High Myopia Normative Database of Peripapillary Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness to Detect Myopic Glaucoma in a Chinese Population.

PURPOSE: To develop and validate the performance of a high myopia (HM)-specific normative database of peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (pRNFL) thickness in differentiating HM from highly myopic glaucoma (HMG). DESIGN: Cross-sectional multicenter study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1367 Chinese participants (2325 eyes) with nonpathologic HM or HMG were included from 4 centers. After quality control, 1108 eyes from 694 participants with HM were included in the normative database; 459 eyes from 408 participants (323 eyes with HM and 136 eyes with HMG) and 322 eyes from 197 participants (131 eyes with HM and 191 eyes with HMG) were included in the internal and external validation sets, respectively. Only HMG eyes with an intraocular pressure > 21 mmHg were included. METHODS: The pRNFL thickness was measured with swept-source (SS) OCT. Four strategies of pRNFL-specified values were examined, including global and quadrantic pRNFL thickness below the lowest fifth or the lowest first percentile of the normative database. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the HM-specific normative database for detecting HMG. RESULTS: Setting the fifth percentile of the global pRNFL thickness as the threshold, using the HM-specific normative database, we achieved an accuracy of 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-0.95) and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.81-0.89), and, using the first percentile as the threshold, we acheived an accuracy of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.81-0.88) and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.65-0.75) in detecting HMG in the internal and external validation sets, respectively. The fifth percentile of the global pRNFL thickness achieved high sensitivities of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.67-0.82) and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.68-0.81) and specificities of 1.00 (95% CI, 0.99-1.00) and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.97-1.00) in the internal and external validation datasets, respectively. Compared with the built-in database of the OCT device, the HM-specific normative database showed a higher sensitivity and specificity than the corresponding pRNFL thickness below the fifth or first percentile (P < 0.001 for all). CONCLUSIONS: The HM-specific normative database is more capable of detecting HMG eyes than the SS OCT built-in database, which may be an effective tool for differential diagnosis between HMG and HM. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Correlation between change in central subfield thickness and change in visual acuity in macular edema due to retinal vein occlusion: post hoc analysis of COPERNICUS, GALILEO, and VIBRANT.

PURPOSE: Assess correlation between change in central subfield thickness (CST) and change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in eyes with macular edema due to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) that received intravitreal aflibercept injections (IAI). METHODS: Post hoc analysis of COPERNICUS and GALILEO trials for CRVO and VIBRANT trial for BRVO with relationships determined using Pearson correlation coefficient. RESULTS: In COPERNICUS, correlations (r) between change in CST and change in BCVA from baseline at weeks 12, 24, 52, and 100 were -0.36 (95% CI: -0.52, -0.18; P < 0.001), -0.38 (95% CI: -0.53, -0.20; P < 0.001), -0.44 (95% CI: -0.58, -0.27; P < 0.001), and -0.41 (95% CI: -0.56, -0.23; P < 0.001), respectively. CST changes accounted for only 21% of the variance in BCVA changes; every 100-µm decrease in CST was associated with a 2.1-letter increase in BCVA (P = 0.003). Similar findings were noted for GALILEO (r, -0.45 to -0.23) and VIBRANT (r, -0.36 to -0.32) trials. CONCLUSION: In eyes treated with IAI for macular edema due to RVO, correlation between change in CST and change in BCVA was weak to moderate. While change in CST may be helpful in determining the need for anti-VEGF therapy, these findings do not support using changes in CST as a surrogate for changes in visual acuity outcomes.

Prevention of vision-threatening complications in diabetic retinopathy: two perspectives based on results from the DRCR Retina Network Protocol W and the Regeneron-sponsored PANORAMA.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The use of intravitreous antivascular endothelial growth factor to prevent center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME) with vision loss and proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) has been investigated and recently reported in two randomized clinical trials. Although both trials showed substantial superiority of aflibercept at preventing the development of vision-threatening complications (VTCs) of CI-DME or PDR compared with sham at 1 or 2 years, without a concomitant benefit in visual acuity outcomes, the interpretation of the results and its application to clinical practice resulted in two disparate opinions. In this review, we discuss these two trials including their similarities and differences, other relevant studies, and considerations regarding the interpretation and the application of these results into clinical practice. RECENT FINDINGS: The Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Retina Network Protocol W and the PANORAMA study demonstrated significantly lower probabilities of developing CI-DME or PDR at 2 years with intravitreous aflibercept compared with sham in eyes with moderate (Protocol W) or moderately severe (PANORAMA) to severe non-PDR (NPDR). However, visual acuity outcomes were not different. SUMMARY: Although intravitreous aflibercept injections reduce the risk of VTCs in eyes with moderate-to-severe NPDR, the absence of visual acuity benefits supports the need for four-year results.

Controversies in artificial intelligence.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review four recent controversial topics arising from deep learning applications in ophthalmology. RECENT FINDINGS: The controversies of four recent topics surrounding deep learning applications in ophthalmology are discussed, including the following: lack of explainability, limited generalizability, potential biases and protection of patient confidentiality in large-scale data transfer. SUMMARY: These controversial issues spanning the domains of clinical medicine, public health, computer science, ethics and legal issues, are complex and likely will benefit from an interdisciplinary approach if artificial intelligence in ophthalmology is to succeed over the next decade.

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.

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.

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.

Safe Viewing of Solar Eclipses.

This JAMA Patient Page describes solar eclipses and how to view them safely.

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.).

Plasma Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Concentrations after Intravitreous Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy for Diabetic Macular Edema.

PURPOSE: To assess systemic vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-A levels after treatment with intravitreous aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab. DESIGN: Comparative-effectiveness trial with participants randomly assigned to 2 mg aflibercept, 1.25 mg bevacizumab, or 0.3 mg ranibizumab after a re-treatment algorithm. PARTICIPANTS: Participants with available plasma samples (N = 436). METHODS: Plasma samples were collected before injections at baseline and 4-week, 52-week, and 104-week visits. In a preplanned secondary analysis, systemic-free VEGF levels from an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay were compared across anti-VEGF agents and correlated with systemic side effects. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in the natural log (ln) of plasma VEGF levels. RESULTS: Baseline free VEGF levels were similar across all 3 groups. At 4 weeks, mean ln(VEGF) changes were -0.30±0.61 pg/ml, -0.31±0.54 pg/ml, and -0.02±0.44 pg/ml for the aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab groups, respectively. The adjusted differences between treatment groups (adjusted confidence interval [CI]; P value) were -0.01 (-0.12 to +0.10; P = 0.89), -0.31 (-0.44 to -0.18; P < 0.001), and -0.30 (-0.43 to -0.18; P < 0.001) for aflibercept-bevacizumab, aflibercept-ranibizumab, and bevacizumab-ranibizumab, respectively. At 52 weeks, a difference in mean VEGF changes between bevacizumab and ranibizumab persisted (-0.23 [-0.38 to -0.09]; P < 0.001); the difference between aflibercept and ranibizumab was -0.12 (P = 0.07) and between aflibercept and bevacizumab was +0.11 (P = 0.07). Treatment group differences at 2 years were similar to 1 year. No apparent treatment differences were detected at 52 or 104 weeks in the cohort of participants not receiving injections within 1 or 2 months before plasma collection. Participants with (N = 9) and without (N = 251) a heart attack or stroke had VEGF levels that appeared similar. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that decreases in plasma free-VEGF levels are greater after treatment with aflibercept or bevacizumab compared with ranibizumab at 4 weeks. At 52 and 104 weeks, a greater decrease was observed in bevacizumab versus ranibizumab. Results from 2 subgroups of participants who did not receive injections within at least 1 month and 2 months before collection suggest similar changes in VEGF levels after stopping injections. It is unknown whether VEGF levels return to normal as the drug is cleared from the system or whether the presence of the drug affects the assay's ability to accurately measure free VEGF. No significant associations between VEGF concentration and systemic factors were noted.

Recent clinically relevant highlights from the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To present some recent clinically relevant results from Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research (DRCR) Network trials that may guide management of diabetic macular edema (DME) or proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). RECENT FINDINGS: Among eyes with DME and visual acuity 20/50 or worse, aflibercept, on average, had greater improvement in visual acuity over 2 years compared with bevacizumab or ranibizumab. Aflibercept is associated with higher rates of improvements in diabetic retinopathy severity among eyes with PDR and vision-impairing DME at baseline compared with bevacizumab or ranibizumab. Among eyes with persistent central-involved DME after at least six antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections, no difference in mean visual acuity improvement was observed between eyes that received continued ranibizumab and sham injections versus ranibizumab and intravitreous sustained dexamethasone drug-delivery system, especially for phakic eyes. For eyes with PDR, ranibizumab was associated with lower rates of developing PDR-worsening events compared with panretinal photocoagulation, especially among eyes that did not receive ranibizumab for central-involved DME at baseline. Ranibizumab is cost-effective for PDR for eyes with, not without, vision-impairing central-involved DME, highlighting challenges when safety and efficacy results are at odds with cost-effectiveness results. SUMMARY: Aflibercept for DME, in certain circumstances, is more likely to have superior visual acuity and anatomical outcomes compared with bevacizumab or ranibizumab. No vision benefits are apparent, especially for phakic eyes, by adding intravitreous corticosteroids for persistent DME following anti-VEGF injections.

Development of a new Rasch-based scoring algorithm for the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire to improve its interpretability.

BACKGROUND: The NEI VFQ-25 has undergone psychometric evaluation in patients with varying ocular conditions and the general population. However, important limitations which may affect the interpretation of clinical trial results have been previously identified, such as concerns with reliability and validity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25) and make recommendations for a revised scoring structure, with a view to improving its psychometric performance and interpretability. METHODS: Rasch Measurement Theory analyses were conducted in two stages using pooled baseline NEI VFQ-25 data for 2487 participants with retinal diseases enrolled in six clinical trials. In stage 1, we examined: scale-to-sample targeting; thresholds for item response options; item fit statistics; stability; local dependence; and reliability. In stage 2, a post-hoc revision of the scoring structure (VFQ-28R) was created and psychometrically re-evaluated. RESULTS: In stage 1, we found that the NEI VFQ-25 was mis-targeted to the sample, and had disordered response thresholds (15/25 items) and mis-fitting items (8/25 items). However, items appeared to be stable (differential item functioning for three items), have minimal item dependency (one pair of items) and good reliability (person-separation index, 0.93). In stage 2, the modified Rasch-scored NEI VFQ-28-R was assessed. It comprised two broad domains: Activity Limitation (19 items) and Socio-Emotional Functioning (nine items). The NEI VFQ-28-R demonstrated improved performance with fewer disordered response thresholds (no items), less item misfit (three items) and improved population targeting (reduced ceiling effect) compared with the NEI VFQ-25. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the original version, the proposed NEI VFQ-28-R, with Rasch-based scoring and a two-domain structure, appears to offer improved psychometric performance and interpretability of the vision-related quality of life scale for the population analysed.

Aflibercept, bevacizumab or ranibizumab for diabetic macular oedema: recent clinically relevant findings from DRCR.net Protocol T.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this study was to provide clinically relevant findings from the DRCR.net Protocol T, a multicentre randomized clinical trial comparing intravitreous aflibercept, repackaged (compounded) bevacizumab and ranibizumab for vision-impairing centre-involved diabetic macular oedema (DME). RECENT FINDINGS: At 1 year, all three antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) drugs, on average, improved visual acuity. There was no difference among drugs in mean change in visual acuity from baseline among eyes with baseline Snellen equivalent visual acuity of 20/32 to 20/40, whereas aflibercept yielded superior vision outcomes among eyes with baseline visual acuity of 20/50 to 20/320. At 2 years, aflibercept remained superior, on average, to bevacizumab, but not ranibizumab, among eyes with baseline visual acuity of 20/50 to 20/320. Over 2 years, in post-hoc area-under-the-curve analysis, aflibercept vision outcomes were superior to bevacizumab or ranibizumab among these eyes. All three drugs had comparable ocular and systemic safety profiles. The substantial cost differential between aflibercept and bevacizumab raises challenges when safety and efficacy are at odds with cost-effectiveness results. SUMMARY: When initial visual acuity loss is mild, there are no apparent differences, on average, among aflibercept, bevacizumab and ranibizumab for treating DME. When visual acuity loss is moderate or worse, aflibercept is more likely to improve visual acuity.

Surgery for cataracts in people with age-related macular degeneration.

BACKGROUND: Cataract and age-related macular degeneration (AMD) are common causes of decreased vision that often occur simultaneously in people over age 50. Although cataract surgery is an effective treatment for cataract-induced visual loss, some clinicians suspect that such an intervention may increase the risk of worsening of underlying AMD and thus have deleterious effects on vision. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of cataract surgery compared with no surgery in eyes with AMD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 11), Ovid MEDLINE, Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily (January 1946 to December 2016), Embase (January 1980 to December 2016), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to December 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 2 December 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials that enrolled participants whose eyes were affected by both cataract and AMD in which cataract surgery was compared with no surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently evaluated the search results against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two review authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias for included studies, and graded the certainty of evidence. We followed methods as recommended by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs with a total of 114 participants (114 study eyes) with visually significant cataract and AMD. We identified no ongoing trials. Participants in each RCT were randomized to immediate cataract surgery (within two weeks of enrollment) or delayed cataract surgery (six months after enrollment). The risk of bias was unclear for most domains in each study; one study was registered prospectively.In one study conducted in Australia outcomes were reported only at six months (before participants in the delayed-surgery group had cataract surgery). At six months, the immediate-surgery group showed mean improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) compared with the delayed-surgery group (mean difference (MD) -0.15 LogMAR, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.28 to -0.02; 56 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In the other study, conducted in Austria, outcomes were reported only at 12 months (12 months after participants in the immediate-surgery group and six months after participants in the delayed-surgery group had cataract surgery). There was uncertainty as to which treatment group had better improvement in distance visual acuity at 12 months (unit of measure not reported; very low-certainty evidence).At 12 months, the mean change from baseline between groups in cumulated drusen or geographic atrophy area size was small and there was uncertainty which, if either, of the groups was favored (MD 0.76, 95% CI -8.49 to 10.00; 49 participants; low-certainty evidence). No participant in one study had exudative AMD develop in the study eye during 12 months of follow-up; in the other study, choroidal neovascularization developed in the study eye of 1 of 27 participants in the immediate-surgery group versus 0 of 29 participants in the delayed-surgery group at six months (risk ratio 3.21, 95% CI 0.14 to 75.68; 56 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life was measured using two different questionnaires. Scores on the Impact of Vision Impairment (IVI) questionnaire suggested that the immediate-surgery group fared better regarding vision-related quality of life than the delayed-surgery group at six months (MD in IVI logit scores 1.60, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.59; low-certainty evidence). However, we could not analyze scores from the Visual Function-14 (VF-14) questionnaire from the other study due to insufficient data. No postoperative complication was reported from either study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At this time, it is not possible to draw reliable conclusions from the available data as to whether cataract surgery is beneficial or harmful in people with AMD after 12 months. Although cataract surgery provides short-term (six months) improvement in BCVA in eyes with AMD compared with no surgery, it is unclear whether the timing of surgery has an effect on long-term outcomes. Physicians must make recommendations to their AMD patients regarding cataract surgery based on experience and clinical judgment until large controlled trials are conducted and their findings published.There is a need for prospective RCTs in which cataract surgery is compared with no surgery in people with AMD to better evaluate whether cataract surgery is beneficial or harmful in all or a subset of AMD patients. However, ethical considerations preclude withholding surgery, or delaying it for several years, if it may be a potentially beneficial treatment. Designers of future trials are encouraged to utilize existing standardized systems for grading cataract and AMD and for measuring key outcomes: visual acuity, change in visual acuity, worsening of AMD, quality of life measures, and adverse events.

RESPONSIVENESS OF THE NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE VISUAL FUNCTION QUESTIONNAIRE-25 TO VISUAL ACUITY GAINS IN PATIENTS WITH DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA: Evidence From the RIDE and RISE Trials.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the responsiveness of the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25 (NEI VFQ-25) in patients with diabetic macular edema using data from the RIDE and RISE trials. METHODS: Patients were randomized to monthly intravitreal ranibizumab 0.3 mg, 0.5 mg, or sham injections for 2 years. The NEI VFQ-25 was administered at baseline and at Months 6, 12, 18, and 24. The least-squares mean change in NEI VFQ-25 for ≥15 letters gained or lost was derived from analysis of covariance models. RESULTS: The mean improvement in NEI VFQ-25 composite score associated with a ≥15-letter gain in best-corrected visual acuity over 24 months was 9.0 (95% confidence interval, 6.3-11.7) points in RIDE and 7.1 (95% confidence interval, 4.7-9.6) points in RISE. In patients who lost ≥15 letters, the mean worsening in overall NEI VFQ-25 composite score was -6.6 (95% confidence interval, -13.6 to 0.5) in RIDE and -2.7 (95% confidence interval, -8.9 to 3.5) in RISE. CONCLUSION: This exploratory analysis of data from the RIDE and RISE studies supports the responsiveness of the NEI VFQ-25 to changes in best-corrected visual acuity over time in patients with diabetic macular edema.

Development and Validation of a Deep Learning System for Diabetic Retinopathy and Related Eye Diseases Using Retinal Images From Multiethnic Populations With Diabetes.

Importance: A deep learning system (DLS) is a machine learning technology with potential for screening diabetic retinopathy and related eye diseases. Objective: To evaluate the performance of a DLS in detecting referable diabetic retinopathy, vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy, possible glaucoma, and age-related macular degeneration (AMD) in community and clinic-based multiethnic populations with diabetes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Diagnostic performance of a DLS for diabetic retinopathy and related eye diseases was evaluated using 494 661 retinal images. A DLS was trained for detecting diabetic retinopathy (using 76 370 images), possible glaucoma (125 189 images), and AMD (72 610 images), and performance of DLS was evaluated for detecting diabetic retinopathy (using 112 648 images), possible glaucoma (71 896 images), and AMD (35 948 images). Training of the DLS was completed in May 2016, and validation of the DLS was completed in May 2017 for detection of referable diabetic retinopathy (moderate nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy or worse) and vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy (severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy or worse) using a primary validation data set in the Singapore National Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Program and 10 multiethnic cohorts with diabetes. Exposures: Use of a deep learning system. Main Outcomes and Measures: Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and sensitivity and specificity of the DLS with professional graders (retinal specialists, general ophthalmologists, trained graders, or optometrists) as the reference standard. Results: In the primary validation dataset (n = 14 880 patients; 71 896 images; mean [SD] age, 60.2 [2.2] years; 54.6% men), the prevalence of referable diabetic retinopathy was 3.0%; vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy, 0.6%; possible glaucoma, 0.1%; and AMD, 2.5%. The AUC of the DLS for referable diabetic retinopathy was 0.936 (95% CI, 0.925-0.943), sensitivity was 90.5% (95% CI, 87.3%-93.0%), and specificity was 91.6% (95% CI, 91.0%-92.2%). For vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy, AUC was 0.958 (95% CI, 0.956-0.961), sensitivity was 100% (95% CI, 94.1%-100.0%), and specificity was 91.1% (95% CI, 90.7%-91.4%). For possible glaucoma, AUC was 0.942 (95% CI, 0.929-0.954), sensitivity was 96.4% (95% CI, 81.7%-99.9%), and specificity was 87.2% (95% CI, 86.8%-87.5%). For AMD, AUC was 0.931 (95% CI, 0.928-0.935), sensitivity was 93.2% (95% CI, 91.1%-99.8%), and specificity was 88.7% (95% CI, 88.3%-89.0%). For referable diabetic retinopathy in the 10 additional datasets, AUC range was 0.889 to 0.983 (n = 40 752 images). Conclusions and Relevance: In this evaluation of retinal images from multiethnic cohorts of patients with diabetes, the DLS had high sensitivity and specificity for identifying diabetic retinopathy and related eye diseases. Further research is necessary to evaluate the applicability of the DLS in health care settings and the utility of the DLS to improve vision outcomes.

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.