Dataset Information

3-year-data of combined navigated laser photocoagulation (Navilas) and intravitreal ranibizumab compared to ranibizumab monotherapy in DME patients.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:The prospective, comparative evaluation of combined navigated laser photocoagulation and intravitreal ranibizumab in the treatment of diabetic macular edema has shown advantage of a combination therapy compared to ranibizumab monotherapy at year 1 with significantly reduced injections. The purpose of this retrospective study was to determine the long-term visual gains and need of injections in a 3 year-follow-up period. METHODS:Retrospective analysis of patients of the original study in the long-term follow-up from month 12 to 36. BCVA measurements following the original 1 year study were taken using logMAR charts. Injections were provided with standard of care using PRN, based on change in BCVA and CRT using SD-OCT scans. Main outcome measures were change in BCVA and mean number of injections from 12 to 36 months. RESULTS:BCVA was stable in both groups from 12 through 36 months, showing a change of 0.16 ± 0.1 log MAR. Following the initial reduction in required injections at month 12, combination therapy patients continued to require 1.3 times fewer injections over the next 24 months (2.91 ± 2.3 vs 3.85±3.7 injections for monotherapy). CONCLUSIONS:Combination of navigated laser and ranibizumab achieved BCVA gains equivalent to anti-VEGF monotherapy. These results could be maintained through month 36. Required injections were 2.0 injections lower in year 1 and further 1.3 times fewer in year 2 and 3 in the combination group compared to monotherapy. Adding navigated laser photocoagulation to intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy may still represent a superior therapeutic approach to DME patients.

SUBMITTER: Herold TR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6107183 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

3-year-data of combined navigated laser photocoagulation (Navilas) and intravitreal ranibizumab compared to ranibizumab monotherapy in DME patients.

Herold Tina Rike TR Langer Julian J Vounotrypidis Efstathios E Kernt Marcus M Liegl Raffael R Priglinger Siegfried G SG

PloS one 20180823 8

<h4>Purpose</h4>The prospective, comparative evaluation of combined navigated laser photocoagulation and intravitreal ranibizumab in the treatment of diabetic macular edema has shown advantage of a combination therapy compared to ranibizumab monotherapy at year 1 with significantly reduced injections. The purpose of this retrospective study was to determine the long-term visual gains and need of injections in a 3 year-follow-up period.<h4>Methods</h4>Retrospective analysis of patients of the ori ...[more]

PMID: 30138384

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe EVEREST II trial showed that for patients with polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV), intravitreal ranibizumab in combination with verteporfin photodynamic therapy improves visual acuity relative to ranibizumab monotherapy. However, whether combination therapy is incrementally cost-effective relative to monotherapy during a lifetime is unclear.ObjectiveTo assess the incremental cost-effectiveness of combination therapy compared with ranibizumab monotherapy in patients with PCV.Design, setting, and participantsThis model-based, economic evaluation used 2018 unit cost data from a tertiary eye hospital in Singapore, first- and second-year outcomes and resource use data from a multicenter trial across various Asian countries (EVEREST II) to model a hypothetical cohort of patients with symptomatic PCV. Scenario analyses and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to examine uncertainty. Data were collected from October 2018 through April 2019 and analyzed from March through October 2019.InterventionsThis model used data from the EVEREST II trial, in which all participants were given 0.5 mg of intravitreal ranibizumab once every 4 weeks for the first 3 months. Subsequent administration occurred as needed. For participants receiving combination therapy, standard fluence (50 J/cm3) photodynamic therapy with 6-mg/m2 verteporfin was administered once during the first 3 months and thereafter as needed.Main outcomes and measuresIncremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for combination therapy relative to monotherapy for patients with PCV.ResultsIn this model based on a cohort of 1000 patients aged 68 years, a patient with PCV incurred a total cost in Singapore dollars (SGD) of 92 327 (US $67 399) with combination therapy and SGD 92 371 (US $67 431) with monotherapy during a lifetime horizon, generating a modest cost savings of SGD 44 (US $32) per patient undergoing combination therapy. Lifetime QALYs were estimated to be 7.87 for combination therapy and 7.85 for monotherapy, for an incremental gain of 0.02 QALYs. Combination therapy remained cost-saving or cost-effective in all lifetime scenarios modeled, but during shorter time horizons and at lower monotherapy costs, it may not be cost-effective.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found combination therapy to be a dominant (more effective and less costly) strategy, being similar in costs and slightly more effective than ranibizumab monotherapy during a lifetime horizon. However, decreasing the time horizon to less than 10 years and/or reductions in the cost of monotherapy may result in combination therapy no longer being cost-effective.

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: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:ImportanceAdding a laser-induced chorioretinal anastomosis (L-CRA) to current treatments for central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) may improve outcomes and lessen therapy burdens.ObjectiveTo determine the 2-year efficacy of intravitreal ranibizumab with an L-CRA vs ranibizumab alone for patients with macular edema caused by CRVO.Design, setting, and participantsIn this randomized clinical trial conducted at a single university clinic from March 2012 to June 2015, 58 participants with macular edema caused by CRVO were randomized 1:1 to either an L-CRA or sham procedure at baseline. All participants received monthly intravitreal injections of ranibizumab, 0.5 mg. Data were analyzed from April 2017 to September 2017.InterventionsRandom assignment to L-CRA plus monthly injections of intravitreal ranibizumab, 0.5 mg, (combination group; n = 29) or to a sham L-CRA procedure plus monthly injections of intravitreal ranibizumab, 0.5 mg, (ranibizumab alone group; n = 29) for 6 months. From month 7 to month 24, participants were evaluated monthly and received an injection of ranibizumab if a loss of 5 or more letters of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) on ETDRS chart from previous highest score occurred or if there was evidence of residual macular edema on optical coherence tomography.Main outcomes and measuresMean number of injections from month 7 to month 24, change in BCVA, and change in central subfield thickness (CST).ResultsOf the 58 included participants, 38 (66%) were men, and the mean (SD) age was 68.6 (11.8) years; participants had a mean (SD) BCVA of 57.09 (11.87) ETDRS letters (Snellen equivalent, 20/73) and a mean (SD) CST of 738.36 (175.54) μm. A successful L-CRA was created in 24 of 29 participants (83%) in the combination group. The mean number of injections from month 7 to month 24 was 3.2 (95% CI, 2.5-3.8) in the combination group and 7.1 (95% CI, 6.0-8.0) in the ranibizumab alone group. The ratio of the number of injections in the combination group compared with the ranibizumab alone group was 0.46 (95% CI, 0.36-0.61; P < .001). Mixed-effects regression modeling showed a difference in mean BCVA at 2 years between the combination and ranibizumab alone groups (combination, 70.3 letters [Snellen equivalent, 20/40]; ranibizumab alone, 61.6 letters [Snellen equivalent, 20/60]; difference, 8.8 letters; 95% CI, 0.2-17.3; P = .05). There was also a difference in CST at 2 years between the combination and ranibizumab alone groups (mean CST: combination, 303.6 μm; ranibizumab alone, 394.5 μm; difference, 90.9 μm; 95% CI, 24.3-157.5; P = .01). Four participants (14%) in the combination group required a vitrectomy for early macular traction or vitreous hemorrhage.Conclusions and relevanceFor macular edema caused by CRVO, an L-CRA significantly reduced the number of ranibizumab injections required.Trial registrationanzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12612000004864.

Project description:PurposeTo demonstrate superiority of intravitreal ranibizumab 0.5 mg compared to focal and peripheral laser treatment in patients with radiation retinopathy for choroidal melanoma.MethodsInclusion criteria were as follows: patients with radiation retinopathy and visual acuity impairment due to radiation maculopathy accessible for laser therapy, age ≥ 18 years, and BCVA less than 20/32. The main objective was to study the change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) over 6 months from ranibizumab 0.5 mg (experimental) compared to focal laser of the macula and panretinal laser treatment of the ischemic retina (control) in patients with radiation retinopathy in choroidal melanoma. The secondary objectives of the radiation retinopathy study were to compare functional and anatomical results between ranibizumab and laser group over 12 months and to measure the frequency of vitreous hemorrhage and rubeosis iridis.ResultsThe intention-to-treat analysis included 31 patients assigned to ranibizumab (n = 15) or laser treatment (n = 16). In terms of BCVA at month 6, ranibizumab was superior to laser treatment, with an advantage of 0.14 logMAR, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.25, p = 0.030. The positive effect of ranibizumab disappeared after treatment was discontinued. Similar results without statistically significant difference were found with respect to macular thickness. In both groups, no change was observed at month 6 in the size of ischemia in the macula or periphery compared to baseline. There was 1 case of vitreous hemorrhage in the laser group and no case of rubeosis iridis over time.ConclusionsThis study showed a statistically significant improvement in visual acuity and clear superiority of ranibizumab compared to laser treatment up to 26 weeks, but this effect disappeared at week 52 after completion of intravitreal treatment. Ranibizumab and PRP are considered equivalent in terms of the non-appearance of proliferative radiation retinopathy during the study.Trial registrationEudraCT Number: 2011-004463-69.

Dataset Information

3-year-data of combined navigated laser photocoagulation (Navilas) and intravitreal ranibizumab compared to ranibizumab monotherapy in DME patients.

Publications

3-year-data of combined navigated laser photocoagulation (Navilas) and intravitreal ranibizumab compared to ranibizumab monotherapy in DME patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets