS: Randomization to 2.0-mg aflibercept, 1.25-mg repackaged (compounded) bevacizumab, or 0.3-mg ranibizumab intravitreous injections performed up to monthly using a protocol-specific follow-up and retreatment regimen. Focal/grid laser photocoagulation was added after 6 months if DME persisted. Visits occurred every 4 weeks during year 1 and were extended up to every 4 months thereafter when VA and macular thickness were stable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in VA, adverse events, and retreatment frequency. RESULTS: Median numbers of injections were 5, 6, and 6 in year 2 and 15, 16, and 15 over 2 years in the aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab groups, respectively (global P = 0.08). Focal/grid laser photocoagulation was administered in 41%, 64%, and 52%, respectively (aflibercept vs. bevacizumab, P < 0.001; aflibercept vs. ranibizumab, P = 0.04; bevacizumab vs. ranibizumab, P = 0.01). At 2 years, mean VA improved by 12.8, 10.0, and 12.3 letters, respectively. Treatment group differences varied by baseline VA (P = 0.02 for interaction). With worse baseline VA (20/50 to 20/320), mean improvement was 18.1, 13.3, and 16.1 letters, respectively (aflibercept vs. bevacizumab, P = 0.02; aflibercept vs. ranibizumab, P = 0.18; ranibizumab vs. bevacizumab, P = 0.18). With better baseline VA (20/32 to 20/40), mean improvement was 7.8, 6.8, and 8.6 letters, respectively (P > 0.10, for pairwise comparisons). Anti-Platelet Trialists' Collaboration (APTC) events occurred in 5% with aflibercept, 8% with bevacizumab, and 12% with ranibizumab (global P = 0.047; aflibercept vs. bevacizumab, P = 0.34; aflibercept vs. ranibizumab, P = 0.047; ranibizumab vs. bevacizumab, P = 0.20; global P = 0.09 adjusted for potential confounders). CONCLUSIONS: All 3 anti-VEGF groups showed VA improvement from baseline to 2 years with a decreased number of injections in year 2. Visual acuity outcomes were similar for eyes with better baseline VA. Among eyes with worse baseline VA, aflibercept had superior 2-year VA outcomes compared with bevacizumab, but superiority of aflibercept over ranibizumab, noted at 1 year, was no longer identified. Higher APTC event rates with ranibizumab over 2 years warrants continued evaluation in future trials.

A Randomized Trial Comparing Part-time Patching with Observation for Intermittent Exotropia in Children 12 to 35 Months of Age.

PURPOSE: To determine the effectiveness of part-time patching for treating intermittent exotropia (IXT) in young children. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred one children 12 to 35 months of age with untreated IXT meeting the following criteria: (1) IXT at distance OR constant exotropia at distance and either IXT or exophoria at near, and (2) 15-prism diopter (Δ) or more exodeviation at distance or near by prism and alternate cover test (PACT) but at least 10 Δ exodeviation at distance by PACT. METHODS: Participants were assigned randomly to either observation (no treatment for 6 months) or patching prescribed for 3 hours daily for 5 months, followed by 1 month of no patching. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was deterioration, defined as constant exotropia measuring at least 10 Δ at distance and near or receipt of nonprotocol treatment for IXT. RESULTS: Of the 177 participants (88%) completing the 6-month primary outcome examination, deterioration occurred in 4.6% (4 of 87) of the participants in the observation group and in 2.2% (2 of 90) of the participants in the patching group (difference, 2.4%; P = 0.27; 95% confidence interval, -3.8% to +9.4%). Motor deterioration occurred in 2.3% (2 of 87) of the observation group and in 2.2% (2 of 90) of the patching group (difference, 0.08%; P = 0.55; 95% confidence interval, -5.8% to +6.1%). For the observation and patching groups, respectively, 6-month mean PACT measurements were 27.9 Δ versus 24.9 Δ at distance (P = 0.02) and 19.3 Δ versus 17.0 Δ at near (P = 0.10); 6-month mean exotropia control scores were 2.8 versus 2.3 points at distance (P = 0.02) and 1.4 versus 1.1 points at near (P = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: Among children 12 to 35 months of age with previously untreated IXT, deterioration over 6 months was uncommon, with or without patching treatment. There was insufficient evidence to recommend part-time patching for the treatment of IXT in children in this age group.

Topical nepafenec in eyes with noncentral diabetic macular edema.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of a topical, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug, nepafenac 0.1%, in eyes with noncentral diabetic macular edema. METHODS: Multicenter, double-masked randomized trial. Individuals with good visual acuity and noncentral-involved diabetic macular edema were randomly assigned to nepafenac 0.1% (N = 61) or placebo (nepafenac vehicle, N = 64) 3 times a day for 12 months. The primary outcome was mean change in optical coherence tomography retinal volume at 12 months. RESULTS: Mean baseline retinal volume was 7.8 mm. At 12 months, in the nepafenac and placebo groups respectively, mean change in retinal volume was -0.03 mm and -0.02 mm (treatment group difference: -0.02, 95% confidence interval: -0.27 to 0.23, P = 0.89). Central-involved diabetic macular edema was present in 7 eyes (11%) and 9 eyes (14%) at the 12-month visit (P = 0.79), respectively. No differences in visual acuity outcomes were identified. One study participant developed a corneal melt after using nepafenac in the nonstudy eye, which had a history of severe dry eye. No additional safety concerns were evident. CONCLUSION: In eyes with noncentral diabetic macular edema and good visual acuity, topical nepafenac 0.1% 3 times daily for 1 year likely does not have a meaningful effect on optical coherence tomography-measured retinal thickness.

RANIBIZUMAB PLUS PROMPT OR DEFERRED LASER FOR DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA IN EYES WITH VITRECTOMY BEFORE ANTI-VASCULAR ENDOTHELIAL GROWTH FACTOR THERAPY.

BACKGROUND: The approach to managing diabetic macular edema in eyes with previous vitrectomy is based on limited evidence. Therefore, an exploratory post hoc assessment of 3-year data from eyes with and without vitrectomy before randomization in a DRCR.net trial that evaluated ranibizumab + prompt or deferred laser for diabetic macular edema is presented. METHODS: Visual acuity and optical coherence tomography outcomes were compared between eyes with and without previous vitrectomy. RESULTS: At baseline, eyes with previous vitrectomy (n = 25) had longer duration of diabetes, worse visual acuity, less thickened central subfield measurements on optical coherence tomography and were more apt to have worse diabetic retinopathy severity level or previous treatment for macular edema or cataract surgery than eyes without a history of vitrectomy (n = 335). Analyses adjusted for these baseline imbalances did not identify substantial differences between eyes with and without previous vitrectomy at each annual visit through 3 years for the favorable visual acuity, optical coherence tomography central subfield thickness, or volume outcomes, although optical coherence tomography improvement appeared slower in vitrectomy eyes during the first year. CONCLUSION: This study provides little evidence that the beneficial clinical outcomes for patients with center-involved diabetic macular edema treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor are affected in the long term by previous vitrectomy.

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.

A randomized trial comparing part-time patching with observation for children 3 to 10 years of age with intermittent exotropia.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of prescribed part-time patching for treatment of intermittent exotropia (IXT) in children. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred fifty-eight children 3 to <11 years of age with previously untreated (except for refractive correction) IXT and near stereoacuity of 400 seconds of arc or better were enrolled. Intermittent exotropia met the following criteria: (1) IXT at distance OR constant exotropia at distance and either IXT or exophoria at near; (2) exodeviation (tropia or phoria) of at least 15 prism diopters (PD) at distance or near by prism and alternate cover test (PACT); and (3) exodeviation of at least 10 PD at distance by PACT. METHODS: Participants were assigned randomly either to observation (no treatment for 6 months) or to patching for 3 hours daily for 5 months, with a 1-month washout period of no patching before the 6-month primary outcome examination. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was deterioration at either the 3-month or the 6-month follow-up visit, defined as: (1) constant exotropia measuring at least 10 PD at distance and near by simultaneous prism and cover test, and/or (2) near stereoacuity decreased by at least 2 octaves from baseline, both assessed by a masked examiner and confirmed by a retest. Participants who were prescribed any nonrandomized treatment without first meeting either deterioration criteria also were counted as having deteriorated. RESULTS: Of the 324 participants (91%) completing the 6-month primary outcome examination, deterioration occurred in 10 of the 165 participants (6.1%) in the observation group (3 of these 10 started treatment without meeting deterioration criteria) and in 1 of the 159 participants (0.6%) in the part-time patching group (difference, 5.4%; lower limit of 1-sided exact 95% confidence interval, 2.0%; P = 0.004, 1-sided hypothesis test). CONCLUSIONS: Deterioration of previously untreated childhood IXT over a 6-month period is uncommon with or without patching treatment. Although there is a slightly lower deterioration rate with patching, both management approaches are reasonable for treating children 3 to 10 years of age with IXT.