A trial of three drugs — bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept — for the treatment of diabetic macular edema showed that each drug improved visual acuity, but aflibercept outperformed the other ...two drugs for eyes with a baseline visual acuity of 20/50 or worse.
Diabetic macular edema, a manifestation of diabetic retinopathy that impairs central vision, affects approximately 750,000 people in the United States and is a leading cause of vision loss.
1
The costs associated with visual disability and treatment of diabetic macular edema are high.
2
The increasing prevalence of diabetes worldwide highlights the importance of diabetic macular edema as a global health issue.
3
Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is an important mediator of abnormal vascular permeability in diabetic macular edema.
4
,
5
Intravitreous injections of anti-VEGF agents have been shown to be superior to laser photocoagulation of the macula, the standard treatment for diabetic . . .
IMPORTANCE: Prevalence of persistent central-involved diabetic macular edema (DME) through 24 weeks of anti–vascular endothelial growth factor therapy and its longer-term outcomes may be relevant to ...treatment. OBJECTIVE: To assess outcomes of DME persisting at least 24 weeks after randomization to treatment with 2.0-mg aflibercept, 1.25-mg bevacizumab, or 0.3-mg ranibizumab. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Post hoc analyses of a clinical trial, the DRCR.net Protocol T among 546 of 660 participants (82.7%) meeting inclusion criteria for this investigation. INTERVENTIONS: Six monthly intravitreous anti–vascular endothelial growth factor injections (unless success after 3 to 5 injections); subsequent injections or focal/grid laser as needed per protocol to achieve stability. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Persistent DME through 24 weeks, probability of chronic persistent DME through 2 years, and at least 10-letter (≥ 2-line) gain or loss of visual acuity. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 60 years, 363 (66.5%) were white, and 251 (46.0%) were women. Persistent DME through 24 weeks was more frequent with bevacizumab (118 of 180 65.6%) than aflibercept (60 of 190 31.6%) or ranibizumab (73 of 176 41.5%) (aflibercept vs bevacizumab, P < .001; ranibizumab vs bevacizumab, P < .001; and aflibercept vs ranibizumab, P = .05). Among eyes with persistent DME through 24 weeks (n = 251), rates of chronic persistent DME through 2 years were 44.2% with aflibercept, 68.2% with bevacizumab (aflibercept vs bevacizumab, P = .03), and 54.5% with ranibizumab (aflibercept vs ranibizumab, P = .41; bevacizumab vs ranibizumab, P = .16). Among eyes with persistent DME through 24 weeks, proportions with vs without chronic persistent DME through 2 years gaining at least 10 letters from baseline were 62% of 29 eyes vs 63% of 30 eyes (P = .88) with aflibercept, 51% of 70 vs 55% of 31 (P = .96) with bevacizumab, and 45% of 38 vs 66% of 29 (P = .10) with ranibizumab. Only 3 eyes with chronic persistent DME lost at least 10 letters. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Persistent DME was more likely with bevacizumab than with aflibercept or ranibizumab. Among eyes with persistent DME, eyes assigned to bevacizumab were more likely to have chronic persistent DME than eyes assigned to aflibercept. These results suggest meaningful gains in vision with little risk of vision loss, regardless of anti–vascular endothelial growth factor agent given or persistence of DME through 2 years. Caution is warranted when considering switching therapies for persistent DME following 3 or more injections; improvements could be owing to continued treatment rather than switching therapies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01627249
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
IMPORTANCE: The role of anti–vascular endothelial growth factor injections for the management of nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) without center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME) ...has not been clearly established. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of intravitreous aflibercept injections compared with sham treatment in preventing potentially vision-threatening complications in eyes with moderate to severe NPDR. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data for this study were collected between January 15, 2016, and May 28, 2020, from the ongoing DRCR Retina Network Protocol W randomized clinical trial, conducted at 64 US and Canadian sites among 328 adults (399 eyes) with moderate to severe NPDR (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study severity level, 43-53), without CI-DME. Analyses followed the intent-to-treat principle. INTERVENTIONS: Eyes were randomly assigned to 2.0 mg of aflibercept injections (n = 200) or sham (n = 199) given at baseline; 1, 2, and 4 months; and every 4 months through 2 years. Between 2 and 4 years, treatment was deferred if the eye had mild NPDR or better. Aflibercept was administered in both groups if CI-DME with vision loss (≥10 letters at 1 visit or 5-9 letters at 2 consecutive visits) or high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) developed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Development of CI-DME with vision loss or PDR through May 2020, when the last 2-year visit was completed. RESULTS: Among the 328 participants (57.6% men 230 of 399 eyes; mean SD age, 56 11 years), the 2-year cumulative probability of developing CI-DME with vision loss or PDR was 16.3% with aflibercept vs 43.5% with sham. The overall hazard ratio for either outcome was 0.32 (97.5% CI, 0.21-0.50; P < .001), favoring aflibercept. The 2-year cumulative probability of developing PDR was 13.5% in the aflibercept group vs 33.2% in the sham group, and the 2-year cumulative probability of developing CI-DME with vision loss was 4.1% in the aflibercept group vs 14.8% in the sham group. The mean (SD) change in visual acuity from baseline to 2 years was −0.9 (5.8) letters with aflibercept and −2.0 (6.1) letters with sham (adjusted mean difference, 0.5 letters 97.5% CI, −1.0 to 1.9 letters; P = .47). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this randomized clinical trial, among eyes with moderate to severe NPDR, the proportion of eyes that developed PDR or vision-reducing CI-DME was lower with periodic aflibercept compared with sham treatment. However, through 2 years, preventive treatment did not confer visual acuity benefit compared with observation plus treatment with aflibercept only after development of PDR or vision-reducing CI-DME. The 4-year results will be important to assess longer-term visual acuity outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02634333
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
IMPORTANCE: Anti–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. OBJECTIVE: To examine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab for the treatment of DME. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Post 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 MEASURES: The 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. RESULTS: The 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 RELEVANCE: Aflibercept (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.
Purpose To compare long-term vision and anatomic effects of ranibizumab with prompt or deferred laser vs laser or triamcinolone + laser with very deferred ranibizumab in diabetic macular edema (DME). ...Design Randomized clinical trial. Methods Eight hundred and twenty-eight study eyes (588 67% completed the 5-year visit), at 52 sites, with visual acuity 20/32 to 20/320 and DME involving the central macula were randomly assigned to intravitreous ranibizumab (0.5 mg) with either (1) prompt or (2) deferred laser; (3) sham injection + prompt laser; or (4) intravitreous triamcinolone (4 mg) + prompt laser. The latter 2 groups could initiate ranibizumab as early as 74 weeks from baseline, for persistent DME with vision impairment. The main outcome measures were visual acuity, optical coherence central subfield thickness, and number of injections through 5 years. Results At 5 years mean (± standard deviation) change in Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study visual acuity letter scores from baseline in the ranibizumab + deferred laser (N = 111), ranibizumab + prompt laser (N = 124), laser/very deferred ranibizumab (N = 198), and triamcinolone + laser/very deferred ranibizumab (N = 125) groups were 10 ± 13, 8 ± 13, 5 ± 14, and 7 ± 14, respectively. The difference (95% confidence interval) in mean change between ranibizumab + deferred laser and laser/very deferred ranibizumab and triamcinolone + laser/very deferred ranibizumab was 4.4 (1.2–7.6, P = .001) and 2.8 (−0.9 to 6.5, P = .067), respectively, at 5 years. Conclusions Recognizing limitations of follow-up available at 5 years, eyes receiving initial ranibizumab therapy for center-involving DME likely have better long-term vision improvements than eyes managed with laser or triamcinolone + laser followed by very deferred ranibizumab for persistent thickening and vision impairment.
To describe the underlying principles used to develop a web-based algorithm that incorporated intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment for diabetic macular edema ...(DME) in a Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network (DRCR.net) randomized clinical trial.
Discussion of treatment protocol for DME.
Subjects with vision loss resulting from DME involving the center of the macula.
The DRCR.net created an algorithm incorporating anti-VEGF injections in a comparative effectiveness randomized clinical trial evaluating intravitreal ranibizumab with prompt or deferred (≥24 weeks) focal/grid laser treatment in eyes with vision loss resulting from center-involved DME. Results confirmed that intravitreal ranibizumab with prompt or deferred laser provides superior visual acuity outcomes compared with prompt laser alone through at least 2 years. Duplication of this algorithm may not be practical for clinical practice. To share their opinion on how ophthalmologists might emulate the study protocol, participating DRCR.net investigators developed guidelines based on the algorithm's underlying rationale.
Clinical guidelines based on a DRCR.net protocol.
The treatment protocol required real-time feedback from a web-based data entry system for intravitreal injections, focal/grid laser treatment, and follow-up intervals. Guidance from this system indicated whether treatment was required or given at investigator discretion and when follow-up should be scheduled. Clinical treatment guidelines, based on the underlying clinical rationale of the DRCR.net protocol, include repeating treatment monthly as long as there is improvement in edema compared with the previous month or until the retina is no longer thickened. If thickening recurs or worsens after discontinuing treatment, treatment is resumed.
Duplication of the approach used in the DRCR.net randomized clinical trial to treat DME involving the center of the macula with intravitreal ranibizumab may not be practical in clinical practice, but likely can be emulated based on an understanding of the underlying rationale for the study protocol. Inherent differences between a web-based treatment algorithm and a clinical approach may lead to differences in outcomes that are impossible to predict. The closer the clinical approach is to the algorithm used in the study, the more likely the outcomes will be similar to those published.
Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.
PDF
