Dataset Information

Evaluation of masking study participants to intravitreal injections in a randomized clinical trial.

ABSTRACT: To evaluate the success of masking study participants to treatment allocation using sham intravitreal injections.Eyes were randomized to receive sham injections plus prompt laser, intravitreal ranibizumab injections plus prompt laser, intravitreal ranibizumab injections plus deferred laser, or intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injections plus prompt laser up to every 16 weeks with sham injections intermittently. All eyes could receive treatment or sham as often as every 4 weeks. Participants with 2 study eyes had 1 eye randomized to sham plus prompt laser and 1 eye randomized to a real injection group. Sham injections were performed by pressing the syringe hub against the conjunctiva to mimic a real injection. Laser treatment was not masked. At the 1-year visit, participants were asked if they believed that the injections received during the study were real, sham, or sometimes real and sometimes sham.Among 423 participants with 1 study eye, the correct assignment was stated by 9.9% of the sham plus prompt laser group, 88.0% of the ranibizumab plus prompt laser group, 89.6% of the unmasked ranibizumab plus deferred laser group, and 44.0% of the triamcinolone plus prompt laser group. Among 112 participants with 2 study eyes, the correct assignment was stated for 24.1% of the sham plus prompt laser eyes.Successful masking of an intravitreal injection can be accomplished when a sham injection procedure carefully mimics a real injection procedure. Masking seems less successful when one eye is receiving a real injection and the other eye is receiving a sham injection or when an individual eye receives both real and sham injections.

SUBMITTER: Glassman AR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3531882 | biostudies-other | 2012 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of masking study participants to intravitreal injections in a randomized clinical trial.

Glassman Adam R AR Stockdale Cynthia R CR Beck Roy W RW Baker Carl C Bressler Neil M NM

Archives of ophthalmology (Chicago, Ill. : 1960) 20120201 2

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the success of masking study participants to treatment allocation using sham intravitreal injections.<h4>Methods</h4>Eyes were randomized to receive sham injections plus prompt laser, intravitreal ranibizumab injections plus prompt laser, intravitreal ranibizumab injections plus deferred laser, or intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injections plus prompt laser up to every 16 weeks with sham injections intermittently. All eyes could receive treatment or sham as oft ...[more]

PMID: 22332211

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo test the safety and preliminary efficacy of rapid, nonpharmacologic anesthesia via cooling for intravitreal injections.DesignSingle-center, randomized phase 1 dose-ranging safety study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02872012).ParticipantsAdults 18 years of age or older with a diagnosis of exudative macular degeneration or diabetic macular edema requiring bilateral anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy were included.MethodsA handheld device was developed to provide anesthesia via cooling to a focal area on the surface of the eye before intravitreal treatment (IVT). In 22 patients undergoing bilateral IVT, 1 eye was randomized to receive standard of care (SOC) lidocaine-based anesthesia and the other eye received cooling-anesthesia at 1 of 5 different temperatures and cooling times. Subjective pain was assessed via the visual analog scale (VAS; range, 1-10) at 2 time points: (1) immediately after IVT and (2) 4 hours after IVT. Treated eyes were assessed for ocular safety 24 hours after IVT.Main outcome measuresWe determined the occurrence of adverse events in eyes treated with cooling anesthesia. Mean VAS pain scores immediately after IVT and 4 hours after IVT in eyes receiving cooling anesthesia were compared with eyes receiving SOC.ResultsA total of 44 eyes were treated, 22 with cooling anesthesia and 22 with SOC. No dose-related toxicity was found with cooling anesthesia. Mild, transient adverse events were recorded in 32% of patients treated with cooling anesthesia versus 44% of patients receiving SOC. The mean±standard error of the mean (SEM) VAS pain scores immediately after intravitreal injection were 2.3 ± 0.4 for patients receiving SOC and 2.2 ± 0.6 in patients receiving -10° C cooling anesthesia (P = 0.8). Mean±SEM pain scores 4 hours after injection were 1.6 ± 0.4 for SOC and 1.2 ± 0.5 in the combined -10° C arms (P = 0.56). Total mean±SEM procedure time was 124 ± 5 seconds for patients treated with cooling anesthesia versus 395 ± 40 seconds for SOC (P < 0.0001).ConclusionsUltra-rapid cooling of the eye for anesthesia was well tolerated, with -10° C treatment resulting in comparable levels of anesthesia to SOC with a reduction in procedure time.

Project description:ImportanceProactive treatment of nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) reduces the risk of progression to vision-threatening complications.ObjectiveTo evaluate vascular endothelial growth factor blockade therapy with intravitreal aflibercept injections in eyes with severe NPDR without diabetic macular edema (DME).Design, setting, and participantsThe Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Intravitreal Aflibercept for the Improvement of Moderately Severe to Severe Nonproliferative Diabetic Retinopathy (PANORAMA) was a double-masked 100-week randomized clinical trial conducted in multiple centers worldwide. The study included 402 adults with Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale (DRSS) level 47 or 53 with no DME and best-corrected visual acuity of 20/40 or better.InterventionsIntravitreal injections of aflibercept, 2 mg, every 16 weeks after 3 initial monthly doses and one 8-week interval (aflibercept 2q16 group); intravitreal injections of aflibercept, 2 mg, every 8 weeks after 5 initial monthly doses, with pro re nata (PRN) dosing beginning at week 56 (aflibercept 2q8/PRN group); or sham injections (control group).Main outcomes and measuresProportions of eyes with a 2-step or greater improvement in DRSS level, vision-threatening complications, and center-involved DME from baseline to weeks 24, 52, and 100.ResultsAmong 402 participants (1 eye per participant), the mean (SD) age was 55.7 (10.5) years; 225 (56.0%) were male, and 310 (77.1%) were White. A total of 135 were randomized to the aflibercept 2q16 group, 134 to the aflibercept 2q8/PRN group, and 133 to the control group. At 24 weeks, treatment with aflibercept resulted in a 2-step or greater improvement in DRSS level in 157 of 269 eyes (58.4%) in the combined aflibercept groups vs 8 of 133 eyes (6.0%) in the control group (adjusted difference, 52.3%; 95% CI, 45.2%-59.5%; P < .001). At 52 weeks, 88 of 135 eyes (65.2%) in the aflibercept 2q16 group (adjusted difference, 50.1%; 95% CI, 40.1%-60.1%) and 107 of 134 eyes (79.9%) in the aflibercept 2q8/PRN group (adjusted difference, 64.8%; 95% CI, 55.8%-73.9%) compared with 20 of 133 eyes (15.0%) in the control group (P < .001 for both comparisons) showed a 2-step or greater improvement in DRSS level. Fewer eyes treated with aflibercept vs sham injections developed vision-threatening complications and/or center-involved DME through week 100 (22 of 135 eyes [16.3%] in the 2q16 group [adjusted difference, -34.2%; 95% CI, -44.6 to -23.8] and 25 of 134 eyes [18.7%] in the 2q8/PRN group [adjusted difference, -31.7%; 95% CI, -42.5 to -20.9] compared with 67 of 133 eyes [50.4%] in the control group; P < .001 for both comparisons). No new safety signals were identified.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, significantly more eyes with moderately severe to severe NPDR that were treated with aflibercept showed a 2-step or greater improvement in DRSS level at 24, 52, and 100 weeks, and significantly fewer eyes treated with aflibercept vs sham developed vision-threatening complications and center-involved DME. Outcomes on the DRSS between year 1 and 2 emphasize the need for ongoing vascular endothelial growth factor suppression and adherence.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02718326.

Project description:ImportanceThe port delivery system (PDS) with ranibizumab has demonstrated noninferior and equivalent efficacy compared with monthly intravitreal injections of ranibizumab, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agent, in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), but evaluating patient preference is important to help inform clinical decision-making.ObjectiveEvaluate treatment satisfaction for ranibizumab delivered via PDS vs intravitreal injections as well as patient preference among those assigned to PDS.Design, setting, and participantsArchway was a phase 3 randomized active-comparator open-label clinical trial conducted at 78 sites in the US. Patients 50 years and older with nAMD diagnosed within 9 months of screening with a documented response to anti-VEGF therapy were included. Of 619 patients screened, 418 were enrolled; 415 were included in the primary analysis and 234 were included in the secondary exploratory analysis. The Archway study ran from September 12, 2019, through primary readout on May 22, 2020.InterventionsPatients were randomized 3:2 to PDS with ranibizumab, 100 mg/mL, with fixed refill exchanges every 24 weeks or intravitreal ranibizumab injections, 0.5 mg, every 4 weeks.Main outcomes and measuresTreatment satisfaction was measured using the Macular Disease Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire in the PDS and intravitreal injection arms at week 40. Patient preference was assessed using the content-validated PDS Patient Preference Questionnaire (PPPQ), which measured the proportion of patients in the PDS arm with monthly monitoring who preferred treatment with the PDS at week 40 over previous intravitreal injections or concurrent fellow-eye injections. Both outcomes were exploratory end points.ResultsThe mean (SD) age of participants at baseline was 75.0 (7.9) years; 234 participants (59%) were women and 162 (41%) were men. At week 40, differences in overall treatment satisfaction scores were minimal for the PDS and intravitreal injection arms (mean, 68.0; 95% CI, 67.4-68.6; n = 237 and mean, 66.1; 95% CI, 64.9-67.3; n = 159, respectively; difference, 1.9; 95% CI, 0.7-3.1). A total of 234 of 248 patients (94.4%) in the PDS arm were included in the PPPQ analysis. At week 40, almost all patients in the PDS arm preferred treatment via PDS (218 of 234 [93.2%]) vs previous intravitreal injections (3 of 234 [1.3%]), including 172 of 234 (73.5%) with a very strong preference for the PDS. In patients who received concurrent fellow-eye injections (n = 78), 72 (92.3%) preferred the PDS.Conclusions and relevanceAlthough PDS treatment was preferred by almost all patients assigned to PDS over previous intravitreal injections, both delivery methods have high treatment satisfaction. These findings provide further evidence for the PDS as a meaningful alternative treatment option for patients with nAMD.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03677934.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of masking study participants to intravitreal injections in a randomized clinical trial.

Publications

Evaluation of masking study participants to intravitreal injections in a randomized clinical trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets