Dataset Information

Infliximab for diabetic macular edema refractory to laser photocoagulation: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover, 32-week study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Because many patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) do not respond to focal/grid laser photocoagulation, the only currently approved treatment, alternatives are needed. Based on encouraging preliminary findings, we aimed to assess efficacy and safety of the anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) monoclonal antibody infliximab in this condition.

Research design and methods

This was a single-center, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover study. Eleven patients with sight-threatening DME persisting after two sessions of laser photocoagulation received infliximab (5 mg/kg) intravenously at weeks 0, 2, 6, and 14, followed by placebo at weeks 16, 18, 22, and 30, or vice versa. Blinding was maintained to week 32, when the final assessments were performed. Best corrected visual acuity evaluated by a mixed-models approach for imbalanced crossover design using the percentage difference as the outcome variable was the primary study end point. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis.

Results

Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) scores dropped from 31.6 +/- 5.1 (mean +/- SD) letters read at baseline to 28.8 +/- 11.6 letters read at week 16 in six placebo-treated eyes and improved to 35.4 +/- 11.2 letters read after infliximab. In contrast, visual acuity improved from 23.5 +/- 10.3 at baseline to 30.4 +/- 13.4 letters read at week 16 in eight infliximab-treated eyes and was sustained at completion of placebo treatment (31.4 +/- 12.1 letters read). The excess visual acuity in infliximab-treated eyes was greater by 24.3% compared with that in placebo-treated eyes (95% CI 4.8-43.7; P = 0.017). Infliximab treatment was well tolerated.

Conclusions

The positive results of this small phase III study suggest that larger and longer term trials should be conducted to assess the efficacy of systemic or intravitreal anti-TNF agent administration for primary treatment of DME.

SUBMITTER: Sfikakis PP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2890353 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe prevalence of diabetes and diabetes-related complications, including diabetic macular edema (DME), is increasing in Asia and worldwide.MethodsVIVID-East was a 12-month, double-masked, randomized, active-controlled, Phase 3 trial (NCT01783886) enrolling adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with DME at 25 centers across China, Hong Kong, Republic of Korea, and Russia. Eyes were randomized 1:1:1 to 2 mg intravitreal aflibercept (IVT-AFL) every 4 weeks (2q4; N=127), 2 mg IVT-AFL every 8 weeks (after 5 initial monthly doses from baseline to week 16) with sham injections on nontreatment visits (2q8; N=127), or macular laser photocoagulation at baseline and sham injections at every visit (laser control group; N=124). The primary efficacy endpoint was mean change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline to week 52.ResultsCompared with baseline, at week 52 the mean (SE) BCVA in the 2q4 and 2q8 groups gained +13.6 (0.9) and +13.1 (1.0) letters, respectively, versus -0.5 (1.4) letters in the laser group (P<0.0001 for both). A significantly higher proportion of patients treated with IVT-AFL (2q4 and 2q8) achieved a ≥10-letter or ≥15-letter gain compared with laser (both P<0.0001) (≥10-letter gain: 70.9%, 62.7%, and 23.4%, respectively; ≥15-letter gain: 43.3%, 36.5%, and 12.1%, respectively). Mean reduction in central retinal thickness from baseline to week 52 was significantly greater with IVT-AFL versus laser treatment. Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was low and similar across groups; conjunctival hemorrhage (11.8%), retinal hemorrhage (8.7%), retinal aneurysm (7.5%), and retinal exudates (5.5%) being the most frequently reported. Visual and anatomic outcomes in the Chinese subgroup were consistent with the overall population.ConclusionIVT-AFL treatment resulted in significant visual and anatomic improvements in Asian patients with DME. Treatment benefits observed in the overall study population were mirrored in the subgroup of Chinese patients, who made up the largest population group in the study.Study registrationNCT01783886.

Project description:ObjectiveTo 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.MethodsTwo 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 measureChange in optical coherence tomography measurements at 12-month follow-up.ResultsAmong 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).ConclusionsAt 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 practiceModified ETDRS focal photocoagulation should continue to be a standard approach for treating diabetic macular edema.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00071773.

Project description:PurposeTo investigate the comparative efficacy of bevacizumab (Avastin) and ranibizumab (Lucentis; both Genentech, Inc, South San Francisco, CA) for diabetic macular edema (DME) using a crossover study design.DesignRandomized, double-masked, 36-week, 3-period crossover clinical trial.ParticipantsFifty-six subjects with DME involving the center of the macula in one or both eyes.MethodsMonthly intravitreous injections of bevacizumab (1.25 mg) or ranibizumab (0.3 mg).Main outcome measuresComparison of mean changes in visual acuity and central retinal thickness, tested using a linear mixed-effects model.ResultsBased on the linear mixed-effects model, the 3-month estimated mean improvement in visual acuity was 5.3 letters for bevacizumab and 6.6 letters for ranibizumab (difference, 1.3 letters; P = 0.039). Estimated change in optical coherence tomography (OCT) central subfield mean thickness (CSMT) was -89 μm for bevacizumab and -137 μm for ranibizumab (difference, 48 μm; P < 0.001). Incorporating cumulative treatment benefit, the model yielded a predicted 36-week (9-month) average improvement in visual acuity of 7.1 letters (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.0-9.2) for bevacizumab and 8.4 letters (95% CI, 6.3-10.5) for ranibizumab, and a change in OCT CSMT of -128 μm (95% CI, -155 to -100) for bevacizumab and -176 μm (95% CI, -202 to -149) for ranibizumab. There was no significant treatment-by-period interaction (i.e., treatment difference was constant in all 3 periods), nor was there a significant differential carryover effect from one period to the next.ConclusionsThis trial demonstrated a statistically significant but small relative clinical benefit of ranibizumab compared with bevacizumab for treatment of DME, using a markedly reduced sample size relative to a full comparative efficacy study. The effects on visual acuity and central retinal thickness for the 2 drugs are consistent with those reported at 1 year for the concurrent parallel-group trial by the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network testing bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept for DME. The 3-period crossover design allowed for meaningful and efficient comparison, suggesting that this approach may be useful for future comparative efficacy studies of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drugs for DME.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of 1-mg and 4-mg doses of preservative-free intravitreal triamcinolone in comparison with focal/grid photocoagulation for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME).DesignMulticenter, randomized clinical trial.ParticipantsEight hundred forty study eyes of 693 subjects with DME involving the fovea and with visual acuity of 20/40 to 20/320.MethodsEyes were randomized to focal/grid photocoagulation (n = 330), 1 mg intravitreal triamcinolone (n = 256), or 4 mg intravitreal triamcinolone (n = 254). Retreatment was given for persistent or new edema at 4-month intervals. The primary outcome was evaluated at 2 years.Main outcome measuresVisual acuity measured with the electronic Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study method (primary), optical coherence tomography-measured retinal thickness (secondary), and safety.ResultsAt 4 months, mean visual acuity was better in the 4-mg triamcinolone group than in either the laser group (P<0.001) or the 1-mg triamcinolone group (P = 0.001). By 1 year, there were no significant differences among groups in mean visual acuity. At the 16-month visit and extending through the primary outcome visit at 2 years, mean visual acuity was better in the laser group than in the other 2 groups (at 2 years, P = 0.02 comparing the laser and 1-mg groups, P = 0.002 comparing the laser and 4-mg groups, and P = 0.49 comparing the 1-mg and 4-mg groups). Treatment group differences in the visual acuity outcome could not be attributed solely to cataract formation. Optical coherence tomography results generally paralleled the visual acuity results. Intraocular pressure increased from baseline by 10 mmHg or more at any visit in 4%, 16%, and 33% of eyes in the 3 treatment groups, respectively, and cataract surgery was performed in 13%, 23%, and 51% of eyes in the 3 treatment groups, respectively.ConclusionsOver a 2-year period, focal/grid photocoagulation is more effective and has fewer side effects than 1-mg or 4-mg doses of preservative-free intravitreal triamcinolone for most patients with DME who have characteristics similar to the cohort in this clinical trial. The results of this study also support that focal/grid photocoagulation currently should be the benchmark against which other treatments are compared in clinical trials of DME.

Project description:BackgroundThis was an updated network meta-analysis (NMA) of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents and laser photocoagulation in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). Unlike previous NMA that used meta-regression to account for potential confounding by systematic variation in treatment effect modifiers across studies, this update incorporated individual patient-level data (IPD) regression to provide more robust adjustment.MethodsAn updated review was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials for inclusion in a Bayesian NMA. The network included intravitreal aflibercept (IVT-AFL) 2?mg bimonthly (2q8) after 5 initial doses, ranibizumab 0.5?mg as-needed (PRN), ranibizumab 0.5?mg treat-and-extend (T&E), and laser photocoagulation. Outcomes included in the analysis were change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), measured using an Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart, and patients with ?10 and???15 ETDRS letter gains/losses at 12?months. Analyses were performed using networks restricted to IPD-only and IPD and aggregate data with (i) no covariable adjustment, (ii) covariable adjustment for baseline BVCA assuming common interaction effects (against reference treatment), and (iii) covariable adjustments specific to each treatment comparison (restricted to IPD-only network).ResultsThirteen trials were included in the analysis. IVT-AFL 2q8 was superior to laser in all analyses. IVT-AFL 2q8 showed strong evidence of superiority (95% credible interval [CrI] did not cross null) versus ranibizumab 0.5?mg PRN for mean change in BCVA (mean difference 5.20, 95% CrI 1.90-8.52 ETDRS letters), ?15 ETDRS letter gain (odds ratio [OR] 2.30, 95% CrI 1.12-4.20), and ?10 ETDRS letter loss (OR 0.25, 95% CrI 0.05-0.74) (IPD and aggregate random-effects model with baseline BCVA adjustment). IVT-AFL 2q8 was not superior to ranibizumab 0.5?mg?T&E for mean change in BCVA (mean difference 5.15, 95% CrI -0.26-10.61 ETDRS letters) (IPD and aggregate random-effects model).ConclusionsThis NMA, which incorporated IPD to improve analytic robustness, showed evidence of superiority of IVT-AFL 2q8 to laser and ranibizumab 0.5?mg PRN. These results were irrespective of adjustment for baseline BCVA.

Project description:ObjectiveCompare the efficacy of ranibizumab, aflibercept, laser, and sham in the first-line treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) to inform technology assessments such as those conducted by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, congress abstracts, ClinicalTrials.gov registry and Novartis data on file.Inclusion criteriaStudies reporting 6- or 12-month results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating at least two of ranibizumab 0.5 mg pro re nata, aflibercept 2.0 mg bi-monthly, laser photocoagulation or sham. Study quality was assessed based on likelihood of bias in selection, attrition, detection and performance.Outcome measureImprovement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) measured as the proportion of patients gaining ≥10 letters on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study scale. The outcome was chosen following acceptance by NICE of a Markov model with 10-letter health states in the assessment of ranibizumab for DME.Meta-analysisBayesian network meta-analyses with fixed and random effects adjusted for differences in baseline BCVA or central retinal thickness.ResultsThe analysis included 1,978 patients from eight RCTs. The random effects model adjusting for baseline BCVA was the best model based on total residual. The efficacy of ranibizumab was numerically, but not statistically, superior to aflibercept (odds ratio [OR] 1.59; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.61-5.37). Ranibizumab and aflibercept were statistically superior to laser monotherapy with ORs of 5.50 (2.73-13.16) and 3.45 (1.62-6.84) respectively. The probability that ranibizumab is the most efficacious treatment was 73% compared with 14% for aflibercept, 12% for ranibizumab plus laser, and 0% for laser.LimitationsThree of the eight RCTs included are not yet published. The models did not adjust for all potential effect modifiers.ConclusionRanibizumab was non-significantly superior to aflibercept and both anti-VEGF therapies had statistically superior efficacy to laser.