Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Evaluate intravitreal 0.5 mg ranibizumab or 4 mg triamcinolone combined with focal/grid laser compared with focal/grid laser alone for treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME).

Design

Multicenter, randomized clinical trial.

Participants

A total of 854 study eyes of 691 participants with visual acuity (approximate Snellen equivalent) of 20/32 to 20/320 and DME involving the fovea.

Methods

Eyes were randomized to sham injection + prompt laser (n=293), 0.5 mg ranibizumab + prompt laser (n=187), 0.5 mg ranibizumab + deferred (> or =24 weeks) laser (n=188), or 4 mg triamcinolone + prompt laser (n=186). Retreatment followed an algorithm facilitated by a web-based, real-time data-entry system.

Main outcome measures

Best-corrected visual acuity and safety at 1 year.

Results

The 1-year mean change (+/-standard deviation) in the visual acuity letter score from baseline was significantly greater in the ranibizumab + prompt laser group (+9+/-11, P<0.001) and ranibizumab + deferred laser group (+9+/-12, P<0.001) but not in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group (+4+/-13, P=0.31) compared with the sham + prompt laser group (+3+/-13). Reduction in mean central subfield thickness in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group was similar to both ranibizumab groups and greater than in the sham + prompt laser group. In the subset of pseudophakic eyes at baseline (n=273), visual acuity improvement in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group appeared comparable to that in the ranibizumab groups. No systemic events attributable to study treatment were apparent. Three eyes (0.8%) had injection-related endophthalmitis in the ranibizumab groups, whereas elevated intraocular pressure and cataract surgery were more frequent in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group. Two-year visual acuity outcomes were similar to 1-year outcomes.

Conclusions

Intravitreal ranibizumab with prompt or deferred laser is more effective through at least 1 year compared with prompt laser alone for the treatment of DME involving the central macula. Ranibizumab as applied in this study, although uncommonly associated with endophthalmitis, should be considered for patients with DME and characteristics similar to those in this clinical trial. In pseudophakic eyes, intravitreal triamcinolone + prompt laser seems more effective than laser alone but frequently increases the risk of intraocular pressure elevation.

SUBMITTER: Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2937272 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivePerform a cost-effectiveness analysis of the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) with ranibizumab plus prompt or deferred laser versus triamcinolone plus prompt laser. Data for the analysis were drawn from reports of the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network (DRCRnet) Protocol I.DesignComputer simulation based on Protocol I data. Analyses were conducted from the payor perspective.ParticipantsSimulated participants assigned characteristics reflecting those seen in Protocol I.MethodsMarkov models were constructed to replicate Protocol I's 104-week outcomes using a microsimulation approach to estimation. Baseline characteristics, visual acuity (VA), treatments, and complications were based on Protocol I data. Costs were identified by literature search. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed, and the results were validated against Protocol I data.Main outcome measuresDirect cost of care for 2 years, change in VA from baseline, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) measured as cost per additional letter gained from baseline (Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study).ResultsFor sham plus laser (S+L), ranibizumab plus prompt laser (R+pL), ranibizumab plus deferred laser (R+dL), and triamcinolone plus laser (T+L), effectiveness through 104 weeks was predicted to be 3.46, 7.07, 8.63, and 2.40 letters correct, respectively. The ICER values in terms of dollars per VA letter were $393 (S+L vs. T+L), $5943 (R+pL vs. S+L), and $20 (R+dL vs. R+pL). For pseudophakics, the ICER value for comparison triamcinolone with laser versus ranibizumab with deferred laser was $14 690 per letter gained. No clinically relevant changes in model variables altered outcomes. Internal validation demonstrated good similarity to Protocol I treatment patterns.ConclusionsIn treatment of phakic patients with DME, ranibizumab with deferred laser provided an additional 6 letters correct compared with triamcinolone with laser at an additional cost of $19 216 over 2 years. That would indicate that if the gain in VA seen at 2 years is maintained in subsequent years, then the treatment of phakic patients with DME using ranibizumab may meet accepted standards of cost-effectiveness. For pseudophakic patients, first-line treatment with triamcinolone seems to be the most cost-effective option.

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

Project description:ObjectiveTo report the 3-year follow-up results within a previously reported randomized trial evaluating prompt versus deferred (for ≥24 weeks) focal/grid laser treatment in eyes treated with intravitreal 0.5 mg ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema (DME).DesignMulticenter, randomized clinical trial.ParticipantsThree hundred sixty-one participants with visual acuity of 20/32 to 20/320 (approximate Snellen equivalent) and DME involving the fovea.MethodsRanibizumab every 4 weeks until no longer improving (with resumption if worsening) and random assignment to prompt or deferred (≥24 weeks) focal/grid laser treatment.Main outcome measuresBest-corrected visual acuity and safety at the 156-week (3-year) visit.ResultsThe estimated mean change in visual acuity letter score from baseline through the 3-year visit was 2.9 letters more (9.7 vs. 6.8 letters; mean difference, 2.9 letters; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-5.4 letters; P = 0.02) in the deferral group compared with the prompt laser treatment group. In the prompt laser treatment group and deferral group, respectively, the percentage of eyes with a ≥10-letter gain/loss was 42% and 56% (P = 0.02), whereas the respective percentage of eyes with a ≥10-letter gain/loss was 10% and 5% (P = 0.12). Up to the 3-year visit, the median numbers of injections were 12 and 15 in the prompt and deferral groups, respectively (P = 0.007), including 1 and 2 injections, respectively, from the 2-year up to the 3-year visit. At the 3-year visit, the percentages of eyes with central subfield thickness of 250 μm or more on time-domain optical coherence tomography were 36% in both groups (P = 0.90). In the deferral group, 54% did not receive laser treatment during the trial. Systemic adverse events seemed to be similar in the 2 groups.ConclusionsThese 3-year results suggest that focal/grid laser treatment at the initiation of intravitreal ranibizumab is no better, and possibly worse, for vision outcomes than deferring laser treatment for 24 weeks or more in eyes with DME involving the fovea and with vision impairment. Some of the observed differences in visual acuity at 3 years may be related to fewer cumulative ranibizumab injections during follow-up in the prompt laser treatment group. Follow-up through 5 years continues.

Project description:Our purpose was to compare the impact in diabetic macula edema (DME) of two intravitreal drugs (0.5 mg ranibizumab vs. 8 mg triamcinolone) on changes in retinal morphology in spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD OCT) images, color fundus photography (CF) and fluorescein angiography (FA) images during a 1-year follow-up.Post hoc analysis was conducted of morphologic characteristics in OCT, FA and CF images of eyes with a center involving DME that were included in a prospective double-masked randomized trial. Eligible patients were divided at random into two groups receiving either pro re nata treatment with 0.5 mg ranibizumab or 8 mg triamcinolone after a fixed loading dose. OCT and CF images were acquired at monthly visits and FA images every three months.Twenty-five eyes of 25 patients (ranibizumab: n = 10; triamcinolone: n = 15) were included in this study. Patients treated with ranibizumab showed better visual acuity results after 12 months than patients receiving triamcinolone (p = 0.015) although edema reduction was similar (p = 0.426) in both groups. The initial effect on macular edema shedding after a single ranibizumab injection could be amplified with the following two injections of the loading dose. After a single injection of triamcinolone the beneficial initial effect on the macula edema faded within 3 months. Subretinal fluid and INL cystoid spaces diminished early in the course of treatment while fluid accumulation in the ONL seemed to be more persistent in both treatment arms. In FA, the area of leakage diminished significantly in both treatment arms. After repeated injections the morphologic OCT and FA characteristics of the treatment arms converged.Despite the higher dosage of triamcinolone, both therapies were safe and effective for treating diabetic macular edema. Fluid accumulation in the INL and subretinal space was more responsive to therapy than fluid accumulation in the ONL. Clinicaltrials.gov : NCT00682539.

Project description:BackgroundThe relative efficacy and safety of intravitreous aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab in the treatment of diabetic macular edema are unknown.MethodsAt 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.ResultsFrom 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).ConclusionsIntravitreous 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.).

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the relative efficacy of ranibizumab (RBZ) monotherapy or combined with laser (RBZ + Laser) versus laser monotherapy for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME).MethodsA comprehensive literature search using PUBMED, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Library to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RBZ or RBZ + Laser to laser monotherapy in patients with DME. Efficacy estimates were determined by comparing weighted mean differences (WMD) in the change of best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) from baseline, and the risk ratios (RR) for the proportions of patients with at least 15 letters change from baseline. Safety analysis estimated the RR of cardiac disorders at 6 to 12 months in RBZ therapy vs. laser monotherapy. Statistical analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.1 software.ResultsSeven RCTs were selected for this meta-analysis, including 1749 patients (394 patients in the RBZ group, 642 patients in the RBZ + Laser group, and 713 patients in the laser group). RBZ and RBZ + Laser were superior to laser monotherapy in the mean change of BCVA and CMT from baseline (WMD = 5.65, 95% confidence interval (CI), 4.44-6.87, P<0.00001; WMD = 5.02, 95% CI, 3.83-6.20, P<0.00001, and WMD = -57.91, 95% CI, -77.62 to -38.20, P<0.00001; WMD = -56.63, 95% CI, -104.81 to -8.44, P = 0.02, respectively). The pooled RR comparing the proportions of patients with at least 15 letters improvement or deterioration were also in favor of RBZ and RBZ + Laser (RR = 2.94, 95% CI, 1.82-4.77, P<0.00001; RR = 2.04, 95% CI, 1.50-2.78, P<0.00001, and RR = 0.21, 95% CI, 0.06-0.71, P = 0.01; RR = 0.52, 95% CI, 0.29-0.95, P = 0.03, respectively). There were no significant differences between RBZ and RBZ + Laser for any of the parameters. There were no difference in the safety profile between RBZ and laser.ConclusionRBZ and RBZ + Laser had better visual and anatomic outcomes than laser monotherapy in the treatment of DME. RBZ + Laser seemed to be equivalent to RBZ.

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