Adam R. Glassman

Randomized Trial Evaluating Ranibizumab Plus Prompt or Deferred Laser or Triamcinolone Plus Prompt Laser for Diabetic Macular Edema

OBJECTIVE Evaluate 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). DESIGN Multicenter, randomized clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS A 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. METHODS Eyes 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 MEASURES Best-corrected visual acuity and safety at 1 year. RESULTS The 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. CONCLUSIONS Intravitreal 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.

Aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema.

BACKGROUND The relative efficacy and safety of intravitreous aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab in the treatment of diabetic macular edema are unknown. METHODS At 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. RESULTS From 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). CONCLUSIONS Intravitreous 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.).

Expanded 2-year follow-up of ranibizumab plus prompt or deferred laser or triamcinolone plus prompt laser for diabetic macular edema.

OBJECTIVE To 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). DESIGN Multicenter, randomized clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS A 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. METHODS Continuation of procedures previously reported for the randomized trial. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Best-corrected visual acuity and safety at the 2-year visit. RESULTS At 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 μm 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. CONCLUSIONS The 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.

Three-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing focal/grid photocoagulation and intravitreal triamcinolone for diabetic macular edema

OBJECTIVE To report 3-year outcomes of patients who participated in a randomized trial evaluating 1-mg and 4-mg doses of preservative-free intravitreal triamcinolone compared with focal/grid photocoagulation for treatment of diabetic macular edema. METHODS Eyes with diabetic macular edema and visual acuities of 20/40 to 20/320 were randomly assigned to focal/grid photocoagulation or 1 mg or 4 mg of triamcinolone. At the conclusion of the trial, 3-year follow-up data were available in 306 eyes. RESULTS Between 2 years (time of the primary outcome) and 3 years, more eyes improved than worsened in all 3 treatment groups. Change in visual acuity letter score from baseline to 3 years was +5 in the laser group and 0 in each triamcinolone group. The cumulative probability of cataract surgery by 3 years was 31%, 46%, and 83% in the laser and 1-mg and 4-mg triamcinolone groups, respectively. Intraocular pressure increased by more than 10 mm Hg at any visit in 4%, 18%, and 33% of eyes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Results in a subset of randomized subjects who completed the 3-year follow-up are consistent with previously published 2-year results and do not indicate a long-term benefit of intravitreal triamcinolone relative to focal/grid photocoagulation in patients with diabetic macular edema similar to those studied in this clinical trial. Most eyes receiving 4 mg of triamcinolone as given in this study are likely to require cataract surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00367133.

Intravitreal Ranibizumab for Diabetic Macular Edema with Prompt versus Deferred Laser Treatment

OBJECTIVE To report the 3-year follow-up results within a previously reported randomized trial evaluating prompt versus deferred (for ≥24 weeks) focal/grid laser treatment in eyes treated with intravitreal 0.5 mg ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN Multicenter, randomized clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS Three hundred sixty-one participants with visual acuity of 20/32 to 20/320 (approximate Snellen equivalent) and DME involving the fovea. METHODS Ranibizumab every 4 weeks until no longer improving (with resumption if worsening) and random assignment to prompt or deferred (≥24 weeks) focal/grid laser treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Best-corrected visual acuity and safety at the 156-week (3-year) visit. RESULTS The estimated mean change in visual acuity letter score from baseline through the 3-year visit was 2.9 letters more (9.7 vs. 6.8 letters; mean difference, 2.9 letters; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-5.4 letters; P = 0.02) in the deferral group compared with the prompt laser treatment group. In the prompt laser treatment group and deferral group, respectively, the percentage of eyes with a ≥10-letter gain/loss was 42% and 56% (P = 0.02), whereas the respective percentage of eyes with a ≥10-letter gain/loss was 10% and 5% (P = 0.12). Up to the 3-year visit, the median numbers of injections were 12 and 15 in the prompt and deferral groups, respectively (P = 0.007), including 1 and 2 injections, respectively, from the 2-year up to the 3-year visit. At the 3-year visit, the percentages of eyes with central subfield thickness of 250 μm or more on time-domain optical coherence tomography were 36% in both groups (P = 0.90). In the deferral group, 54% did not receive laser treatment during the trial. Systemic adverse events seemed to be similar in the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS These 3-year results suggest that focal/grid laser treatment at the initiation of intravitreal ranibizumab is no better, and possibly worse, for vision outcomes than deferring laser treatment for 24 weeks or more in eyes with DME involving the fovea and with vision impairment. Some of the observed differences in visual acuity at 3 years may be related to fewer cumulative ranibizumab injections during follow-up in the prompt laser treatment group. Follow-up through 5 years continues.

Panretinal Photocoagulation vs Intravitreous Ranibizumab for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

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.

Risk of Endophthalmitis After Intravitreal Drug Injection When Topical Antibiotics Are Not Required: The Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network Laser-Ranibizumab-Triamcinolone Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVE To report the incidence of endophthalmitis after intravitreal drug injection by means of a standardized procedure that does not require topical antibiotics, sterile gloves, or a sterile drape. METHODS Intravitreal injections of preservative-free triamcinolone acetonide or ranibizumab were administered in 2 prospective randomized clinical trials performed by the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network. The standardized procedure for these trials requires the use of a topical combination product of povidone-iodine, a sterile lid speculum, and topical anesthetic, but does not require the use of topical antibiotics before, on the day of, or after injection. RESULTS As of February 23, 2009, a total of 3226 intravitreal injections of ranibizumab and 612 injections of preservative-free triamcinolone had been administered. Topical antibiotics were given on the day of injection in 361 (9.4%) of the 3838 cases, for several days after injection in 813 cases (21.2%), on the day of injection and after injection in 1388 cases (36.2%), and neither on the day of injection nor after injection in 1276 cases (33.3%). Three cases of culture-positive endophthalmitis occurred after ranibizumab injections (0.09%), and no cases occurred after triamcinolone injections. In all 3 cases of endophthalmitis, topical antibiotics were given for several days after the injection but not before injection. CONCLUSIONS The results suggest that a low rate of endophthalmitis can be achieved by means of a protocol that includes use of topical povidone-iodine, a sterile lid speculum, and topical anesthetic, but does not require topical antibiotics, sterile gloves, or a sterile drape. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00444600 and NCT00445003.

Optical Coherence Tomography Measurements and Analysis Methods in Optical Coherence Tomography Studies of Diabetic Macular Edema

OBJECTIVE To evaluate optical coherence tomography (OCT) measurements and methods of analysis of OCT data in studies of diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN Associations of pairs of OCT variables and results of 3 analysis methods using data from 2 studies of DME. PARTICIPANTS Two hundred sixty-three subjects from a study of modified Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (mETDRS) versus modified macular grid (MMG) photocoagulation for DME and 96 subjects from a study of diurnal variation of DME. METHODS Correlations were calculated for pairs of OCT variables at baseline and for changes in the variables over time. Distribution of OCT measurement changes, predictive factors for OCT measurement changes, and treatment group outcomes were compared when 3 measures of change in macular thickness were analyzed: absolute change in retinal thickness, relative change in retinal thickness, and relative change in retinal thickening. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Concordance of results using different OCT variables and analysis methods. RESULTS Center point thickness correlated highly with central subfield mean thickness (CSMT) at baseline (0.98-0.99). The distributions of changes in CSMT were approximately normally distributed for absolute change in retinal thickness and relative change in retinal thickness, but not for relative change in retinal thickening. Macular thinning in the mETDRS group was significantly greater than in the MMG group when absolute change in retinal thickness was used, but not when relative change in thickness and relative change in thickening were used. Relative change in macular thickening provides unstable data in eyes with mild degrees of baseline thickening, unlike the situation with absolute or relative change in retinal thickness. CONCLUSIONS Central subfield mean thickness is the preferred OCT measurement for the central macula because of its higher reproducibility and correlation with other measurements of the central macula. Total macular volume may be preferred when the central macula is less important. Absolute change in retinal thickness is the preferred analysis method in studies involving eyes with mild macular thickening. Relative change in thickening may be preferable when retinal thickening is more severe.

Randomized Trial Evaluating Short-Term Effects of Intravitreal Ranibizumab or Triamcinolone Acetonide on Macular Edema After Focal/grid Laser for Diabetic Macular Edema in Eyes Also Receiving Panretinal Photocoagulation

Purpose: To evaluate 14-week effects of intravitreal ranibizumab or triamcinolone in eyes receiving focal/grid laser for diabetic macular edema and panretinal photocoagulation. Methods: Three hundred and forty-five eyes with a visual acuity of 20/320 or better, center-involved diabetic macular edema receiving focal/grid laser, and diabetic retinopathy receiving prompt panretinal photocoagulation were randomly assigned to sham (n = 123), 0.5-mg ranibizumab (n = 113) at baseline and 4 weeks, and 4-mg triamcinolone at baseline and sham at 4 weeks (n = 109). Treatment was at investigator discretion from 14 weeks to 56 weeks. Results: Mean changes (±SD) in visual acuity letter score from baseline were significantly better in the ranibizumab (+1 ± 11; P < 0.001) and triamcinolone (+2 ± 11; P < 0.001) groups compared with those in the sham group (−4 ± 14) at the 14-week visit, mirroring retinal thickening results. These differences were not maintained when study participants were followed for 56 weeks for safety outcomes. One eye (0.9%; 95% confidence interval, 0.02%-4.7%) developed endophthalmitis after receiving ranibizumab. Cerebrovascular/cardiovascular events occurred in 4%, 7%, and 3% of the sham, ranibizumab, and triamcinolone groups, respectively. Conclusion: The addition of 1 intravitreal triamcinolone injection or 2 intravitreal ranibizumab injections in eyes receiving focal/grid laser for diabetic macular edema and panretinal photocoagulation is associated with better visual acuity and decreased macular edema by 14 weeks. Whether continued long-term intravitreal treatment is beneficial cannot be determined from this study.

Retinal Thickness on Stratus Optical Coherence Tomography in People with Diabetes and Minimal or No Diabetic Retinopathy

PURPOSE To evaluate optical coherence tomography (OCT) thickness of the macula in people with diabetes but minimal or no retinopathy and to compare these findings with published normative data in the literature from subjects reported to have no retinal disease. DESIGN Cross-sectional study. METHODS In a multicenter community- and university-based practices setting, 97 subjects with diabetes with no or minimal diabetic retinopathy and no central retinal thickening on clinical examination and a center point thickness of 225 microm or less on OCT (Stratus OCT; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, California, USA) were recruited. Electronic Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study best-corrected visual acuity, seven-field stereoscopic color fundus photographs, and Stratus OCT fast macular scan were noted. Main outcome measures were central subfield (CSF) thickness measured on Stratus OCT. RESULTS On average, CSF thickness was 201 +/- 22 microm. CSF thickness was significantly greater in retinas from men than retinas from women (mean +/- standard deviation, 209 +/- 18 microm vs 194 +/- 23 microm; P < .001). After adjusting for gender, no additional factors were found to be associated significantly with CSF thickness (P > .10). CONCLUSIONS CSF thicknesses on Stratus OCT in people with diabetes and minimal or no retinopathy are similar to thicknesses reported from a normative database of people without diabetes. CSF thickness is greater in men than in women, consistent with many, but not all, previous reports. Studies involving comparisons of retinal thickness with expected norms should consider different mean values for women and men.