Dataset Information

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.

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Baker CW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6537845 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceVitreous hemorrhage from proliferative diabetic retinopathy can cause loss of vision. The best management approach is unknown.ObjectiveTo compare initial treatment with intravitreous aflibercept vs vitrectomy with panretinal photocoagulation for vitreous hemorrhage from proliferative diabetic retinopathy.Design, setting, and participantsRandomized 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.InterventionsRandom 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 measuresThe 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.ResultsAmong 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 relevanceAmong 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02858076.

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:PurposeTo 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).DesignPost hoc analyses of randomized, multicenter clinical trial data.ParticipantsEyes 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.MethodsIntravitreous ranibizumab (0.5 mg/0.05 ml) or PRP.Main outcome measuresChange in visual acuity (area under the curve) and development of vision-impairing (20/32 or worse) central-involved DME over 2 years.ResultsAfter 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).ConclusionsFor 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.

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:ImportanceThe DRCR Retina Network Protocol AC showed no significant difference in visual acuity outcomes over 2 years between treatment with aflibercept monotherapy and bevacizumab first with switching to aflibercept for suboptimal response in treating diabetic macular edema (DME). Understanding the estimated cost and cost-effectiveness of these approaches is important.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost and cost-effectiveness of aflibercept monotherapy vs bevacizumab-first strategies for DME treatment.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation was a preplanned secondary analysis of a US randomized clinical trial of participants aged 18 years or older with center-involved DME and best-corrected visual acuity of 20/50 to 20/320 enrolled from December 15, 2017, through November 25, 2019.InterventionsAflibercept monotherapy or bevacizumab first, switching to aflibercept in eyes with protocol-defined suboptimal response.Main outcomes and measuresBetween February and July 2022, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) over 2 years was assessed. Efficacy and resource utilization data from the randomized clinical trial were used with health utility mapping from the literature and Medicare unit costs.ResultsThis study included 228 participants (median age, 62 [range, 34-91 years; 116 [51%] female and 112 [49%] male; 44 [19%] Black or African American, 60 [26%] Hispanic or Latino, and 117 [51%] White) with 1 study eye. The aflibercept monotherapy group included 116 participants, and the bevacizumab-first group included 112, of whom 62.5% were eventually switched to aflibercept. Over 2 years, the cost of aflibercept monotherapy was $26 504 (95% CI, $24 796-$28 212) vs $13 929 (95% CI, $11 984-$15 874) for the bevacizumab-first group, a difference of $12 575 (95% CI, $9987-$15 163). The aflibercept monotherapy group gained 0.015 (95% CI, -0.011 to 0.041) QALYs using the better-seeing eye and had an ICER of $837 077 per QALY gained compared with the bevacizumab-first group. Aflibercept could be cost-effective with an ICER of $100 000 per QALY if the price per dose were $305 or less or the price of bevacizumab was $1307 per dose or more.Conclusions and relevanceVariability in individual needs will influence clinician and patient decisions about how to treat specific eyes with DME. While the bevacizumab-first group costs still averaged approximately $14 000 over 2 years, this approach, as used in this study, may confer substantial cost savings on a societal level without sacrificing visual acuity gains over 2 years compared with aflibercept monotherapy.

Project description:ImportanceComparisons of the relative effect of 3 anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents to treat diabetic macular edema warrant further assessment.ObjectiveTo provide additional outcomes from a randomized trial evaluating 3 anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents for diabetic macular edema within subgroups based on baseline visual acuity (VA) and central subfield thickness (CST) as evaluated on optical coherence tomography.Design, setting, and participantsPost hoc exploratory analyses were conducted of randomized trial data on 660 adults with diabetic macular edema and decreased VA (Snellen equivalent, approximately 20/32 to 20/320). The original study was conducted between August 22, 2012, and August 28, 2013. Analysis was conducted from January 7 to June 2, 2015.InterventionsRepeated 0.05-mL intravitreous injections of 2.0 mg of aflibercept (224 eyes), 1.25 mg of bevacizumab (218 eyes), or 0.3 mg of ranibizumab (218 eyes) as needed per protocol.Main outcomes and measuresOne-year VA and CST outcomes within prespecified subgroups based on both baseline VA and CST thresholds, defined as worse (20/50 or worse) or better (20/32 to 20/40) VA and thicker (≥400 µm) or thinner (250 to 399 µm) CST.ResultsIn the subgroup with worse baseline VA (n = 305), irrespective of baseline CST, aflibercept showed greater improvement than bevacizumab or ranibizumab for several VA outcomes. In the subgroup with better VA and thinner CST at baseline (61-73 eyes across 3 treatment groups), VA outcomes showed little difference between groups; mean change was +7.2, +8.4, and +7.6 letters in the aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab groups, respectively. However, in the subgroup with better VA and thicker CST at baseline (31-43 eyes), there was a suggestion of worse VA outcomes in the bevacizumab group; mean change from baseline to 1 year was +9.5, +5.4, and +9.5 letters in the aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab groups, respectively, and VA letter score was greater than 84 (approximately 20/20) in 21 of 33 (64%), 7 of 31 (23%), and 21 of 43 (49%) eyes, respectively. The adjusted differences and 95% CIs were 39% (17% to 60%) for aflibercept vs bevacizumab, 25% (5% to 46%) for ranibizumab vs bevacizumab, and 13% (-8% to 35%) for aflibercept vs ranibizumab.Conclusions and relevanceThese post hoc secondary findings suggest that for eyes with better initial VA and thicker CST, some VA outcomes may be worse in the bevacizumab group than in the aflibercept and ranibizumab groups. Given the exploratory nature of these analyses and the small sample size within subgroups, caution is suggested when using the data to guide treatment considerations for patients.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01627249.