Dataset Information

Effect of Intravitreous Aflibercept vs Vitrectomy With Panretinal Photocoagulation on Visual Acuity in Patients With Vitreous Hemorrhage From Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Vitreous hemorrhage from proliferative diabetic retinopathy can cause loss of vision. The best management approach is unknown.

Objective

To compare initial treatment with intravitreous aflibercept vs vitrectomy with panretinal photocoagulation for vitreous hemorrhage from proliferative diabetic retinopathy.

Design, setting, and participants

Randomized 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.

Interventions

Random 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 measures

The 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.

Results

Among 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 relevance

Among 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 registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02858076.

SUBMITTER: Antoszyk AN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7739132 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo compare efficacy and safety of intravitreal aflibercept (IVA) injection with panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) versus early vitrectomy for diabetic vitreous hemorrhage (VH).MethodsProspective, randomized study that included 34 eyes with diabetic VH. They were divided into two groups, Group Ι (17 eyes) received three successive IVA injections followed by PRP and group ΙΙ (17 eyes) for whom early vitrectomy was done. Follow up was carried out after one, two, three, six and nine months. The primary outcome measure was change in the mean best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) after nine months, secondary outcome measures were mean duration of clearance of VH and rate of recurrent hemorrhage with any additional treatment in both groups. Complications were reported.ResultsThere was no statistically significant difference regarding initial demographic criteria between both groups. The mean final log MAR BCVA was statistically better than the initial BCVA in both groups (0.51 ± 0.20, 1.17 ± 0.48 for group I and 0.48 ± 0.18, 1.44 ± 0.44 for group II, P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between both groups regarding the mean final Log Mar BCVA (0.51 ± 0.20 for group I, 0.48 ± 0.18 for group II, p ≥ 0.05), the mean duration of clearance of VH was 7.8 ± 1.8 weeks, 5 days for group I and II respectively. PRP was completely done for all eyes in group I after three months. The difference in the recurrence rate between group I (29.4%) and group II (11.8%) was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Vitrectomy was done for three eyes (17.6%) due to recurrent non-resolving VH in group I. late recurrent VH occurred in two eyes (11.8%) in group II, IVA was given with complete clearance of the hemorrhage. No vision threatening complications were reported in both groups.ConclusionBoth intravitreal injection of aflibercept followed by PRP and early vitrectomy are effective and safe modalities for treatment of diabetic vitreous hemorrhage. Early vitrectomy leads to faster vision gain with less incidence of recurrence than intravitreal injection.Trial registrationRandomized clinical trial under the number of NCT04153253 on November 6, 2019 "Retrospectively registered".

Project description:IMPORTANCE:Panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) is the standard treatment for reducing severe visual loss from proliferative diabetic retinopathy. However, PRP can damage the retina, resulting in peripheral vision loss or worsening diabetic macular edema (DME). OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the noninferiority of intravitreous ranibizumab compared with PRP for visual acuity outcomes in patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:Randomized clinical trial conducted at 55 US sites among 305 adults with proliferative diabetic retinopathy enrolled between February and December 2012 (mean age, 52 years; 44% female; 52% white). Both eyes were enrolled for 89 participants (1 eye to each study group), with a total of 394 study eyes. The final 2-year visit was completed in January 2015. INTERVENTIONS:Individual eyes were randomly assigned to receive PRP treatment, completed in 1 to 3 visits (n?=?203 eyes), or ranibizumab, 0.5 mg, by intravitreous injection at baseline and as frequently as every 4 weeks based on a structured re-treatment protocol (n?=?191 eyes). Eyes in both treatment groups could receive ranibizumab for DME. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:The primary outcome was mean visual acuity change at 2 years (5-letter noninferiority margin; intention-to-treat analysis). Secondary outcomes included visual acuity area under the curve, peripheral visual field loss, vitrectomy, DME development, and retinal neovascularization. RESULTS:Mean visual acuity letter improvement at 2 years was +2.8 in the ranibizumab group vs +0.2 in the PRP group (difference, +2.2; 95% CI, -0.5 to +5.0; P?<?.001 for noninferiority). The mean treatment group difference in visual acuity area under the curve over 2 years was +4.2 (95% CI, +3.0 to +5.4; P?<?.001). Mean peripheral visual field sensitivity loss was worse (-23 dB vs -422 dB; difference, 372 dB; 95% CI, 213-531 dB; P?<?.001), vitrectomy was more frequent (15% vs 4%; difference, 9%; 95% CI, 4%-15%; P?<?.001), and DME development was more frequent (28% vs 9%; difference, 19%; 95% CI, 10%-28%; P?<?.001) in the PRP group vs the ranibizumab group, respectively. Eyes without active or regressed neovascularization at 2 years were not significantly different (35% in the ranibizumab group vs 30% in the PRP group; difference, 3%; 95% CI, -7% to 12%; P?=?.58). One eye in the ranibizumab group developed endophthalmitis. No significant differences between groups in rates of major cardiovascular events were identified. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:Among eyes with proliferative diabetic retinopathy, treatment with ranibizumab resulted in visual acuity that was noninferior to (not worse than) PRP treatment at 2 years. Although longer-term follow-up is needed, ranibizumab may be a reasonable treatment alternative, at least through 2 years, for patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01489189.

Project description:Importance:Ranibizumab is a viable treatment option for eyes with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) through 2 years. However, longer-term results are needed. Objective:To evaluate efficacy and safety of 0.5-mg intravitreous ranibizumab vs panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) over 5 years for PDR. Design, Setting, and Participants:Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network multicenter randomized clinical trial evaluated 394 study eyes with PDR enrolled February through December 2012. Analysis began in January 2018. Interventions:Eyes were randomly assigned to receive intravitreous ranibizumab (n?=?191) or PRP (n?=?203). Frequency of ranibizumab was based on a protocol-specified retreatment algorithm. Diabetic macular edema could be managed with ranibizumab in either group. Main Outcomes and Measures:Mean change in visual acuity (intention-to-treat analysis) was the main outcome. Secondary outcomes included peripheral visual field loss, development of vision-impairing diabetic macular edema, and ocular and systemic safety. Results:The 5-year visit was completed by 184 of 277 participants (66% excluding deaths). Of 305 enrolled participants, the mean (SD) age was 52 (12) years, 135 (44%) were women, and 160 (52%) were white. For the ranibizumab and PRP groups, the mean (SD) number of injections over 5 years was 19.2?(10.9) and 5.4?(7.9), respectively; the mean (SD) change in visual acuity letter score was 3.1?(14.3) and 3.0?(10.5) letters, respectively (adjusted difference,?0.6; 95% CI, -2.3 to 3.5; P?=?.68); the mean visual acuity was 20/25 (approximate?Snellen equivalent) in both groups at 5 years. The mean (SD) change in cumulative visual field total point score was -330?(645) vs -527?(635) dB in the ranibizumab (n?=?41) and PRP (n?=?38) groups, respectively (adjusted difference,?208 dB; 95% CI, 9-408). Vision-impairing diabetic macular edema developed in 27 and 53 eyes in the ranibizumab and PRP groups, respectively (cumulative probabilities: 22% vs 38%; hazard ratio,?0.4; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7). No statistically significant differences between groups in major systemic adverse event rates were identified. Conclusions and Relevance:Although loss to follow-up was relatively high, visual acuity in most study eyes that completed follow-up was very good at 5 years and was similar in both groups. Severe vision loss or serious PDR complications were uncommon with PRP or ranibizumab; however, the ranibizumab group had lower rates of developing vision-impairing diabetic macular edema and less visual field loss. Patient-specific factors, including anticipated visit compliance, cost, and frequency of visits, should be considered when choosing treatment for patients with PDR. These findings support either anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy or PRP as viable treatments for patients with PDR. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01489189.

Project description:ImportanceThe Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network Protocol S randomized clinical trial results suggest that ranibizumab is a reasonable treatment alternative to panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) when managing proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR), with or without concomitant baseline diabetic macular edema (DME). However, ranibizumab injections are costly. Thus, it would be useful to examine the relative cost-effectiveness of these 2 treatment modalities.ObjectiveTo evaluate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 0.5-mg ranibizumab therapy vs PRP for PDR.Design, setting, and participantsPreplanned secondary analysis using efficacy, safety, and resource utilization data through 2 years of follow-up at 55 US sites for 213 adults with PDR. Data were collected from February 2012 to January 2015.InterventionsIntravitreous 0.5-mg ranibizumab at baseline and as frequently as every 4 weeks based on a structured retreatment protocol or PRP at baseline for PDR. Eyes in both groups could receive ranibizumab for concomitant DME.Main outcomes and measuresIncremental cost-effectiveness ratios of ranibizumab compared with PRP evaluated within 2 prespecified subgroups for the study eye: with baseline vision-impairing (Snellen equivalent 20/32 or worse) DME and without baseline vision-impairing DME.ResultsThe study included 305 adults with PDR, the mean age was 52 years, 44% were women, and 52% were white. Of the 46 participants with PDR and vision-impairing DME at baseline, 21 were assigned to the ranibizumab group and 25 to the PRP group (plus ranibizumab for DME). Among the remaining participants without baseline vision-impairing DME, 80 and 87 were in the ranibizumab and PRP groups, respectively. For participants with and without baseline vision-impairing DME, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of ranibizumab therapy compared with PRP were $55 568/quality-adjusted life-year and $662 978/quality-adjusted life-year, respectively, over 2 years.Conclusions and relevanceOver 2 years, compared with PRP, 0.5-mg ranibizumab as given in this trial is within the $50 000/quality-adjusted life-year to $150 000/quality-adjusted life-year range frequently cited as cost-effective in the United States for eyes presenting with PDR and vision-impairing DME, but not for those with PDR without vision-impairing DME.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01489189.

Project description:ImportanceThe DRCR Retina Network Protocol S randomized clinical trial suggested that the mean visual acuity of eyes with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) treated with ranibizumab is not worse at 5 years than that of eyes treated with panretinal photocoagulation (PRP). Moreover, the ranibizumab group had fewer new cases of diabetic macular edema (DME) with vision loss or vitrectomy but had 4 times the number of injections and 3 times the number of visits. Although 2-year cost-effectiveness results of Protocol S were previously identified, incorporating 5-year data from Protocol S could alter the longer-term cost-effectiveness of the treatment strategies from the perspective of the health care system.ObjectiveTo evaluate 5- and 10-year cost-effectiveness of therapy with ranibizumab, 0.5 mg, compared with PRP for treating PDR.Design, setting, and participantsA preplanned secondary analysis of the Protocol S randomized clinical trial using efficacy, safety, and resource utilization data through 5 years of follow-up for 213 adults diagnosed with PDR and simulating results through 10 years.InterventionsIntravitreous ranibizumab, 0.5 mg, at baseline and as frequently as every 4 weeks based on a structured retreatment protocol vs PRP at baseline for PDR; eyes in both groups could receive ranibizumab for concomitant DME with vision loss.Main outcomes and measuresIncremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of ranibizumab therapy compared with PRP were evaluated for those with and without center-involved DME (CI-DME) and vision loss (Snellen equivalent, 20/32 or worse) at baseline.ResultsThe study included 213 adults with a mean (SD) age of 53 (12) years, of whom 92 (43%) were women and 155 (73%) were white. The ICER of the ranibizumab group compared with PRP for patients without CI-DME at baseline was $582 268 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) at 5 years and $742 202/QALY at 10 years. For patients with baseline CI-DME, ICERs were $65 576/QALY at 5 years and $63 930/QALY at 10 years.Conclusions and relevanceThis study suggests that during 5 to 10 years of treatment, ranibizumab, 0.5 mg, as given in the studied trial compared with PRP may be within the frequently cited range considered cost-effective in the United States for eyes presenting with PDR and vision-impairing CI-DME, but not for those with PDR but without vision-impairing CI-DME. Substantial reductions in anti-vascular endothelial growth factor cost may make the ranibizumab therapy cost-effective within this range even for patients without baseline CI-DME.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01489189.

Project description:ImportanceEyes with proliferative diabetic retinopathy have a variable response to treatment with panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) or anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents. The location of neovascularization (NV) is associated with outcomes (eg, patients with disc NV [NVD] have poorer visual prognosis than those with NV elsewhere [NVE]).ObjectiveTo investigate the distribution of NV in patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy and the topographical response of NV to treatment with aflibercept or PRP.Design, setting, and participantsThis post hoc analysis of the phase 2b randomized clinical single-masked multicenter noninferiority Clinical Efficacy and Mechanistic Evaluation of Aflibercept for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy (CLARITY) trial was conducted from November 1, 2019, to September 1, 2020, among 120 treatment-naive patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy to evaluate the topography of NVD and NVE in 4 quadrants of the retina on color fundus photography at baseline and at 12 and 52 weeks after treatment.ExposuresIn the CLARITY trial, patients were randomized to receive intravitreal aflibercept (2 mg/0.05 mL at baseline, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks, and as needed from 12 weeks onward) or PRP (completed in initial fractionated sessions and then on an as-needed basis when reviewed every 8 weeks).Main outcomes and measuresMain outcomes were per-retinal quadrant frequencies of NV at baseline and frequencies of patterns of regression, recurrence, and new occurrence at 12-week and 52-week unmasked follow-up.ResultsThe study included 120 treatment-naive patients (75 men; mean [SD] age, 54.8 [14.6] years) with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (there was a 1:1 ratio of eyes to patients). At baseline, NVD with or without NVE was observed in 42 eyes (35.0%), and NVE only was found in 78 eyes (65.0%); NVE had a predilection for the nasal quadrant (64 [53.3%]). Rates of regression with treatment were higher among eyes with NVE (89 of 102 [87.3%]) compared with eyes with NVD (23 of 43 [53.5%]) by 52 weeks, with NVD being more resistant to either treatment with higher rates of persistence than NVE (20 of 39 [51.3%] vs 29 of 100 [29.0%]). Considering NVE, the regression rate in the temporal quadrant was lowest (32 of 42 [76.2%]). Eyes treated with aflibercept showed higher rates of regression of NVE compared with those treated with PRP (50 of 52 [96.2%] vs 39 of 50 [78.0%]; difference, 18.2% [95% CI, 5.5%-30.8%]; P = .01), but no difference was found for NVD (11 of 17 [64.7%] vs 12 of 26 [46.2%]; difference, 18.6% [95% CI, -11.2% to 48.3%]; P = .23).Conclusions and relevanceThis post hoc analysis found that NVD is less frequent but is associated with more resistance to currently available treatments than NVE. Aflibercept was superior to PRP for treating NVE, but neither treatment was particularly effective against NVD by 52 weeks. Future treatments are needed to better target NVD, which has poorer visual prognosis.Trial registrationisrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN32207582.

Project description:IntroductionDiabetic retinopathy (DR) is microangiopathy causing ischemia leading to proliferative diabetic retinopathy and macular edema. Panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) reverses the ischemia leading to regression of neovessels. Most previous studies showed the large vessel effects of PRP, while optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) allowed noninvasive quantification of microvascular retinal changes.AimTo study the effect of PRP on microvascular retinal vessels in a detailed manner at different retinal and choroidal levels using OCTA.Patients and methodsThis study was a prospective interventional study. 30 eyes of 18 diabetic patients with PDR were included. All patients were evaluated clinically and with OCTA (Avanti RTVue-XR system, Optovue) to evaluate superficial and deep vessels density (VDs), choroidal flow, and FAZ area before PRP (base line) and 1 month and 6 months after PRP.ResultsPRP improved vessels density at superficial (SCP), deep (DCP), and choriocapillaris levels. Foveal vessel density at SCP and DCP were statistically significantly increased. SCP was 28.76 ± 2.56 at base line and was increased to 29.84 ± 2.47 and 30.89 ± 2.20 after 1 month and after 6 months, respectively. DCP was 34.08 ± 5.59 at base line and was increased to 34.93 ± 5.66 and 36.09 ± 5.62 after 1 month and after 6 months, respectively. Foveal choriocapillaris was statistically significantly increased from 63.04 ± 2.66 at base line to 63.48 ± 2.65 and 63.98 ± 2.78 after 1 month and 6 months, respectively. Choroidal flow was increased from 1.74 ± 0.07 at base line to 1.75 ± 0.09 at 1 month which was nonsignificant (P = 0.72), but it was significantly increased to 1.87 ± 0.27 6 months after PRP (P = 0.009). FAZ area was significantly improved after PRP. FAZ area was decreased from 0.56 ± 0.27 at base line to 0.50 ± 0.21 after 1 month and to 0.46 ± 0.21 after 6 months.ConclusionOCTA parameters were significantly improved by PRP in PDR patients, possibly due to redistribution of blood in occluded capillary plexuses.Trials registryNCT04976361.

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.