Dataset Information

SCORE2 Report 5: Vision-Related Function in Patients With Macular Edema Secondary to Central Retinal or Hemiretinal Vein Occlusion.

ABSTRACT: To describe baseline vision-related function, measured with the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25), in patients with macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) or hemiretinal vein occlusion (HRVO) in the Study of COmparative Treatments for REtinal Vein Occlusion 2 (SCORE2); evaluate the baseline relationship between NEI VFQ-25 scores with visual acuity letter score (VALS) and central retinal thickness; and compare baseline NEI VFQ-25 scores in SCORE2 participants with those in normal-vision reference populations and patients in other retinal vein occlusion trials.Multicenter, noninferiority randomized controlled trial.SCORE2 was designed to assess whether intravitreal bevacizumab is noninferior to intravitreal aflibercept for treatment of decreased vision attributable to macular edema owing to CRVO or HRVO. SCORE2 enrolled 362 participants, including 305 with CRVO and 57 with HRVO. Analyses were of cross-sectional baseline data. The main outcome measures were baseline NEI VFQ-25 composite and subscale scores.SCORE2 participants' baseline NEI VFQ-25 composite and subscale scores are significantly lower compared with 3 normal-vision reference populations (P < .01; except for ocular pain score) and similar to patients in other retinal vein occlusion clinical trials. Baseline VALS in the better eye was correlated with baseline NEI VFQ-25 composite and subscale scores of general vision, near activities, role difficulties, dependency, and color vision, with correlations ranging from 0.19 to 0.26 (P < .05 for each score).CRVO and HRVO patients in SCORE2 had significantly worse baseline patient-reported vision-related function than normal vision populations, despite the disease being primarily unilateral with typically excellent vision in the fellow eye.

SUBMITTER: Scott IU

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5798626 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

SCORE2 Report 5: Vision-Related Function in Patients With Macular Edema Secondary to Central Retinal or Hemiretinal Vein Occlusion.

Scott Ingrid U IU Figueroa Maria J MJ Oden Neal L NL Ip Michael S MS Blodi Barbara A BA VanVeldhuisen Paul C PC

American journal of ophthalmology 20171023

<h4>Purpose</h4>To describe baseline vision-related function, measured with the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25), in patients with macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) or hemiretinal vein occlusion (HRVO) in the Study of COmparative Treatments for REtinal Vein Occlusion 2 (SCORE2); evaluate the baseline relationship between NEI VFQ-25 scores with visual acuity letter score (VALS) and central retinal thickness; and compare baseline NEI ...[more]

PMID: 29074161

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceMacular edema (ME) is the leading cause of decreased visual acuity (VA) associated with retinal vein occlusion (RVO). Identifying factors associated with better outcomes in RVO eyes treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy may provide information useful in counseling patients.ObjectiveTo investigate baseline characteristics associated with 6-month VA and central subfield thickness (CST) outcomes in participants in the Study of Comparative Treatments for Retinal Vein Occlusion 2 (SCORE2).Design, setting, and participantsA total of 362 patients with central RVO or hemi-RVO were enrolled between September 17, 2014, and November 18, 2015, and randomized 1:1 in a masked fashion to receive bevacizumab or aflibercept. At month 6, 348 participants (96%) had VA outcomes measured and 335 participants (93%) had spectral domain optical coherence tomography outcomes measured. The current data analysis was conducted from February 27, 2017, to April 7, 2017.InterventionsEyes were randomly assigned to receive an intravitreal injection of bevacizumab, 1.25 mg, or aflibercept, 2.0 mg, at baseline and every 4 weeks, with the primary outcome measured at 6 months.Main outcomes and measuresChange from baseline in VA letter score (VALS), VALS gain of 15 or more, change from baseline in CST, CST less than 300 µm, and resolution of ME. Baseline factors associated with 6-month outcome at the 0.05 level in univariate regressions were included in multivariate regressions, with those significant after multiplicity control by the Hochberg method reported.ResultsThe mean (SD) age of patients was 69 (12) years, and 43% were women. Younger patient age (odds ratio [OR], 0.95 per year of age; 95% CI, 0.93-0.98; P = .007) and lower baseline VALS (OR, 0.96 per letter; 95% CI, 0.94-0.98; P < .001) were associated with a 6-month VALS gain of 15 or greater. Compared with bevacizumab, aflibercept treatment was associated with a higher odds of ME resolution (OR, 3.59; 95% CI, 2.22-5.80; P < .001) and CST less than 300 µm (OR, 5.30; 95% CI, 2.40-11.67; P = .001), but not with a better VA outcome. Macular edema was less likely to resolve in eyes that received anti-VEGF treatment prior to study participation (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.17-0.64; P = .03).Conclusions and relevanceIn eyes treated with bevacizumab or aflibercept, younger age and worse baseline VALS were associated with better 6-month VA outcomes. Aflibercept treatment was associated with more favorable spectral domain optical coherence tomography outcomes but not VA outcomes. These findings may be useful in assessing expected response at month 6 after monthly injection of anti-VEGF agents for treating ME due to CRVO and HRVO.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01969708.

Project description:ImportanceTwo-year outcomes are reported comparing eyes originally assigned to aflibercept or bevacizumab to assess the need for continued anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy for macular edema due to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) or hemiretinal vein occlusion (HRVO) from participants in the Study of Comparative Treatments for Retinal Vein Occlusion 2 (SCORE2) trial.ObjectiveTo investigate outcomes 1 year after cessation of the SCORE2 treatment schedule.Design, setting, and participantsIn this secondary analysis of the SCORE2 randomized clinical trial, follow-up included 117 participants originally randomized to aflibercept and 119 participants originally randomized to bevacizumab between September 17, 2014, and November 18, 2015. Data for the analyses were frozen on September 13, 2018.InterventionsSCORE2 participants completed the treatment protocol at month 12, were subsequently treated at investigator discretion, and underwent assessment at month 24.Main outcomes and measuresVisual acuity letter score (VALS) and central subfield thickness (CST) on spectral-domain optical coherence tomography.ResultsAmong 362 participants randomized to aflibercept or bevacizumab, 65.2% (236 of 362) completed a protocol visit at month 24 (mean [SD] age, 68.5 (12.0) years; 53.8% male). The mean (SD) VALS improved from baseline to 12 months by 21.6 (14.5) in the aflibercept group compared with 21.9 (16.6) in the bevacizumab group (difference, -0.3; 99% CI, -5.6 to 4.9), then worsened from those values by a mean (SD) VALS of 7.6 (17.5) in the aflibercept group and 7.5 (14.5) in the bevacizumab group (difference, -0.1; 99% CI, -5.6 to 5.3) at month 24. The mean (SD) CST improved from baseline to 12 months by 394 (231) μm in the aflibercept group compared with 420 (274) μm in the bevacizumab group (difference, 26 μm; 99% CI, -62 to 114 μm), then worsened from those values by a mean (SD) of 58 (192) μm in the aflibercept group compared with 48 (186) μm in the bevacizumab group (difference, 10 μm; 99% CI, -58 to 78 μm) at month 24.Conclusions and relevanceNo differences in VALS or CST outcomes at month 24 were identified when participants originally assigned to aflibercept were compared with those assigned to bevacizumab. Caution in interpretation is needed because of loss to follow-up. In both groups, VALS and CST improved through month 12 and then worsened somewhat during the second year, when treatment was at investigator discretion. This analysis suggests that CRVO and HRVO warrant close monitoring and treatment as needed over at least 2 years to optimize outcomes in eyes treated with anti-VEGF therapy.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01969708.

Project description:BackgroundCentral retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) is a common retinal vascular disorder in which macular edema (ME) may develop, with a consequent reduction in visual acuity. The visual prognosis in CRVO-ME is poor in a substantial proportion of patients, especially those with the ischemic subtype, and until recently there has been no treatment of proven benefit. Macular grid laser treatment is ineffective, and whilst a few recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest short-term gains in visual acuity with intravitreal steroids for patients with non-ischemic CRVO-ME, there is no established treatment for ischemic CRVO-ME. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents have been used to treat ME resulting from a variety of causes and may represent a treatment option for CRVO-ME.ObjectivesTo investigate the effectiveness and safety of intravitreal anti-VEGF agents in the treatment of CRVO-ME.Search strategyWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 8), MEDLINE (January 1950 to August 2010), EMBASE (January 1980 to August 2010), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to August 2010), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (January 1937 to August 2010), OpenSIGLE (January 1950 to August 2010), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) and ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov). There were no language or date restrictions in the search for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 10 August 2010.Selection criteriaWe considered RCTs that compared intravitreal anti-VEGF agents of any dose or duration to sham injection or no treatment. We focused on studies that included individuals of any age or gender with unilateral or bilateral disease and a minimum of six months follow up. Secondarily, we considered non-randomized studies with the same criteria, but did not conduct a separate electronic search for these.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.Main resultsWe found two RCTs that met the inclusion criteria after independent and duplicate review of the search results. These RCTs utilized different anti-VEGF agents which cannot be assumed to be directly comparable. We, therefore, performed no meta-analysis. Evidence from these trials and from other non-randomized case series is summarized in this review.Authors' conclusionsRanibizumab and pegaptanib sodium have shown promise in the short-term treatment of non-ischemic CRVO-ME. However, effectiveness and safety data from larger RCTs with follow up beyond six months are not yet available. There are no RCT data on anti-VEGF agents in ischemic CRVO-ME. The use of anti-VEGF agents to treat this condition therefore remains experimental.

Project description:BackgroundThe comparative safety and efficacy of different doses of intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA) for diabetic macular edema (DME) and macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is unclear.ObjectivesThis meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of different doses of IVTA in this setting.MethodsA systematic literature search for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) was conducted on Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, and EMBASE from January 2005 to May 2022. Studies that reported on patients with DME or ME secondary to RVO that received treatment with different doses of IVTA were included. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Cochrane's Risk of Bias Tool 2 was used to assess the risk of bias, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines were used to assess certainty of evidence.ResultsFive RCTs reporting on 1,041 eyes at baseline were included in this meta-analysis. In eyes with ME secondary to RVO, high-dose (4 mg) IVTA achieved a significantly better change in best-corrected visual acuity (WMD = -4.75 ETDRS letters, 95% CI = [-7.73, -1.78], p = 0.002) and reduction in retinal thickness (WMD = -93.02 μm, 95% CI = [-153.23, -32.82], p = 0.002) at months 4-6 compared to low-dose (1-2 mg) IVTA. However, high-dose IVTA had a higher risk of intraocular pressure-related adverse events (RR = 2.99, 95% CI = [1.05, 8.50], p = 0.04) and cataract surgery (RR = 5.67, 95% CI = [3.09, 10.41], p < 0.00001) than low-dose IVTA in eyes with ME secondary to RVO. These efficacy and safety differences in high-dose and low-dose IVTA were not observed in DME eyes.ConclusionsThe RCT evidence in this setting is limited. High-dose IVTA achieved greater improvements in visual acuity and reductions in retinal thickness than low-dose IVTA at months 4-6. However, high-dose IVTA had a less favorable safety profile than low-dose IVTA. The significance of these outcomes was based on patients with ME secondary to RVO, but not DME.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents and corticosteroids for the treatment of macular oedema (ME) secondary to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO).DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.ParticipantsPatients from previously reported randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anti-VEGF and corticosteroids for the treatment of ME secondary to CRVO.MethodsLiterature searches were conducted using PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and clinicaltrials.gov until March 2017. Therapeutic effects were estimated using the proportions of patients gaining/losing ≥15 letters, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT). Treatment safety was estimated using the proportions of adverse events, namely increased intraocular pressure (IOP), cataracts, vitreous haemorrhage (VH) and retinal tear. The software ADDIS (V.1.16.8) was used for analysis. Treatment effect and safety of different drugs could be ranked based on simulation.ResultsEleven RCTs comprising 2060 patients were identified. Regarding patients gaining ≥15 letters, aflibercept and ranibizumab were significantly more effective than sham/placebo at 6 months. Regarding patients losing ≥15 letters at 6 months, ranibizumab showed significant improvement compared with dexamethasone. Aflibercept, bevacizumab or ranibizumab showed greater improvements in BCVA than sham/placebo at 6 months. Intravitreal ranibizumab injection demonstrated greater CRT reduction than both sham and dexamethasone did. Dexamethasone had a higher risk of increased IOP than aflibercept and ranibizumab. Ranibizumab demonstrated a greater risk of cataracts than dexamethasone. Aflibercept and ranibizumab demonstrated low incidence of VH and retinal tear, respectively. Aflibercept had a slight advantage over ranibizumab as assessed by benefit-risk analysis.ConclusionsAnti-VEGF agents have advantages in the treatment of ME secondary to CRVO. Aflibercept and ranibizumab showed marked BCVA improvement and CRT reduction. Aflibercept may have a slight advantage over ranibizumab. The results of this study can serve as a reference for clinicians to provide patient-tailored treatment.Prospero registration numberCRD42017064076.

Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the cost-utility of treatment for macular edema in central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) using intravitreal injections of the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept.DesignDecision analysis model of cost-utility.ParticipantsData from study participants in the Lucentis, Eylea, Avastin in Vein Occlusion (LEAVO) study.MethodsA decision analysis of a disease simulation model was used to calculate comparative cost-utility of intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB), intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR), and intravitreal aflibercept (IVA) for the treatment of macular edema associated with CRVO based on data from the LEAVO study. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services data were used to calculate associated modeled costs in a hospital- or facility-based and nonfacility setting from a third-party payer perspective, and societal costs also were calculated. Cost utility was calculated based on the preserved visual utility during the 2 years of the study and also by estimating utility for the expected lifetime.Main outcome measuresCost of treatment, cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).ResultsFrom the third-party payer perspective, the estimated lifetime costs per QALY in the facility and nonfacility settings were $39 325 and $17 944, respectively, for IVB; $114 095 and $92 653, respectively, for IVR; and $78 935 and $63 270, respectively, for IVA. From the societal perspective, the estimated lifetime costs per QALY in the facility setting were $52 754 for IVB, $128 242 for IVR, and $86 262 for IVA. The ICER of IVA compared with that of IVB was $153 633/QALY from the third-party facility setting and $152 992/QALY from the societal perspective. The use of IVB compared with IVR and IVA compared with IVR were cost-saving interventions (ICER, <0) regardless of the perspective or setting.ConclusionsIn the treatment of macular edema in CRVO, IVB yields the best cost utility among the 3 anti-VEGF agents modeled. Intravitreal aflibercept maintains acceptable lifetime cost per QALY while having a favorable cost utility compared with IVR.

Project description:ImportanceStudies have established the efficacy and safety of aflibercept for the treatment of macular edema due to central retinal vein occlusion. Bevacizumab is used off-label to treat this condition despite the absence of supporting data.ObjectiveTo investigate whether bevacizumab is noninferior to aflibercept for the treatment of macular edema secondary to central retinal or hemiretinal vein occlusion.Design, setting, and participantsThe SCORE2 randomized noninferiority clinical trial was conducted at 66 private practice or academic centers in the United States, and included 362 patients with macular edema due to central retinal or hemiretinal vein occlusion who were randomized 1:1 to receive aflibercept or bevacizumab. The first participant was randomized on September 17, 2014, and the last month 6 visit occurred on May 6, 2016. Analyses included data available as of December 30, 2016.InterventionsEyes were randomized to receive intravitreal injection of bevacizumab (1.25 mg; n = 182) or aflibercept (2.0 mg; n = 180) every 4 weeks through month 6.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was mean change in visual acuity (VA) letter score (VALS) from the randomization visit to the 6-month follow-up visit, based on the best-corrected electronic Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study VALS (scores range from 0-100; higher scores indicate better VA). The noninferiority margin was 5 letters, and statistical testing for noninferiority was based on a 1-sided 97.5% confidence interval.ResultsAmong 362 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 69 [12] years; 157 [43.4%] women; mean [SD] VALS at baseline, 50.3 [15.2] [approximate Snellen VA 20/100]), 348 (96.1%) completed the month 6 follow-up visit. At month 6, the mean VALS was 69.3 (a mean increase from baseline of 18.6) in the bevacizumab group and 69.3 (a mean increase from baseline of 18.9) in the aflibercept group (model-based estimate of between-group difference, -0.14; 97.5% CI, -3.07 to ∞; P = .001 for noninferiority), meeting criteria for noninferiority. Ocular adverse events in the aflibercept group included 4 participants with intraocular pressure (IOP) more than 10 mm Hg greater than baseline; ocular adverse events in the bevacizumab group included 1 participant with endophthalmitis (culture negative), 9 with IOP more than 10 mm Hg greater than baseline, 2 with IOP higher than 35 mm Hg, and 1 with angle-closure glaucoma not attributed to the study drug or procedure.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with macular edema due to central retinal or hemiretinal vein occlusion, intravitreal bevacizumab was noninferior to aflibercept with respect to visual acuity after 6 months of treatment.

Project description:BackgroundCentral retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) associates with severe vision outcome and no proven beneficial treatment. Our meta-analysis intended to appraise the efficacy and safety of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents in macular edema (ME) following CRVO.MethodsData were collected and analyzed by Review Manager 5.2.1. We employed a random-effects model to eliminate between-study heterogeneity. Nfs (called fail-safe number) was calculated to evaluate the publication bias.ResultsWe included 5 trials consisting 323 cases and 281 controls. Primary outcomes showed that overall comparison of anti-VEGF agents with placebo control yielded a 374% and 136% increased tendency for a gain of 15 letters or more on Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 2.43-9.23; P<0.00001; I(2) = 59%, 95% CI: 1.60-3.49; P<0.0001; I(2) ?= 0%, respectively) at 6 and 12 months. Secondary outcomes showed that a 90% and 77% decreased risk at 6 and 12 months for a loss of 15 letters or more. The overall mean difference showed a statistically significance in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) on each time point. However, changes of central retinal thickness (CRT) lost significance at 12 months after 6-month as-needed treatment. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) had no statistical difference between anti-VEGF and placebo groups. Subgroup analyses indicated that patients receiving Aflibercept got the highest tendency to gain 15 letters or more (OR = 9.78; 95% CI: 4.43-21.56; P<0.00001). Age controlled analysis suggested a weaken tendency of BCVA improvement in age over 50 (MD = 12.26; 95% CI: 7.55-16.98; P<0.00001). Subgroup analysis by clinical classification showed a strengthen difference of BCVA changes at 6 months in ischemic type (MD = 19.65 letters, 95% CI: 13.15 to 26.14 letters, P<0.00001).ConclusionsOur results showed that anti-VEGF agents were superior to placebo in CRVO-ME treatment with no statistically significant AEs, especially in younger people and for ischemic type.

Dataset Information

SCORE2 Report 5: Vision-Related Function in Patients With Macular Edema Secondary to Central Retinal or Hemiretinal Vein Occlusion.

Publications

SCORE2 Report 5: Vision-Related Function in Patients With Macular Edema Secondary to Central Retinal or Hemiretinal Vein Occlusion.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets