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.).

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.).

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.

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.

Geographic Atrophy Natural History Versus Treatment: Time to Fovea.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The Food and Drug Administration recently approved treatments of geographic atrophy (GA). Our study aims to quantify the time for a lesion to reach the central fovea based on reduction of GA growth rates from therapeutics compared to the natural history. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A previously published study calculates local border expansion rate of GA lesions at varying retinal eccentricities. In this study, we use these rates to model GA expansion toward the fovea and the effects of treatments that reduce growth in GA area by 15% to 45% on lesions of varying sizes with posterior margin 250, 500, 750, 1000, 1250, 1500, and 3000 µm from the fovea. RESULTS: Lesions with an area 8 mm2 and posterior edge 500 µm from the fovea will reach the fovea in 5.08 years with no treatment, but the same lesions will reach the fovea in 5.85, 6.52, 7.36, and 8.46 years with a treatment that reduces growth in GA area by 15%, 25%, 35%, and 45%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Distance of the posterior edge of the lesion was the primary factor in GA growth toward the fovea, and lesion size only minimally affects growth rates of GA. Based on the efficacy of current and future therapeutics and distance of GA to the fovea, our study provides the marginal time benefit of treatment to guide patients and clinicians, placing both the natural history of GA and the effects of current and future treatments into clinical context. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2024;55:XX-XX.].

Expanded 2-year follow-up of ranibizumab plus prompt or deferred laser or triamcinolone plus prompt laser for diabetic macular edema.

OBJECTIVE: To report expanded 2-year follow-up of a previously reported randomized trial evaluating intravitreal 0.5 mg ranibizumab or 4 mg triamcinolone combined with focal/grid laser compared with focal/grid laser alone for treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 854 study eyes of 691 participants with visual acuity of 20/32 to 20/320 (approximate Snellen equivalent) and DME involving the fovea. METHODS: Continuation of procedures previously reported for the randomized trial. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Best-corrected visual acuity and safety at the 2-year visit. RESULTS: At the 2-year visit, compared with the sham + prompt laser group, the mean change in the visual acuity letter score from baseline was 3.7 letters greater in the ranibizumab + prompt laser group (95% confidence interval adjusted for multiple comparisons [aCI], -0.4 to +7.7), 5.8 letters greater in the ranibizumab + deferred laser group (95% aCI, +1.9 to +9.8), and 1.5 letters worse in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group (95% aCI, -5.5 to +2.4). After the 1- to 2-year visit in the ranibizumab + prompt or deferred laser groups, the median numbers of injections were 2 and 3 (potential maximum of 13), respectively. At the 2-year visit, the percentages of eyes with central subfield thickness ≥250 µm were 59% in the sham + prompt laser group, 43% in the ranibizumab + prompt laser group, 42% in the ranibizumab + deferred laser group, and 52% in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group. No systemic events attributable to study treatment were apparent. Three eyes in 3 (0.8%) of 375 participants had injection-related endophthalmitis in the ranibizumab groups, whereas elevated intraocular pressure and cataract surgery were more frequent in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group. CONCLUSIONS: The expanded 2-year results reported are similar to results published previously and reinforce the conclusions originally reported: Ranibizumab should be considered for patients with DME and characteristics similar to those of the cohort in this clinical trial, including vision impairment with DME involving the center of the macula.

Lapses in Care Among Patients Assigned to Ranibizumab for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The follow-up schedule for individuals with eyes treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents for proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) requires that patients return frequently for monitoring and repeated treatment. The likelihood that a patient will comply should be a consideration in choosing a treatment approach. OBJECTIVE: To describe completion of scheduled examinations among participants assigned to intravitreous injections of ranibizumab for PDR in a multicenter randomized clinical trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This post hoc analysis evaluates data from a randomized clinical trial conducted at 55 US sites among 305 adults with proliferative diabetic retinopathy enrolled between February and December 2012. 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. Data were analyzed from April 2019 to July 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Ranibizumab injections for PDR or macular edema. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: A long lapse in care of 8 or more weeks past a scheduled examination, dropout from follow-up, visual acuity at 5 years. RESULTS: Among 170 participants, the median age was 51 years, and 44.7% were female. Through 5 years of follow-up, 94 of 170 participants (55.3%) had 1 or more long lapse in care. Median time to the first long lapse was 210 weeks, and 69 of 94 participants (73.4%) returned for examination after the first long lapse. Fifty of 170 participants (29.4%) dropped out of follow-up by 5 years. Among the 120 participants who completed the 5-year examination, median change from baseline in visual acuity was -2 letters for participants who had 1 or more long lapse compared with +5 letters for those without a long lapse (P = .02). After multivariable adjustment, the odds ratio (95% CI) for baseline associations with 1 or more long lapse was 1.21 (1.03-1.43) for each 5-letter decrement in visual acuity score, 2.19 (1.09-4.38) for neovascularization of the disc and elsewhere, and 3.48 (1.38-8.78) for no prior laser treatment for diabetic macular edema. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Over 5 years, approximately half of the participants assigned to ranibizumab for PDR had a long lapse in care despite substantial effort by the DRCR Retina Network to facilitate timely completion of examinations. The likelihood of a long lapse in care during long-term follow-up needs to be considered when choosing treatment for PDR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01489189.

Randomized trial evaluating ranibizumab plus prompt or deferred laser or triamcinolone plus prompt laser for diabetic macular edema.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate intravitreal 0.5 mg ranibizumab or 4 mg triamcinolone combined with focal/grid laser compared with focal/grid laser alone for treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 854 study eyes of 691 participants with visual acuity (approximate Snellen equivalent) of 20/32 to 20/320 and DME involving the fovea. METHODS: Eyes were randomized to sham injection + prompt laser (n=293), 0.5 mg ranibizumab + prompt laser (n=187), 0.5 mg ranibizumab + deferred (> or =24 weeks) laser (n=188), or 4 mg triamcinolone + prompt laser (n=186). Retreatment followed an algorithm facilitated by a web-based, real-time data-entry system. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Best-corrected visual acuity and safety at 1 year. RESULTS: The 1-year mean change (+/-standard deviation) in the visual acuity letter score from baseline was significantly greater in the ranibizumab + prompt laser group (+9+/-11, P<0.001) and ranibizumab + deferred laser group (+9+/-12, P<0.001) but not in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group (+4+/-13, P=0.31) compared with the sham + prompt laser group (+3+/-13). Reduction in mean central subfield thickness in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group was similar to both ranibizumab groups and greater than in the sham + prompt laser group. In the subset of pseudophakic eyes at baseline (n=273), visual acuity improvement in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group appeared comparable to that in the ranibizumab groups. No systemic events attributable to study treatment were apparent. Three eyes (0.8%) had injection-related endophthalmitis in the ranibizumab groups, whereas elevated intraocular pressure and cataract surgery were more frequent in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group. Two-year visual acuity outcomes were similar to 1-year outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Intravitreal ranibizumab with prompt or deferred laser is more effective through at least 1 year compared with prompt laser alone for the treatment of DME involving the central macula. Ranibizumab as applied in this study, although uncommonly associated with endophthalmitis, should be considered for patients with DME and characteristics similar to those in this clinical trial. In pseudophakic eyes, intravitreal triamcinolone + prompt laser seems more effective than laser alone but frequently increases the risk of intraocular pressure elevation.

Retinal thickness on Stratus optical coherence tomography in people with diabetes and minimal or no diabetic retinopathy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate optical coherence tomography (OCT) thickness of the macula in people with diabetes but minimal or no retinopathy and to compare these findings with published normative data in the literature from subjects reported to have no retinal disease. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: In a multicenter community- and university-based practices setting, 97 subjects with diabetes with no or minimal diabetic retinopathy and no central retinal thickening on clinical examination and a center point thickness of 225 microm or less on OCT (Stratus OCT; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, California, USA) were recruited. Electronic Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study best-corrected visual acuity, seven-field stereoscopic color fundus photographs, and Stratus OCT fast macular scan were noted. Main outcome measures were central subfield (CSF) thickness measured on Stratus OCT. RESULTS: On average, CSF thickness was 201 +/- 22 microm. CSF thickness was significantly greater in retinas from men than retinas from women (mean +/- standard deviation, 209 +/- 18 microm vs 194 +/- 23 microm; P < .001). After adjusting for gender, no additional factors were found to be associated significantly with CSF thickness (P > .10). CONCLUSIONS: CSF thicknesses on Stratus OCT in people with diabetes and minimal or no retinopathy are similar to thicknesses reported from a normative database of people without diabetes. CSF thickness is greater in men than in women, consistent with many, but not all, previous reports. Studies involving comparisons of retinal thickness with expected norms should consider different mean values for women and men.

A phase II randomized clinical trial of intravitreal bevacizumab for diabetic macular edema.

OBJECTIVE: To provide data on the short-term effect of intravitreal bevacizumab for diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN: Randomized phase II clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred twenty-one eyes of 121 subjects (109 eligible for analysis) with DME and Snellen acuity equivalent ranging from 20/32 to 20/320. INTERVENTIONS: Random assignment to 1 of 5 groups: (A) focal photocoagulation at baseline (n = 19), (B) intravitreal injection of 1.25 mg of bevacizumab at baseline and 6 weeks (n = 22), (C) intravitreal injection of 2.5 mg of bevacizumab at baseline and 6 weeks (n = 24), (D) intravitreal injection of 1.25 mg of bevacizumab at baseline and sham injection at 6 weeks (n = 22), or (E) intravitreal injection of 1.25 mg of bevacizumab at baseline and 6 weeks with photocoagulation at 3 weeks (n = 22). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Central subfield thickness (CST) on optical coherence tomography and best-corrected visual acuity (VA) were measured at baseline and after 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 weeks. RESULTS: At baseline, median CST was 411 mum and median Snellen VA equivalent was 20/50. Compared with group A, groups B and C had a greater reduction in CST at 3 weeks and about 1 line better median VA over 12 weeks. There were no meaningful differences between groups B and C in CST reduction or VA improvement. A CST reduction > 11% (reliability limit) was present at 3 weeks in 36 of 84 (43%) bevacizumab-treated eyes and 5 of 18 (28%) eyes treated with laser alone, and at 6 weeks in 31 of 84 (37%) and 9 of 18 (50%) eyes, respectively. Combining focal photocoagulation with bevacizumab resulted in no apparent short-term benefit or adverse outcomes. Endophthalmitis developed in 1 eye. The following events occurred during the first 24 weeks in subjects treated with bevacizumab without attributing cause to the drug: myocardial infarction (n = 2), congestive heart failure (n = 1), elevated blood pressure (n = 3), and worsened renal function (n = 3). CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that intravitreal bevacizumab can reduce DME in some eyes, but the study was not designed to determine whether treatment is beneficial. A phase III trial would be needed for that purpose.

Comparison of the modified Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study and mild macular grid laser photocoagulation strategies for diabetic macular edema.

OBJECTIVE: To compare 2 laser photocoagulation techniques for treatment of diabetic macular edema: the modified Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) direct/grid photocoagulation technique and a potentially milder (but potentially more extensive) mild macular grid (MMG) laser technique in which microaneurysms are not treated directly and small mild burns are placed throughout the macula, whether or not edema is present. METHODS: Two hundred sixty-three subjects (mean age, 59 years) with previously untreated diabetic macular edema were randomly assigned to receive laser photocoagulation by either the modified ETDRS (162 eyes) or MMG (161 eyes) technique. Visual acuity, fundus photographs, and optical coherence tomography measurements were obtained at baseline and at 3.5, 8, and 12 months. Treatment was repeated if diabetic macular edema persisted. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Change in optical coherence tomography measurements at 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: Among eyes with a baseline central subfield thickness of 250 microm or greater, central subfield thickening decreased by an average of 88 microm in the modified ETDRS group and by 49 microm in the MMG group at 12-month follow-up (adjusted mean difference, 33 microm; 95% confidence interval, 5-61 microm; P = .02). Weighted inner zone thickening by optical coherence tomography decreased by 42 microm in the modified ETDRS group and by 28 microm in the MMG group (adjusted mean difference, 14 microm; 95% confidence interval, 1-27 microm; P = .04); maximum retinal thickening (maximum thickening of the central and 4 inner subfields) decreased by 66 and 39 microm, respectively (adjusted mean difference, 27 microm; 95% confidence interval, 6-47 microm; P = .01), and retinal volume decreased by 0.8 and 0.4 mm3, respectively (adjusted mean difference, 0.3 mm3; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.53 mm3; P = .03). At 12 months, the mean change in visual acuity was 0 letters in the modified ETDRS group and 2 letters worse in the MMG group (adjusted mean difference, 2 letters; 95% confidence interval, -0.5 to 5 letters; P = .10). CONCLUSIONS: At 12 months after treatment, the MMG technique was less effective at reducing optical coherence tomography-measured retinal thickening than the more extensively evaluated current modified ETDRS laser photocoagulation approach. However, the visual acuity outcome with both approaches is not substantially different. Given these findings, a larger long-term trial of the MMG technique is not justified. APPLICATION TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Modified ETDRS focal photocoagulation should continue to be a standard approach for treating diabetic macular edema. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00071773.

Topical gel vs subconjunctival lidocaine for intravitreous injection: a randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To determine if topical gel is superior to subconjunctival injection of lidocaine in relieving pain of intravitreous injection of corticosteroid. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. PATIENT POPULATION: One hundred patients receiving intravitreous injection of triamcinolone. INTERVENTIONAL PROCEDURE: Topical lidocaine 2% gel and subconjunctival lidocaine 2% injection. OUTCOME MEASURE: Analog pain score assessment, conducted by technician masked to treatment. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in pain scores between the treatment groups (P = .1). CONCLUSIONS: The effective relief of pain with lidocaine for intravitreous injection is independent of its mode of application (gel vs subconjunctival injection).

The use of intravitreal gas for the treatment of ocular hypotony after glaucoma filtration surgery.

Hypotonous maculopathy is a serious complication of glaucoma filtration surgery. A patient with hypotonous maculopathy due to excessive filtration was treated with intravitreal gas. During the next several months, the intraocular pressure increased and the visual acuity improved. Intravitreal gas is useful for the treatment of hypotonous maculopathy due to excessive aqueous filtration.

Persistent Macular Thickening After Ranibizumab Treatment for Diabetic Macular Edema With Vision Impairment.

IMPORTANCE: The prevalence of persistent diabetic macular edema (DME) after months of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy and its effect on visual acuity are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess subsequent outcomes of eyes with DME persisting for 24 weeks after initiating treatment with 0.5 mg of ranibizumab. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We performed post hoc, exploratory analyses of a randomized clinical trial from March 20, 2007, through January 29, 2014, from 117 of 296 eyes (39.5%) randomly assigned to receive ranibizumab with persistent DME (central subfield thickness ≥250 µm on time domain optical coherence tomography) through the 24-week visit. INTERVENTIONS: Four monthly intravitreous injections of ranibizumab and then as needed per protocol. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Cumulative 3-year probabilities of chronic persistent DME (failure to achieve a central subfield thickness <250 µm and at least a 10% reduction from the 24-week visit on at least 2 consecutive study visits) determined by life-table analyses, and at least 10 letter (≥2 line) gain or loss of visual acuity among those eyes. RESULTS: The probability of chronic persistent DME among eyes with persistent DME at the 24-week visit decreased from 100% at the 32-week visit to 81.1% (99% CI, 69.6%-88.6%), 55.8% (99% CI, 42.9%-66.9%), and 40.1% (99% CI, 27.4%-52.4%) at the 1-, 2-, and 3-year visits, respectively. At 3 years, visual acuity improved in eyes with and without chronic persistent DME through the follow-up period, respectively, by a mean of 7 letters and 13 letters from baseline. Among 40 eyes with chronic persistent edema through 3 years, 17 (42.5%) (99% CI, 23.1%-63.7%) gained 10 letters or more from baseline, whereas 5 (12.5%) (99% CI, 2.8%-31.5%) lost 10 letters or more from baseline. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These data suggest less than half of eyes treated for DME with intravitreous ranibizumab have persistent central-involved DME through 24 weeks after initiating treatment. Among the 40% that then have chronic persistent central-involved DME through 3 years, longer-term visual acuity outcomes appear to be slightly worse than in the 60% in which DME does not persist. Nevertheless, when following the treatment protocol used in this trial among eyes with vision impairment from DME, long-term improvement in visual acuity from baseline is typical and substantial (≥2-line) loss of visual acuity is likely uncommon through 3 years, even when central-involved DME chronically persists.

Association of Baseline Visual Acuity and Retinal Thickness With 1-Year Efficacy of Aflibercept, Bevacizumab, and Ranibizumab for Diabetic Macular Edema.

IMPORTANCE: Comparisons of the relative effect of 3 anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents to treat diabetic macular edema warrant further assessment. OBJECTIVE: To provide additional outcomes from a randomized trial evaluating 3 anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents for diabetic macular edema within subgroups based on baseline visual acuity (VA) and central subfield thickness (CST) as evaluated on optical coherence tomography. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Post hoc exploratory analyses were conducted of randomized trial data on 660 adults with diabetic macular edema and decreased VA (Snellen equivalent, approximately 20/32 to 20/320). The original study was conducted between August 22, 2012, and August 28, 2013. Analysis was conducted from January 7 to June 2, 2015. INTERVENTIONS: Repeated 0.05-mL intravitreous injections of 2.0 mg of aflibercept (224 eyes), 1.25 mg of bevacizumab (218 eyes), or 0.3 mg of ranibizumab (218 eyes) as needed per protocol. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: One-year VA and CST outcomes within prespecified subgroups based on both baseline VA and CST thresholds, defined as worse (20/50 or worse) or better (20/32 to 20/40) VA and thicker (≥400 µm) or thinner (250 to 399 µm) CST. RESULTS: In the subgroup with worse baseline VA (n = 305), irrespective of baseline CST, aflibercept showed greater improvement than bevacizumab or ranibizumab for several VA outcomes. In the subgroup with better VA and thinner CST at baseline (61-73 eyes across 3 treatment groups), VA outcomes showed little difference between groups; mean change was +7.2, +8.4, and +7.6 letters in the aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab groups, respectively. However, in the subgroup with better VA and thicker CST at baseline (31-43 eyes), there was a suggestion of worse VA outcomes in the bevacizumab group; mean change from baseline to 1 year was +9.5, +5.4, and +9.5 letters in the aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab groups, respectively, and VA letter score was greater than 84 (approximately 20/20) in 21 of 33 (64%), 7 of 31 (23%), and 21 of 43 (49%) eyes, respectively. The adjusted differences and 95% CIs were 39% (17% to 60%) for aflibercept vs bevacizumab, 25% (5% to 46%) for ranibizumab vs bevacizumab, and 13% (-8% to 35%) for aflibercept vs ranibizumab. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These post hoc secondary findings suggest that for eyes with better initial VA and thicker CST, some VA outcomes may be worse in the bevacizumab group than in the aflibercept and ranibizumab groups. Given the exploratory nature of these analyses and the small sample size within subgroups, caution is suggested when using the data to guide treatment considerations for patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01627249.

Optociliary venous anastomosis after radial optic neurotomy for central retinal vein occlusion.

Radial optic neurotomy has been shown to be beneficial for the treatment of central retinal vein occlusion. Two patients developed optociliary venous anastomosis after radial optic neurotomy for central retinal vein occlusion with improvement in vision and clinical appearance. Optociliary venous anastomosis may portend a favorable prognosis.

Bilateral vascular occlusions of the anterior visual pathway and cocaine abuse.

PURPOSE: Describe bilateral vision loss from ischemic injury of the anterior visual pathway due to recreational cocaine. METHODS: Case report. PATIENT: A 33-year-old man presented to the emergency room with headache associated with multiple cerebral hemispheric lesions on computed tomogram. RESULTS: During hospital admission, he lost vision from a right central retinal artery occlusion and an ischemic event to the left optic nerve head. Extensive diagnostic evaluation was unrewarding. The patient admitted to persistent cocaine abuse after his 2-month hospitalization. CONCLUSION: The diagnosis of cocaine-related vascular occlusion to the anterior visual pathway may not be considered because physicians are unaware of these ocular side effects.