Cynthia R. Stockdale

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.

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.

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.

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.

Rationale for the diabetic retinopathy clinical research network treatment protocol for center-involved diabetic macular edema.

OBJECTIVE 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. DESIGN Discussion of treatment protocol for DME. PARTICIPANTS Subjects with vision loss resulting from DME involving the center of the macula. METHODS 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 algorithms underlying rationale. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Clinical guidelines based on a DRCR.net protocol. RESULTS 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. CONCLUSIONS 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. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S) Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Randomized clinical trial evaluating intravitreal ranibizumab or saline for vitreous hemorrhage from proliferative diabetic retinopathy

IMPORTANCE Vascular endothelial growth factor plays a role in proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). Intravitreal injection of saline has been shown potentially to lead to improved visual acuity compared with observation alone in eyes with vitreous hemorrhage. Therefore, it is important to determine if intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor can reduce vitrectomy rates (and risks associated with vitrectomy) compared with saline for vitreous hemorrhage from PDR that precludes placement or confirmation of complete panretinal photocoagulation. OBJECTIVE To evaluate intravitreal ranibizumab compared with intravitreal saline injections on vitrectomy rates for vitreous hemorrhage from PDR. DESIGN Phase 3, double-masked, randomized, multicenter clinical trial. Data reported were collected from June 2010 to March 2012 and include 16 weeks of follow-up. SETTING Community-based and academic-based ophthalmology practices specializing in retinal diseases. PARTICIPANTS Two hundred sixty-one eyes of 261 study participants, who were at least 18 years of age with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus. Study eyes had vitreous hemorrhage from PDR precluding panretinal photocoagulation completion. INTERVENTION Eyes were randomly assigned to 0.5-mg intravitreal ranibizumab (n = 125) or intravitreal saline (n = 136) at baseline and 4 and 8 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Cumulative probability of vitrectomy within 16 weeks. RESULTS Cumulative probability of vitrectomy by 16 weeks was 12% with ranibizumab vs 17% with saline (difference, 4%; 95% CI, -4% to 13%) and of complete panretinal photocoagulation without vitrectomy by 16 weeks was 44% and 31%, respectively (P = .05). The mean (SD) visual acuity improvement from baseline to 12 weeks was 22 (23) letters and 16 (31) letters, respectively (P = .04). Recurrent vitreous hemorrhage occurred within 16 weeks in 6% and 17%, respectively (P = .01). One eye developed endophthalmitis after saline injection. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Overall, the 16-week vitrectomy rates were lower than expected in both groups. This study suggests little likelihood of a clinically important difference between ranibizumab and saline on the rate of vitrectomy by 16 weeks in eyes with vitreous hemorrhage from PDR. Short-term secondary outcomes including visual acuity improvement, increased panretinal photocoagulation completion rates, and reduced recurrent vitreous hemorrhage rates suggest biologic activity of ranibizumab. Long-term benefits remain unknown. Whether vitrectomy rates after saline or ranibizumab injection are different than observation alone cannot be determined from this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION The study is listed on www.clinicaltrials.gov, under identifier NCT00996437 (website registration date October 14, 2009).

Macular edema after cataract surgery in eyes without preoperative central-involved diabetic macular edema.

IMPORTANCE The incidence of development or worsening of macular edema (ME) is variable in eyes without diabetic ME (DME) undergoing cataract surgery. OBJECTIVE To estimate the incidence of central-involved ME 16 weeks following cataract surgery in eyes with diabetic retinopathy without definite central-involved DME preoperatively. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In a multicenter, prospective, observational study, 293 participants with diabetic retinopathy without definite central subfield thickening on optical coherence tomography (OCT) underwent cataract surgery. EXPOSURE Cataract extraction surgery performed within 28 days of enrollment of eyes without DME in individuals with diabetes mellitus. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Development of central-involved ME defined as the following: (1) OCT central subfield thickness of 250 μm or greater (time-domain OCT) or 310 μm or greater (spectral-domain OCT) with at least a 1-step increase in logOCT central subfield thickness preoperatively to the 16-week visit; (2) at least a 2-step increase in logOCT central subfield thickness preoperatively to the 16-week visit; or (3) nontopical treatment for ME received before the 16-week visit with either of the OCT criteria met at the time of treatment. RESULTS The median participant age was 65 years. The median visual acuity letter score was 69 letters (Snellen equivalent 20/40). Forty-four percent of eyes had a history of treatment for DME. Sixteen weeks postoperatively, central-involved ME was noted in 0% (95% CI, 0%-20%) of 17 eyes with no preoperative DME. Of eyes with non-central-involved DME, 10% (95% CI, 5%-18%) of 97 eyes without central-involved DME and 12% (95% CI, 7%-19%) of 147 eyes with possible central-involved DME at baseline progressed to central-involved ME. History of DME treatment was significantly associated with central-involved ME development (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In eyes with diabetic retinopathy without concurrent central-involved DME, presence of non-central-involved DME immediately prior to cataract surgery or history of DME treatment may increase the risk of developing central-involved ME 16 weeks after cataract extraction.

Impaired overnight counterregulatory hormone responses to spontaneous hypoglycemia in children with type 1 diabetes

Abstract:  To assess the changes in counterregulatory hormones overnight after an afternoon of structured exercise or sedentary activity in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), the Diabetes Research in Children Network (DirecNet) studied 50 children (10 to <18 yr) with T1DM in five clinical research centers on two separate days (with and without an afternoon exercise session) using a crossover design. Glucose, epinephrine, norepinephrine, cortisol, growth hormone (GH), and glucagon concentrations were measured hourly overnight. Nocturnal hypoglycemia [plasma glucose concentrations ≤70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L)] occurred more frequently on the nights following exercise (56 vs. 36%; p = 0.008). Mean hourly concentrations of most hormones did not differ between sedentary or exercise nights or between nights with or without hypoglycemia. Spontaneous nocturnal hypoglycemia only stimulated small increases in plasma epinephrine and GH concentrations and failed to cause a rise in norepinephrine, cortisol, or glucagon levels in comparison with values during the hour before or after hypoglycemia or other times during those same nights. Counterregulatory hormone responses to spontaneous nocturnal hypoglycemia were markedly decreased regardless of whether there was antecedent afternoon exercise in children with T1DM. Sleep‐induced impairments in counterregulatory hormone responses likely contribute to the increased risk of hypoglycemia during the entire overnight period in youth with T1DM.

Elimination of Topical Antibiotics for Intravitreous Injections and the Importance of Using Povidone-Iodine: Update from the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network

Importance This report provides updated endophthalmitis rates for eyes receiving intravitreous injections with and without povidone-iodine and rates with and without topical antibiotics from Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network clinical trials. Observations Among 8 Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network clinical trials conducted from 2006 to 2015, 28 786 intravitreous injections were administered (3123 eyes), and 20 617 of those (2264 eyes) were administered between 2012 and 2015. Eleven cases of endophthalmitis occurred; 4 occurred between 2012 and 2015. Thirteen injections in 3 eyes from 2 participants were administered without povidone-iodine; both participants developed endophthalmitis in 1 eye. Of the remaining 28 773 injections (3120 eyes) performed with povidone-iodine, 9 cases of endophthalmitis occurred: 6 cases (0.05% of 11 565 injections) in eyes receiving topical antibiotics and 3 cases (0.02% of 17 208 injections) in eyes not receiving topical antibiotics (P = .17). Conclusions and Relevance While only a small number of eyes did not receive povidone-iodine just prior to an intravitreous injection, this report provides further evidence regarding the risk of endophthalmitis when povidone-iodine is not used before intravitreous injections. Exclusion of topical antibiotics was not associated with a higher risk of endophthalmitis. Continued use of povidone-iodine and consideration to eliminate topical antibiotics from injection procedures seems warranted.