Aflibercept Monotherapy or Bevacizumab First for Diabetic Macular Edema.

BACKGROUND: In eyes with diabetic macular edema, the relative efficacy of administering aflibercept monotherapy as compared with bevacizumab first with a switch to aflibercept if the eye condition does not improve sufficiently (a form of step therapy) is unclear. METHODS: At 54 clinical sites, we randomly assigned eyes in adults who had diabetic macular edema involving the macular center and a visual-acuity letter score of 24 to 69 (on a scale from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better visual acuity; Snellen equivalent, 20/320 to 20/50) to receive either 2.0 mg of intravitreous aflibercept or 1.25 mg of intravitreous bevacizumab. The drug was administered at randomization and thereafter according to the prespecified retreatment protocol. Beginning at 12 weeks, eyes in the bevacizumab-first group were switched to aflibercept therapy if protocol-specified criteria were met. The primary outcome was the mean change in visual acuity over the 2-year trial period. Retinal central subfield thickness and visual acuity at 2 years and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 312 eyes (in 270 adults) underwent randomization; 158 eyes were assigned to receive aflibercept monotherapy and 154 to receive bevacizumab first. Over the 2-year period, 70% of the eyes in the bevacizumab-first group were switched to aflibercept therapy. The mean improvement in visual acuity was 15.0 letters in the aflibercept-monotherapy group and 14.0 letters in the bevacizumab-first group (adjusted difference, 0.8 letters; 95% confidence interval, -0.9 to 2.5; P = 0.37). At 2 years, the mean changes in visual acuity and retinal central subfield thickness were similar in the two groups. Serious adverse events (in 52% of the patients in the aflibercept-monotherapy group and in 36% of those in the bevacizumab-first group) and hospitalizations for adverse events (in 48% and 32%, respectively) were more common in the aflibercept-monotherapy group. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial of treatment of moderate vision loss due to diabetic macular edema involving the center of the macula, we found no evidence of a significant difference in visual outcomes over a 2-year period between aflibercept monotherapy and treatment with bevacizumab first with a switch to aflibercept in the case of suboptimal response. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; Protocol AC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03321513.).

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

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

Four-Year Visual Outcomes in the Protocol W Randomized Trial of Intravitreous Aflibercept for Prevention of Vision-Threatening Complications of Diabetic Retinopathy.

Importance: Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections in eyes with nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) without center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME) reduce development of vision-threatening complications from diabetes over at least 2 years, but whether this treatment has a longer-term benefit on visual acuity is unknown. Objective: To compare the primary 4-year outcomes of visual acuity and rates of vision-threatening complications in eyes with moderate to severe NPDR treated with intravitreal aflibercept compared with sham. The primary 2-year analysis of this study has been reported. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted at 64 clinical sites in the US and Canada from January 2016 to March 2018, enrolling 328 adults (399 eyes) with moderate to severe NPDR (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] severity level 43-53; range, 0 [worst] to 100 [best]) without CI-DME. Interventions: Eyes were randomly assigned to 2.0 mg aflibercept (n = 200) or sham (n = 199). Eight injections were administered at defined intervals through 2 years, continuing quarterly through 4 years unless the eye improved to mild NPDR or better. Aflibercept was given in both groups to treat development of high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) or CI-DME with vision loss. Main Outcomes and Measures: Development of PDR or CI-DME with vision loss (≥10 letters at 1 visit or ≥5 letters at 2 consecutive visits) and change in visual acuity (best corrected ETDRS letter score) from baseline to 4 years. Results: Among participants (mean age 56 years; 42.4% female; 5% Asian, 15% Black, 32% Hispanic, 45% White), the 4-year cumulative probability of developing PDR or CI-DME with vision loss was 33.9% with aflibercept vs 56.9% with sham (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.40 [97.5% CI, 0.28 to 0.57]; P < .001). The mean (SD) change in visual acuity from baseline to 4 years was -2.7 (6.5) letters with aflibercept and -2.4 (5.8) letters with sham (adjusted mean difference, -0.5 letters [97.5% CI, -2.3 to 1.3]; P = .52). Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration cardiovascular/cerebrovascular event rates were 9.9% (7 of 71) in bilateral participants, 10.9% (14 of 129) in unilateral aflibercept participants, and 7.8% (10 of 128) in unilateral sham participants. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with NPDR but without CI-DME at 4 years treatment with aflibercept vs sham, initiating aflibercept treatment only if vision-threatening complications developed, resulted in statistically significant anatomic improvement but no improvement in visual acuity. Aflibercept as a preventive strategy, as used in this trial, may not be generally warranted for patients with NPDR without CI-DME. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02634333.

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

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

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

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

Five-Year Outcomes after Initial Aflibercept, Bevacizumab, or Ranibizumab Treatment for Diabetic Macular Edema (Protocol T Extension Study).

PURPOSE: Assess follow-up treatment and clinical outcomes at 5 years in eyes initially treated with anti-VEGF therapy for center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME) in a 2-year randomized clinical trial. DESIGN: Multicenter cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Participants with diabetic macular edema (DME) and visual acuity (VA) 20/32 to 20/320 enrolled in DRCR.net Protocol T with visits 5 years after randomization (3 years after Protocol T completion). METHODS: Participants were assigned randomly to aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab with protocol-defined follow-up and re-treatment for 2 years. Thereafter, participants were managed at clinician discretion and recalled for a 5-year visit. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment, VA letter score, and central subfield thickness (CST). RESULTS: Sixty-eight percent (317/463) of eligible participants completed the 5-year visit. Between years 2 and 5, 68% (217/317) of study eyes received at least 1 anti-VEGF treatment (median, 4; interquartile range [IQR], 0-12). At 5 years, mean VA improved from baseline by 7.4 letters (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.9-9.0) but decreased by 4.7 letters (95% CI, 3.3-6.0) between 2 and 5 years. When baseline VA was 20/50 to 20/320, mean 5-year VA was 11.9 letters (95% CI, 9.3-14.5) better than baseline but 4.8 letters (95% CI, 2.5-7.0) worse than 2 years. When baseline VA was 20/32 to 20/40, mean 5-year VA was 3.2 letters (95% CI, 1.4-5.0) better than baseline but 4.6 letters (95% CI, 3.1-6.1) worse than 2 years. Mean CST decreased from baseline to 5 years by 154 µm (95% CI, 142-166) and was stable between 2 and 5 years (-1 µm; 95% CI, -12 to 9). CONCLUSIONS: Among the two-thirds of eligible Protocol T participants who completed a 5-year visit, mean VA improved from baseline to 5 years without protocol-defined treatment after follow-up ended at 2 years. Although mean retinal thickness was similar at 2 and 5 years, mean VA worsened during this period. Additional investigation into strategies to improve long-term outcomes in eyes with DME seems warranted to determine if VA can be better maintained with different management approaches.

Effect of telephone calls from a centralized coordinating center on participant retention in a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: In clinical trials, participant retention is critical to reduce bias and maintain statistical power for hypothesis testing. Within a multi-center clinical trial of diabetic retinopathy, we investigated whether regular phone calls to participants from the coordinating center improved long-term participant retention. METHODS: Among 305 adults in the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Retina Network Protocol S randomized trial, 152 participants were randomly assigned to receive phone calls at baseline, 6 months, and annually through 3 years (annual contact group) while 153 participants were assigned to receive a phone call at baseline only (baseline contact group). All participants could be contacted if visits were missed. The main outcomes were visit completion, excluding deaths, at 2 years (the primary outcome time point) and at 5 years (the final time point). RESULTS: At baseline, 77% (117 of 152) of participants in the annual contact group and 76% (116 of 153) in the baseline contact group were successfully contacted. Among participants in the annual contact group active at each annual visit (i.e. not dropped from the study or deceased), 85% (125 of 147), 79% (108 of 136), and 88% (110 of 125) were contacted successfully by telephone around the time of the 1-, 2-, and 3-year visits, respectively. In the annual and baseline contact groups, completion rates for the 2-year primary outcome visit were 88% (129 of 147) versus 87% (125 of 144), respectively, with a risk ratio of 1.01 (95% confidence interval: 0.93-1.10, p = .81). At 5 years, the final study visit, participant completion rates were 67% (96 of 144) versus 66% (88 of 133) with a risk ratio of 1.01 (95% confidence interval = 0.85-1.19, p = .93). At 2 years, the completion rate of participants successfully contacted at baseline was 89% (202 of 226) versus 80% (52 of 65) among those not contacted successfully (risk ratio = 1.12, 95% confidence interval = 0.98-1.27, p = .09); at 5 years, the completion percentages by baseline contact success were 69% (148 of 213) versus 56% (36 of 64; risk ratio = 1.24, 95% confidence interval = 0.98-1.56, p = .08). CONCLUSION: Regular phone calls from the coordinating center to participants during follow-up in this randomized clinical trial did not improve long-term participant retention.

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

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

Effect of Intravitreous Aflibercept vs Vitrectomy With Panretinal Photocoagulation on Visual Acuity in Patients With Vitreous Hemorrhage From Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Vitreous hemorrhage from proliferative diabetic retinopathy can cause loss of vision. The best management approach is unknown. Objective: To compare initial treatment with intravitreous aflibercept vs vitrectomy with panretinal photocoagulation for vitreous hemorrhage from proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial at 39 DRCR Retina Network sites in the US and Canada including 205 adults with vison loss due to vitreous hemorrhage from proliferative diabetic retinopathy who were enrolled from November 2016 to December 2017. The final follow-up visit was completed in January 2020. Interventions: Random assignment of eyes (1 per participant) to aflibercept (100 participants) or vitrectomy with panretinal photocoagulation (105 participants). Participants whose eyes were assigned to aflibercept initially received 4 monthly injections. Both groups could receive aflibercept or vitrectomy during follow-up based on protocol criteria. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was mean visual acuity letter score (range, 0-100; higher scores indicate better vision) over 24 weeks (area under the curve); the study was powered to detect a difference of 8 letters. Secondary outcomes included mean visual acuity at 4 weeks and 2 years. Results: Among 205 participants (205 eyes) who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 57 [11] years; 115 [56%] men; mean visual acuity letter score, 34.5 [Snellen equivalent, 20/200]), 95% (195 of 205) completed the 24-week visit and 90% (177 of 196, excluding 9 deaths) completed the 2-year visit. The mean visual acuity letter score over 24 weeks was 59.3 (Snellen equivalent, 20/63) (95% CI, 54.9 to 63.7) in the aflibercept group vs 63.0 (Snellen equivalent, 20/63) (95% CI, 58.6 to 67.3) in the vitrectomy group (adjusted difference, -5.0 [95% CI, -10.2 to 0.3], P = .06). Among 23 secondary outcomes, 15 showed no significant difference. The mean visual acuity letter score was 52.6 (Snellen equivalent, 20/100) in the aflibercept group vs 62.3 (Snellen equivalent, 20/63) in the vitrectomy group at 4 weeks (adjusted difference, -11.2 [95% CI, -18.5 to -3.9], P = .003) and 73.7 (Snellen equivalent, 20/40) vs 71.0 (Snellen equivalent, 20/40) at 2 years (adjusted difference, 2.7 [95% CI, -3.1 to 8.4], P = .36). Over 2 years, 33 eyes (33%) assigned to aflibercept received vitrectomy and 34 eyes (32%) assigned to vitrectomy received subsequent aflibercept. Conclusions and Relevance: Among participants whose eyes had vitreous hemorrhage from proliferative diabetic retinopathy, there was no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome of mean visual acuity letter score over 24 weeks following initial treatment with intravitreous aflibercept vs vitrectomy with panretinal photocoagulation. However, the study may have been underpowered, considering the range of the 95% CI, to detect a clinically important benefit in favor of initial vitrectomy with panretinal photocoagulation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02858076.

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.

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.).

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.

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.