Dataset Information

Alone laser versus bevacizumab plus laser for diffuse diabetic macular edema (ALBA randomized trial).

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To report the 12-month results of laser (treatment G1) versus intravitreal bevacizumab combined with laser (treatment G2) in patients with diffuse diabetic macular edema (DME).

Methods

In this single-center randomized independent controlled trial, 32 patients were randomized to G1 (n?=?15) or G2 (n?=?17). In G1, laser was given at baseline and then pro re nata (PRN). In G2, three intravitreal bevacizumab (1.25?mg) injections were given once every 6?weeks, then laser and then PRN. Analysis was performed by treatment as administered. This study was registered in clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01572350 and EU Clinical Trial Registry as 2009-014654-15.

Results

G2 was superior to G1 improving best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) with respect baseline (+8.0 vs?+?3.0; p?15 and >73 in G2 (3 of 15 (20%) and 8 of 15 (53%), respectively) versus G1 (1 of 17 (6%) and 4 of 18 (23%), respectively). Health-related quality of life, assessed through National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire, at 12?months was statistically indistinguishable between both groups.

Conclusion

G2 provided superior visual acuity gains over G1 in patients with visual impairment due to center-involving diffuse DME, associated with significant gains in VFQ-25 scores.

SUBMITTER: Pareja-Rios A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7812399 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Alone laser versus bevacizumab plus laser for diffuse diabetic macular edema (ALBA randomized trial).

Pareja-Ríos Alicia A de Armas-Ramos Elena E Aldea-Perona Ana A Bonaque-González Sergio S

Therapeutic advances in ophthalmology 20210115

<h4>Purpose</h4>To report the 12-month results of laser (treatment G1) versus intravitreal bevacizumab combined with laser (treatment G2) in patients with diffuse diabetic macular edema (DME).<h4>Methods</h4>In this single-center randomized independent controlled trial, 32 patients were randomized to G1 (<i>n</i> = 15) or G2 (<i>n</i> = 17). In G1, laser was given at baseline and then pro re nata (PRN). In G2, three intravitreal bevacizumab (1.25 mg) injections were given once every 6 weeks, the ...[more]

PMID: 33506177

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveEvaluate intravitreal 0.5 mg ranibizumab or 4 mg triamcinolone combined with focal/grid laser compared with focal/grid laser alone for treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME).DesignMulticenter, randomized clinical trial.ParticipantsA total of 854 study eyes of 691 participants with visual acuity (approximate Snellen equivalent) of 20/32 to 20/320 and DME involving the fovea.MethodsEyes were randomized to sham injection + prompt laser (n=293), 0.5 mg ranibizumab + prompt laser (n=187), 0.5 mg ranibizumab + deferred (> or =24 weeks) laser (n=188), or 4 mg triamcinolone + prompt laser (n=186). Retreatment followed an algorithm facilitated by a web-based, real-time data-entry system.Main outcome measuresBest-corrected visual acuity and safety at 1 year.ResultsThe 1-year mean change (+/-standard deviation) in the visual acuity letter score from baseline was significantly greater in the ranibizumab + prompt laser group (+9+/-11, P<0.001) and ranibizumab + deferred laser group (+9+/-12, P<0.001) but not in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group (+4+/-13, P=0.31) compared with the sham + prompt laser group (+3+/-13). Reduction in mean central subfield thickness in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group was similar to both ranibizumab groups and greater than in the sham + prompt laser group. In the subset of pseudophakic eyes at baseline (n=273), visual acuity improvement in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group appeared comparable to that in the ranibizumab groups. No systemic events attributable to study treatment were apparent. Three eyes (0.8%) had injection-related endophthalmitis in the ranibizumab groups, whereas elevated intraocular pressure and cataract surgery were more frequent in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group. Two-year visual acuity outcomes were similar to 1-year outcomes.ConclusionsIntravitreal ranibizumab with prompt or deferred laser is more effective through at least 1 year compared with prompt laser alone for the treatment of DME involving the central macula. Ranibizumab as applied in this study, although uncommonly associated with endophthalmitis, should be considered for patients with DME and characteristics similar to those in this clinical trial. In pseudophakic eyes, intravitreal triamcinolone + prompt laser seems more effective than laser alone but frequently increases the risk of intraocular pressure elevation.

Project description:ObjectivePerform a cost-effectiveness analysis of the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) with ranibizumab plus prompt or deferred laser versus triamcinolone plus prompt laser. Data for the analysis were drawn from reports of the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network (DRCRnet) Protocol I.DesignComputer simulation based on Protocol I data. Analyses were conducted from the payor perspective.ParticipantsSimulated participants assigned characteristics reflecting those seen in Protocol I.MethodsMarkov models were constructed to replicate Protocol I's 104-week outcomes using a microsimulation approach to estimation. Baseline characteristics, visual acuity (VA), treatments, and complications were based on Protocol I data. Costs were identified by literature search. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed, and the results were validated against Protocol I data.Main outcome measuresDirect cost of care for 2 years, change in VA from baseline, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) measured as cost per additional letter gained from baseline (Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study).ResultsFor sham plus laser (S+L), ranibizumab plus prompt laser (R+pL), ranibizumab plus deferred laser (R+dL), and triamcinolone plus laser (T+L), effectiveness through 104 weeks was predicted to be 3.46, 7.07, 8.63, and 2.40 letters correct, respectively. The ICER values in terms of dollars per VA letter were $393 (S+L vs. T+L), $5943 (R+pL vs. S+L), and $20 (R+dL vs. R+pL). For pseudophakics, the ICER value for comparison triamcinolone with laser versus ranibizumab with deferred laser was $14 690 per letter gained. No clinically relevant changes in model variables altered outcomes. Internal validation demonstrated good similarity to Protocol I treatment patterns.ConclusionsIn treatment of phakic patients with DME, ranibizumab with deferred laser provided an additional 6 letters correct compared with triamcinolone with laser at an additional cost of $19 216 over 2 years. That would indicate that if the gain in VA seen at 2 years is maintained in subsequent years, then the treatment of phakic patients with DME using ranibizumab may meet accepted standards of cost-effectiveness. For pseudophakic patients, first-line treatment with triamcinolone seems to be the most cost-effective option.

Project description:BackgroundThe relative efficacy and safety of intravitreous aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab in the treatment of diabetic macular edema are unknown.MethodsAt 89 clinical sites, we randomly assigned 660 adults (mean age, 61±10 years) with diabetic macular edema involving the macular center to receive intravitreous aflibercept at a dose of 2.0 mg (224 participants), bevacizumab at a dose of 1.25 mg (218 participants), or ranibizumab at a dose of 0.3 mg (218 participants). The study drugs were administered as often as every 4 weeks, according to a protocol-specified algorithm. The primary outcome was the mean change in visual acuity at 1 year.ResultsFrom baseline to 1 year, the mean visual-acuity letter score (range, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better visual acuity; a score of 85 is approximately 20/20) improved by 13.3 with aflibercept, by 9.7 with bevacizumab, and by 11.2 with ranibizumab. Although the improvement was greater with aflibercept than with the other two drugs (P<0.001 for aflibercept vs. bevacizumab and P=0.03 for aflibercept vs. ranibizumab), it was not clinically meaningful, because the difference was driven by the eyes with worse visual acuity at baseline (P<0.001 for interaction). When the initial visual-acuity letter score was 78 to 69 (equivalent to approximately 20/32 to 20/40) (51% of participants), the mean improvement was 8.0 with aflibercept, 7.5 with bevacizumab, and 8.3 with ranibizumab (P>0.50 for each pairwise comparison). When the initial letter score was less than 69 (approximately 20/50 or worse), the mean improvement was 18.9 with aflibercept, 11.8 with bevacizumab, and 14.2 with ranibizumab (P<0.001 for aflibercept vs. bevacizumab, P=0.003 for aflibercept vs. ranibizumab, and P=0.21 for ranibizumab vs. bevacizumab). There were no significant differences among the study groups in the rates of serious adverse events (P=0.40), hospitalization (P=0.51), death (P=0.72), or major cardiovascular events (P=0.56).ConclusionsIntravitreous aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab improved vision in eyes with center-involved diabetic macular edema, but the relative effect depended on baseline visual acuity. When the initial visual-acuity loss was mild, there were no apparent differences, on average, among study groups. At worse levels of initial visual acuity, aflibercept was more effective at improving vision. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01627249.).

Project description:ObjectiveTo report expanded 2-year follow-up of a previously reported randomized trial evaluating intravitreal 0.5 mg ranibizumab or 4 mg triamcinolone combined with focal/grid laser compared with focal/grid laser alone for treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME).DesignMulticenter, randomized clinical trial.ParticipantsA total of 854 study eyes of 691 participants with visual acuity of 20/32 to 20/320 (approximate Snellen equivalent) and DME involving the fovea.MethodsContinuation of procedures previously reported for the randomized trial.Main outcome measuresBest-corrected visual acuity and safety at the 2-year visit.ResultsAt the 2-year visit, compared with the sham + prompt laser group, the mean change in the visual acuity letter score from baseline was 3.7 letters greater in the ranibizumab + prompt laser group (95% confidence interval adjusted for multiple comparisons [aCI], -0.4 to +7.7), 5.8 letters greater in the ranibizumab + deferred laser group (95% aCI, +1.9 to +9.8), and 1.5 letters worse in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group (95% aCI, -5.5 to +2.4). After the 1- to 2-year visit in the ranibizumab + prompt or deferred laser groups, the median numbers of injections were 2 and 3 (potential maximum of 13), respectively. At the 2-year visit, the percentages of eyes with central subfield thickness ?250 ?m were 59% in the sham + prompt laser group, 43% in the ranibizumab + prompt laser group, 42% in the ranibizumab + deferred laser group, and 52% in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group. No systemic events attributable to study treatment were apparent. Three eyes in 3 (0.8%) of 375 participants had injection-related endophthalmitis in the ranibizumab groups, whereas elevated intraocular pressure and cataract surgery were more frequent in the triamcinolone + prompt laser group.ConclusionsThe expanded 2-year results reported are similar to results published previously and reinforce the conclusions originally reported: Ranibizumab should be considered for patients with DME and characteristics similar to those of the cohort in this clinical trial, including vision impairment with DME involving the center of the macula.

Project description:The aim of this study was to evaluate the visual acuity and structural outcomes of combined phacovitrectomy with ILM peeling, retinal endophotocoagulation and use of bevacizumab in patients with diffuse diabetic macular edema (DDME).In this prospective, nonrandomized, interventional study we included 29 eyes of 26 patients with DDME. The best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness and volume (CRT and CRV) were recorded at 4, 8, 12, and 16 months after surgery.The mean preoperative BCVA was 0.74±0.36 logMAR (0.3-1.5) and improved finally to 0.4±0.24 logMAR (-0.1-1.0) p=0.000006. The mean preoperative CRT in the 1mm zone was 516±184 microm (256-950) and decreased postoperatively at the last control to 237±75 microm (117-489) p=0.000003. The mean preoperative CRV in the 1mm zone was 0.39±0.14 microL (0.19-0.74) and decreased postoperatively at the last control to 0.17±0.06 microL (0.09-0.36) p=0.000003. The mean preoperative CRT in the 6 mm zone was 407±105 microm (279-640) and decreased postoperatively at the last control to 282±40 µm (212-380) p=0.000004. The mean preoperative CRV in the 6 mm zone was 11.4±2.9 microL (7.85-17.93) and decreased postoperatively at the last control to 7.92±1.0 microL (5.62-10.97) p=0.000003. The 23 (79.3%) eyes showed improvement in BCVA ?0.2 logMAR, 5 (17.2%) eyes improvement or stabilization of BCVA and 1(3.5%) eye deterioration. Preoperative BCVA was a positive factor for prognosis of BCVA at 12th month follow-up (b=0.42; p=0.006), while the negative factors were: previous panretinal photocoagulation (b=-0.24; p=0.04), presence of vitreomacular traction (b=-0.29; p=0.02) and preoperative CRT in the 1000 microm zone (b=-0.24; p=0.07). A greater visual acuity improvement occurred in eyes with worse baseline visual acuity (b=-1.01; p=0.00001). The presentation of vitreomacular traction (b=-0.38; p=0.02), previous panretinal photocoagulation (b=-0.31, p=0.04) and greater preoperative CRT in the 1000 µm zone (b=-0.31; p=0.07) were negative factors for visual improvement.This combined treatment resulted in improvement or stabilization of BCVA and decrease of CRT and CRV. Larger comparative studies are necessary to establish the real impact of this therapeutic approach.

Dataset Information

Alone laser versus bevacizumab plus laser for diffuse diabetic macular edema (ALBA randomized trial).

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Alone laser versus bevacizumab plus laser for diffuse diabetic macular edema (ALBA randomized trial).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets