Dataset Information

Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Comparative Effectiveness Trial for Diabetic Macular Edema: Additional Efficacy Post Hoc Analyses of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT: Post hoc analyses from the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network randomized clinical trial comparing aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema (DME) might influence interpretation of study results.To provide additional outcomes comparing 3 anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents for DME.Post hoc analyses performed from May 3, 2016, to June 21, 2016, of a randomized clinical trial performed from August 22, 2012, to September 23, 2015, of 660 participants comparing 3 anti-VEGF treatments in eyes with center-involved DME causing vision impairment.Randomization to intravitreous aflibercept (2.0 mg), bevacizumab (1.25 mg), or ranibizumab (0.3 mg) administered up to monthly based on a structured retreatment regimen. Focal/grid laser treatment was added after 6 months for the treatment of persistent DME.Change in visual acuity (VA) area under the curve and change in central subfield thickness (CST) within subgroups based on whether an eye received laser treatment for DME during the study.Post hoc analyses were performed for 660 participants (mean [SD] age, 61 [10] years; 47% female, 65% white, 16% black or African American, 16% Hispanic, and 3% other). For eyes with an initial VA of 20/50 or worse, VA improvement was greater with aflibercept than the other agents at 1 year but superior only to bevacizumab at 2 years. Mean (SD) letter change in VA over 2 years (area under curve) was greater with aflibercept (+17.1 [9.7]) than with bevacizumab (+12.1 [9.4]; 95% CI, +1.6 to +7.3; P < .001) or ranibizumab (+13.6 [8.5]; 95% CI, +0.7 to +6.0; P = .009). When VA was 20/50 or worse at baseline, bevacizumab reduced CST less than the other agents at 1 year, but at 2 years the differences had diminished. In subgroups stratified by baseline VA, anti-VEGF agent, and whether focal/grid laser treatment was performed for DME, the only participants to have a substantial reduction in mean CST between 1 and 2 years were those with a baseline VA of 20/50 or worse receiving bevacizumab and laser treatment (mean [SD], -55 [108] µm; 95% CI, -82 to -28 µm; P < .001).Although post hoc analyses should be viewed with caution given the potential for bias, in eyes with a VA of 20/50 or worse, aflibercept has the greatest improvement in VA over 2 years. Focal/grid laser treatment, ceiling and floor effects, or both may account for mean thickness reductions noted only in bevacizumab-treated eyes between 1 and 2 years.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT01627249.

SUBMITTER: Jampol LM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5567802 | biostudies-other | 2016 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceLarge amounts of optical coherence tomographic (OCT) data of diabetic macular edema (DME) are acquired, but many morphologic features have yet to be identified and quantified.ObjectiveTo examine the volumetric change of intraretinal fluid (IRF) and subretinal fluid (SRF) in DME during anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment using deep learning algorithms.Design, setting, and participantsThis post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial, the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network (protocol T), assessed 6945 spectral-domain OCT volume scans of 570 eyes from 570 study participants with DME. The original trial was performed from August 21, 2012, to October 18, 2018. This analysis was performed from December 7, 2017, to January 15, 2020.InterventionsParticipants were treated according to a predefined, standardized protocol with aflibercept, ranibizumab, or bevacizumab with or without deferred laser.Main outcomes and measuresThe association of treatment with IRF and SRF volumes and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) during 12 months using deep learning algorithms.ResultsAmong the 570 study participants (302 [53%] male; 369 [65%] white; mean [SD] age, 43.4 [12.6] years), the mean fluid volumes in the central 3 mm were 448.6 nL (95% CI, 412.3-485.0 nL) of IRF and 36.9 nL (95% CI, 27.0-46.7 nL) of SRF at baseline and 161.2 nL (95% CI, 135.1-187.4 nL) of IRF and 4.4 nL (95% CI, 1.7-7.1 nL) of SRF at 12 months. The presence of SRF at baseline was associated with a worse baseline BCVA Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) score of 63.2 (95% CI, 60.2-66.1) (approximate Snellen equivalent of 20/63 [95% CI, 20/50-20/63]) in eyes with SRF vs 66.9 (95% CI, 65.7-68.1) (approximate Snellen equivalent, 20/50 [95% CI, 20/40-20/50]) without SRF (P < .001) and a greater gain in ETDRS score (0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.8) every 4 weeks during follow-up in eyes with SRF at baseline vs 0.4 (95% CI, 0.3-0.5) in eyes without SRF at baseline (P = .02) when adjusted for baseline BCVA. Aflibercept was associated with greater reduction of IRF volume compared with bevacizumab after the first injection (difference, 79.8 nL; 95% CI, 5.3-162.5 nL; P < .001) and every 4 weeks thereafter (difference, 10.4 nL; 95% CI, 0.7-20.0 nL; P = .004). Ranibizumab was associated with a greater reduction of IRF after the first injection compared with bevacizumab (difference, 75.2 nL; 95% CI, 1.4-154.7 nL; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceAutomated segmentation of fluid in DME revealed that the presence of SRF was associated with lower baseline BCVA but with good response to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy. These automated spectral-domain OCT analyses may be used clinically to assess anatomical change during therapy.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01627249.

Project description:To provide 2-year results comparing anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents for center-involved diabetic macular edema (DME) using a standardized follow-up and retreatment regimen.Randomized clinical trial.Six hundred sixty participants with visual acuity (VA) impairment from DME.Randomization to 2.0-mg aflibercept, 1.25-mg repackaged (compounded) bevacizumab, or 0.3-mg ranibizumab intravitreous injections performed up to monthly using a protocol-specific follow-up and retreatment regimen. Focal/grid laser photocoagulation was added after 6 months if DME persisted. Visits occurred every 4 weeks during year 1 and were extended up to every 4 months thereafter when VA and macular thickness were stable.Change in VA, adverse events, and retreatment frequency.Median numbers of injections were 5, 6, and 6 in year 2 and 15, 16, and 15 over 2 years in the aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab groups, respectively (global P = 0.08). Focal/grid laser photocoagulation was administered in 41%, 64%, and 52%, respectively (aflibercept vs. bevacizumab, P < 0.001; aflibercept vs. ranibizumab, P = 0.04; bevacizumab vs. ranibizumab, P = 0.01). At 2 years, mean VA improved by 12.8, 10.0, and 12.3 letters, respectively. Treatment group differences varied by baseline VA (P = 0.02 for interaction). With worse baseline VA (20/50 to 20/320), mean improvement was 18.1, 13.3, and 16.1 letters, respectively (aflibercept vs. bevacizumab, P = 0.02; aflibercept vs. ranibizumab, P = 0.18; ranibizumab vs. bevacizumab, P = 0.18). With better baseline VA (20/32 to 20/40), mean improvement was 7.8, 6.8, and 8.6 letters, respectively (P > 0.10, for pairwise comparisons). Anti-Platelet Trialists' Collaboration (APTC) events occurred in 5% with aflibercept, 8% with bevacizumab, and 12% with ranibizumab (global P = 0.047; aflibercept vs. bevacizumab, P = 0.34; aflibercept vs. ranibizumab, P = 0.047; ranibizumab vs. bevacizumab, P = 0.20; global P = 0.09 adjusted for potential confounders).All 3 anti-VEGF groups showed VA improvement from baseline to 2 years with a decreased number of injections in year 2. Visual acuity outcomes were similar for eyes with better baseline VA. Among eyes with worse baseline VA, aflibercept had superior 2-year VA outcomes compared with bevacizumab, but superiority of aflibercept over ranibizumab, noted at 1 year, was no longer identified. Higher APTC event rates with ranibizumab over 2 years warrants continued evaluation in future trials.

Project description:ObjectiveTo provide data on the short-term effect of intravitreal bevacizumab for diabetic macular edema (DME).DesignRandomized phase II clinical trial.ParticipantsOne hundred twenty-one eyes of 121 subjects (109 eligible for analysis) with DME and Snellen acuity equivalent ranging from 20/32 to 20/320.InterventionsRandom assignment to 1 of 5 groups: (A) focal photocoagulation at baseline (n = 19), (B) intravitreal injection of 1.25 mg of bevacizumab at baseline and 6 weeks (n = 22), (C) intravitreal injection of 2.5 mg of bevacizumab at baseline and 6 weeks (n = 24), (D) intravitreal injection of 1.25 mg of bevacizumab at baseline and sham injection at 6 weeks (n = 22), or (E) intravitreal injection of 1.25 mg of bevacizumab at baseline and 6 weeks with photocoagulation at 3 weeks (n = 22).Main outcome measuresCentral subfield thickness (CST) on optical coherence tomography and best-corrected visual acuity (VA) were measured at baseline and after 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 weeks.ResultsAt baseline, median CST was 411 mum and median Snellen VA equivalent was 20/50. Compared with group A, groups B and C had a greater reduction in CST at 3 weeks and about 1 line better median VA over 12 weeks. There were no meaningful differences between groups B and C in CST reduction or VA improvement. A CST reduction > 11% (reliability limit) was present at 3 weeks in 36 of 84 (43%) bevacizumab-treated eyes and 5 of 18 (28%) eyes treated with laser alone, and at 6 weeks in 31 of 84 (37%) and 9 of 18 (50%) eyes, respectively. Combining focal photocoagulation with bevacizumab resulted in no apparent short-term benefit or adverse outcomes. Endophthalmitis developed in 1 eye. The following events occurred during the first 24 weeks in subjects treated with bevacizumab without attributing cause to the drug: myocardial infarction (n = 2), congestive heart failure (n = 1), elevated blood pressure (n = 3), and worsened renal function (n = 3).ConclusionThese results demonstrate that intravitreal bevacizumab can reduce DME in some eyes, but the study was not designed to determine whether treatment is beneficial. A phase III trial would be needed for that purpose.

Project description:ObjectiveAnti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies have revolutionized the treatment of clinically significant diabetic macular edema (CSDME); yet these agents are expensive, and whether they are cost-effective is unclear. The purpose of this study is to determine the most cost-effective treatment option for patients with newly diagnosed CSDME: focal laser photocoagulation alone (L), focal laser plus intravitreal ranibizumab (L+R), focal laser plus intravitreal bevacizumab (L+B), or focal laser plus intravitreal triamcinolone (L+T) injections.DesignCost-effectiveness analysis.ParticipantsHypothetical cohort of 57-year-old patients with newly diagnosed CSDME.MethodsBy using a Markov model with a 25-year time horizon, we compared the incremental cost-effectiveness of treating patients with newly diagnosed CSDME using L, L+R, L+B, or L+T. Data came from the DRCRnet randomized controlled trial, the Medicare fee schedule, and the medical literature.Main outcome measuresCosts, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental costs per QALY gained.ResultsCompared with L, the incremental cost-effectiveness of L+R and L+B was $89903/QALY and $11138/QALY, respectively. L+T was dominated by L. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that, at a willingness to pay (WTP) of $50000/QALY, L was approximately 70% likely to be the preferred therapy over L+R and L+T. However, at a WTP of $100000/QALY, more than 90% of the time, L+R therapy was the preferred therapy compared with L and L+T. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, L+B was found to be the preferred therapy over L and L+T for any WTP value >$10000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the annual risk of cerebrovascular accident would have to be at least 1.5% higher with L+B than with L+R for L+R to be the preferred treatment. In another sensitivity analysis, if patients require <8 injections per year over the remainder of the 25-year time horizon, L+B would cost <$100000/QALY, whereas L+R would be cost-effective at a WTP of $100000/QALY if patients require fewer than 0.45 injections per year after year 2.ConclusionsWith bevacizumab and ranibizumab assumed to have equivalent effectiveness and similar safety profiles when used in the management of CSDME, bevacizumab therapy confers the greatest value among the different treatment options for CSDME.Financial disclosure(s)The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

Project description:ImportanceAnti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) medicines have revolutionized diabetic macular edema (DME) treatment. A recent randomized clinical trial comparing anti-VEGF agents for patients with decreased vision from DME found that at 1 year aflibercept (2.0 mg) achieved better visual outcomes than repackaged (compounded) bevacizumab (1.25 mg) or ranibizumab (0.3 mg); the worse the starting vision, the greater the treatment benefit with aflibercept. However, aflibercept and ranibizumab, respectively, are approximately 31 and 20 times more expensive than bevacizumab.ObjectiveTo examine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab for the treatment of DME.Design, setting, and participantsPost hoc analysis of efficacy, safety, and resource utilization data at 1-year follow-up from the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network Comparative Effectiveness Trial. Patients were enrolled from August 22, 2012, through August 28, 2013, and analysis was performed from August 21, 2014, through November 7, 2015.Main outcomes and measuresThe ICERs for all trial participants and subgroups with baseline vision of approximate Snellen equivalent 20/32 to 20/40 (better vision) and baseline vision of approximate Snellen equivalent 20/50 or worse (worse vision). One-year trial data were used to calculate cost-effectiveness for 1 year for the 3 anti-VEGF agents; mathematical modeling was then used to project 10-year cost-effectiveness results.ResultsThe study included 624 participants (mean [SD] age, 60.6 [10.5] years; 45.7% female; 65.5% white), 209 in the aflibercept group, 207 in the bevacizumab group, and 208 in the ranibizumab group. For all participants, during 1 year, the ICERs of aflibercept and ranibizumab compared with bevacizumab were $1 110 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and $1 730 000 per QALY, respectively. During 10 years, they were $349 000 per QALY and $603 000 per QALY, respectively. Compared with ranibizumab, aflibercept's ICER was $648 000 per QALY at 1 year and $203 000 per QALY at 10 years. For the subgroup with worse baseline vision, the 10-year ICERs of aflibercept and ranibizumab compared with bevacizumab were $287 000 per QALY and $817 000 per QALY, respectively. In eyes with decreased vision from DME, treatment costs of aflibercept and ranibizumab would need to decrease by 69% and 80%, respectively, to reach a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000 per QALY compared with bevacizumab during a 10-year horizon; for the subgroup with worse baseline vision, the costs would need to decrease by 62% and 84%, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceAflibercept (2.0 mg) and ranibizumab (0.3 mg) are not cost-effective relative to bevacizumab for treatment of DME unless their prices decrease substantially. These results highlight the challenges that physicians, patients, and policymakers face when safety and efficacy results are at odds with cost-effectiveness results.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of 1-mg and 4-mg doses of preservative-free intravitreal triamcinolone in comparison with focal/grid photocoagulation for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME).DesignMulticenter, randomized clinical trial.ParticipantsEight hundred forty study eyes of 693 subjects with DME involving the fovea and with visual acuity of 20/40 to 20/320.MethodsEyes were randomized to focal/grid photocoagulation (n = 330), 1 mg intravitreal triamcinolone (n = 256), or 4 mg intravitreal triamcinolone (n = 254). Retreatment was given for persistent or new edema at 4-month intervals. The primary outcome was evaluated at 2 years.Main outcome measuresVisual acuity measured with the electronic Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study method (primary), optical coherence tomography-measured retinal thickness (secondary), and safety.ResultsAt 4 months, mean visual acuity was better in the 4-mg triamcinolone group than in either the laser group (P<0.001) or the 1-mg triamcinolone group (P = 0.001). By 1 year, there were no significant differences among groups in mean visual acuity. At the 16-month visit and extending through the primary outcome visit at 2 years, mean visual acuity was better in the laser group than in the other 2 groups (at 2 years, P = 0.02 comparing the laser and 1-mg groups, P = 0.002 comparing the laser and 4-mg groups, and P = 0.49 comparing the 1-mg and 4-mg groups). Treatment group differences in the visual acuity outcome could not be attributed solely to cataract formation. Optical coherence tomography results generally paralleled the visual acuity results. Intraocular pressure increased from baseline by 10 mmHg or more at any visit in 4%, 16%, and 33% of eyes in the 3 treatment groups, respectively, and cataract surgery was performed in 13%, 23%, and 51% of eyes in the 3 treatment groups, respectively.ConclusionsOver a 2-year period, focal/grid photocoagulation is more effective and has fewer side effects than 1-mg or 4-mg doses of preservative-free intravitreal triamcinolone for most patients with DME who have characteristics similar to the cohort in this clinical trial. The results of this study also support that focal/grid photocoagulation currently should be the benchmark against which other treatments are compared in clinical trials of DME.

Dataset Information

Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Comparative Effectiveness Trial for Diabetic Macular Edema: Additional Efficacy Post Hoc Analyses of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets