Dataset Information

Assessment of the DRCR Retina Network Approach to Management With Initial Observation for Eyes With Center-Involved Diabetic Macular Edema and Good Visual Acuity: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Among eyes with center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME) and good visual acuity (VA), randomized clinical trial results showed no difference in VA loss between initial observation plus aflibercept only if VA decreased, initial focal/grid laser plus aflibercept only if VA decreased, or prompt aflibercept. Understanding the initial observation approach is relevant to patient management.

Objective

To assess the DRCR Retina Network protocol-defined approach and outcomes of initial observation with aflibercept only if VA worsened.

Design, setting, and participants

This was a post hoc secondary analyses of a randomized clinical trial of the DRCR Retina Network Protocol V that included 91 US and Canadian sites from November 2013 to September 2018. Participants were adults (n?=?236) with type 1 or 2 diabetes, 1 study eye with CI-DME, and VA letter score at least 79 (Snellen equivalent, 20/25 or better) assigned to initial observation. Data were analyzed from March 2019 to November 2019.

Interventions

Initial observation and follow-up with aflibercept only for VA loss of at least 10 letters from baseline at 1 visit or 5 to 9 letters at 2 consecutive visits. Follow-up occurred at 8 weeks and then every 16 weeks unless VA or optical coherence tomography central subfield thickness worsened.

Main outcomes and measures

Whether individuals received aflibercept.

Results

Among 236 eyes in 236 individuals (149 [63%] male; median age, 60 years [interquartile range, 53-67 years]) randomly assigned to initial observation, 80 (34%) were treated with aflibercept during 2 years of follow-up. At 2 years, the median VA letter score was 86.0 (interquartile range, 89.0-81.0; median Snellen equivalent, 20/20 [20/16-20/25]). Receipt of aflibercept was more likely in eyes with baseline central subfield thickness at least 300 ?m (Zeiss-Stratus equivalent) vs less than 300 ?m (45% vs 26%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.98 [95% CI, 1.26-3.13], continuous P?=?.005), moderately severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study retinopathy severity level 47) and above vs moderate nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (retinopathy severity level 43) and below (51% vs 27%; HR, 2.22 [95% CI, 1.42-3.47], ordinal P?Conclusions and relevanceMost eyes managed with initial observation plus aflibercept only if VA worsened maintained good vision at 2 years and did not require aflibercept for VA loss. However, the eyes in the trial were approximately twice as likely to receive aflibercept for VA loss if they had greater baseline central subfield thickness, worse diabetic retinopathy severity level, or a nonstudy eye receiving treatment for DME.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01909791.

SUBMITTER: Glassman AR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7042938 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessment of the DRCR Retina Network Approach to Management With Initial Observation for Eyes With Center-Involved Diabetic Macular Edema and Good Visual Acuity: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Glassman Adam R AR Baker Carl W CW Beaulieu Wesley T WT Bressler Neil M NM Punjabi Omar S OS Stockdale Cynthia R CR Wykoff Charles C CC Jampol Lee M LM Sun Jennifer K JK

JAMA ophthalmology 20200401 4

<h4>Importance</h4>Among eyes with center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME) and good visual acuity (VA), randomized clinical trial results showed no difference in VA loss between initial observation plus aflibercept only if VA decreased, initial focal/grid laser plus aflibercept only if VA decreased, or prompt aflibercept. Understanding the initial observation approach is relevant to patient management.<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the DRCR Retina Network protocol-defined approach and outco ...[more]

PMID: 32077907

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceIntravitreous 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.ObjectiveTo compare vision loss at 2 years among eyes initially managed with aflibercept, laser photocoagulation, or observation.Design, setting, and participantsRandomized 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.InterventionsEyes 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 measuresThe 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.ResultsAmong 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 relevanceAmong 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01909791.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare visual acuity (VA) scores after autorefraction vs manual refraction in eyes of patients with diabetes mellitus and a wide range of VAs.MethodsThe letter score from the Electronic Visual Acuity (EVA) test from the electronic Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study was measured after autorefraction (AR-EVA score) and after manual refraction (MR-EVA score), which is the research protocol of the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network. Testing order was randomized, study participants and VA examiners were masked to refraction source, and a second EVA test using an identical supplemental manual refraction (MR-EVAsuppl score) was performed to determine test-retest variability.ResultsIn 878 eyes of 456 study participants, the median MR-EVA score was 74 (Snellen equivalent, approximately 20/32). The spherical equivalent was often similar for manual refraction and autorefraction (median difference, 0.00; 5th-95th percentile range, -1.75 to 1.13 diopters). However, on average, the MR-EVA scores were slightly better than the AR-EVA scores, across the entire VA range. Furthermore, the variability between the AR-EVA scores and the MR-EVA scores was substantially greater than the test-retest variability of the MR-EVA scores (P < .001). The variability of differences was highly dependent on the autorefractor model.ConclusionsAcross a wide range of VAs at multiple sites using a variety of autorefractors, VA measurements tend to be worse with autorefraction than manual refraction. Differences between individual autorefractor models were identified. However, even among autorefractor models that compare most favorably with manual refraction, VA variability between autorefraction and manual refraction is higher than the test-retest variability of manual refraction. The results suggest that, with current instruments, autorefraction is not an acceptable substitute for manual refraction for most clinical trials with primary outcomes dependent on best-corrected VA.

Project description:PurposeTo evaluate vitrectomy for diabetic macular edema (DME) in eyes with at least moderate vision loss and vitreomacular traction.DesignProspective cohort study.ParticipantsThe primary cohort included 87 eyes with DME and vitreomacular traction based on investigator's evaluation, visual acuity 20/63-20/400, optical coherence tomography (OCT) central subfield >300 microns and no concomitant cataract extraction at the time of vitrectomy.MethodsSurgery was performed according to the investigator's usual routine. Follow-up visits were performed after 3 months, 6 months (primary end point), and 1 year.Main outcome measuresVisual acuity, OCT retinal thickening, and operative complications.ResultsAt baseline, median visual acuity in the 87 eyes was 20/100 and median OCT thickness was 491 microns. During vitrectomy, additional procedures included epiretinal membrane peeling in 61%, internal limiting membrane peeling in 54%, panretinal photocoagulation in 40%, and injection of corticosteroids at the close of the procedure in 64%. At 6 months, median OCT central subfield thickness decreased by 160 microns, with 43% having central subfield thickness <250 microns and 68% having at least a 50% reduction in thickening. Visual acuity improved by > or =10 letters in 38% (95% confidence interval, 28%-49%) and deteriorated by > or =10 letters in 22% (95% confidence interval, 13%-31%). Postoperative complications through 6 months included vitreous hemorrhage (5 eyes), elevated intraocular pressure requiring treatment (7 eyes), retinal detachment (3 eyes), and endophthalmitis (1 eye). Few changes in results were noted between 6 months and 1 year.ConclusionsAfter vitrectomy performed for DME and vitreomacular traction, retinal thickening was reduced in most eyes. Between 28% and 49% of eyes with characteristics similar to those included in this study are likely to have improvement of visual acuity, whereas between 13% and 31% are likely to have worsening. The operative complication rate is low and similar to what has been reported for this procedure. These data provide estimates of surgical outcomes and serve as a reference for future studies that might consider vitrectomy for DME in eyes with at least moderate vision loss and vitreomacular traction.

Project description:PurposeTo assess how patient choices (out-of-pocket costs, insurance plan, geographic region) impact initiation of therapy for diabetic macular edema (DME).DesignRetrospective cohort study using administrative medical claims data from a large, national insurer.ParticipantsAll patients newly diagnosed with DME from 2013 through 2016 were observed for 90 days after diagnosis or until first treatment was received.MethodsMultivariate logistic regression was used to create odds ratios comparing different baseline demographic and patient-related factors.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the odds of receiving the different possible initial treatments for DME (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF], focal laser treatment, steroids, or observation), no treatment, and not following up.ResultsOf the 6220 newly diagnosed DME patients, 3010 (48.4%) underwent a follow-up examination within 90 days of diagnosis, and of those, 1453 patients (48.3%) received treatment in the observation window, including 614 (20.4%) with bevacizumab, 191 (6.3%) with ranibizumab or aflibercept, 560 (18.6%) with focal laser, 38 (1.3%) with steroid injection, and 50 (1.7%) with an injection of an unspecified drug. Having a copay (vs. $0) lowered the odds of receiving any treatment (odds ratio [OR] = 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51-0.71; P < 0.001) and of receiving each treatment individually (anti-VEGF treatment: OR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59-0.88; bevacizumab: OR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.91; ranibizumab or aflibercept: OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49-0.99; focal laser: OR = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.35-0.55; P < 0.001). Contrary to having a copay, having a high deductible and type of insurance plan were not associated with initiating treatment (P > 0.41 for all comparisons). Patients in the Northeast showed lower odds of initiating anti-VEGF treatment (OR = 0.60; 95%CI, 0.44-0.82; P < 0.001) and specifically bevacizumab (OR = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.33-0.67; P < 0.001). Furthermore, Northeast patients who were treated with anti-VEGF showed a higher odds of receiving ranibizumab or aflibercept compared with bevacizumab (OR = 2.39; 95% CI, 1.31-4.37; P < 0.001). Southern Midwest patients showed a higher odds of treatment (anti-VEGF: OR = 1.35; 95%CI, 1.02-1.77; P < 0.001; bevacizumab: OR = 1.40; 95% CI, 1.04-1.87; focal laser: OR = 1.39; 95% CI, 1.01-1.89; P < 0.001).ConclusionsPatient choices such as copays and where they live are important factors in determining the initial choice of treatment for DME.

Dataset Information

Assessment of the DRCR Retina Network Approach to Management With Initial Observation for Eyes With Center-Involved Diabetic Macular Edema and Good Visual Acuity: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Interventions

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Trial registration

Publications

Assessment of the DRCR Retina Network Approach to Management With Initial Observation for Eyes With Center-Involved Diabetic Macular Edema and Good Visual Acuity: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets