Dataset Information

Effect of Initial Aflibercept, Laser, or Observation on Low-Contrast Visual Acuity in Eyes With Diabetic Macular Edema and Good Vision: Ancillary Study Within a Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To describe 2.5% low-contrast visual acuity (VA) among eyes with good vision despite center-involved diabetic macular edema and compare changes after initial management with aflibercept, laser, or observation.

Methods

This was an ancillary study within a multicenter randomized clinical trial (DRCR Retina Network Protocol V). Participants had diabetes and 1 study eye with center-involved diabetic macular edema and a VA of 20/25 or better randomly assigned to aflibercept (n = 112), focal/grid laser (n = 146), or observation (n = 129). Eyes in the laser and observation groups received aflibercept if VA met prespecified worsening criteria.

Results

Participants had median age of 60 years, 37% were female and 70% were non-Hispanic White. At baseline, the mean ± standard deviation (SD) high-contrast VA was 85.2 ± 3.6 letters (Snellen equivalent 20/20), mean ± SD 2.5% low-contrast VA was 47.6 ± 18.9 letters (Snellen equivalent 20/125), and low-contrast VA letter score was 2 SDs or more below the age-specific normative values in 23%. At 2 years, the mean change ± SD in low-contrast VA in the aflibercept, laser, and observation groups was 2.7 ± 20.1, -2.0 ± 19.6, and -3.1 ± 20.8 letters (adjusted difference, aflibercept vs. laser, 5.3 [95% confidence interval, -0.2 to 10.8], P = 0.06; aflibercept vs. observation, 5.5 [95% confidence interval -0.2 to 11.2], P = 0.06; and laser vs. observation, 0.2 [95% confidence interval -4.6 to 5.0], P = 0.94).

Conclusions

There was no significant difference between treatment groups in low-contrast VA change from baseline to 2 years. Considering the range of the 95% confidence intervals, however, the study may have been underpowered to detect a clinically meaningful benefit between treatment groups.

Translational relevance

Low-contrast VA, an important visual function, is decreased in eyes with diabetic macular edema.

SUBMITTER: Beaulieu WT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7937990 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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:ImportanceAmong 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.ObjectiveTo assess the DRCR Retina Network protocol-defined approach and outcomes of initial observation with aflibercept only if VA worsened.Design, setting, and participantsThis 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.InterventionsInitial 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 measuresWhether individuals received aflibercept.ResultsAmong 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 μm (Zeiss-Stratus equivalent) vs less than 300 μm (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 < .001), and among participants whose nonstudy eye received DME treatment within 4 months of randomization vs not (52% vs 25%; HR, 2.55 [95% CI, 1.64-3.99], P < .001).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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01909791.

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 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: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.