Michael J. Elman

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.

Lutein + zeaxanthin and omega-3 fatty acids for age-related macular degeneration: The Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 (AREDS2) randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE Oral supplementation with the Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) formulation (antioxidant vitamins C and E, beta carotene, and zinc) has been shown to reduce the risk of progression to advanced age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Observational data suggest that increased dietary intake of lutein + zeaxanthin (carotenoids), omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (docosahexaenoic acid [DHA] + eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA]), or both might further reduce this risk. OBJECTIVES To determine whether adding lutein + zeaxanthin, DHA + EPA, or both to the AREDS formulation decreases the risk of developing advanced AMD and to evaluate the effect of eliminating beta carotene, lowering zinc doses, or both in the AREDS formulation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 (AREDS2), a multicenter, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled phase 3 study with a 2 × 2 factorial design, conducted in 2006-2012 and enrolling 4203 participants aged 50 to 85 years at risk for progression to advanced AMD with bilateral large drusen or large drusen in 1 eye and advanced AMD in the fellow eye. INTERVENTIONS Participants were randomized to receive lutein (10 mg) + zeaxanthin (2 mg), DHA (350 mg) + EPA (650 mg), lutein + zeaxanthin and DHA + EPA, or placebo. All participants were also asked to take the original AREDS formulation or accept a secondary randomization to 4 variations of the AREDS formulation, including elimination of beta carotene, lowering of zinc dose, or both. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Development of advanced AMD. The unit of analyses used was by eye. RESULTS Median follow-up was 5 years, with 1940 study eyes (1608 participants) progressing to advanced AMD. Kaplan-Meier probabilities of progression to advanced AMD by 5 years were 31% (493 eyes [406 participants]) for placebo, 29% (468 eyes [399 participants]) for lutein + zeaxanthin, 31% (507 eyes [416 participants]) for DHA + EPA, and 30% (472 eyes [387 participants]) for lutein + zeaxanthin and DHA + EPA. Comparison with placebo in the primary analyses demonstrated no statistically significant reduction in progression to advanced AMD (hazard ratio [HR], 0.90 [98.7% CI, 0.76-1.07]; P = .12 for lutein + zeaxanthin; 0.97 [98.7% CI, 0.82-1.16]; P = .70 for DHA + EPA; 0.89 [98.7% CI, 0.75-1.06]; P = .10 for lutein + zeaxanthin and DHA + EPA). There was no apparent effect of beta carotene elimination or lower-dose zinc on progression to advanced AMD. More lung cancers were noted in the beta carotene vs no beta carotene group (23 [2.0%] vs 11 [0.9%], nominal P = .04), mostly in former smokers. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Addition of lutein + zeaxanthin, DHA + EPA, or both to the AREDS formulation in primary analyses did not further reduce risk of progression to advanced AMD. However, because of potential increased incidence of lung cancer in former smokers, lutein + zeaxanthin could be an appropriate carotenoid substitute in the AREDS formulation. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00345176.

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.

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.

The Natural Course of Central Retinal Vein Occlusion

We reviewed the records of 160 patients who had central retinal vein occlusion between 1980 and 1985. Of 168 eyes, 107 (64%) were classified as nonischemic types and 61 (36%) were classified as ischemic types. Of 107 nonischemic eyes, ten (9%) converted to the ischemic variant. Of 107 nonischemic eyes, 33 (31%) lost three or more lines of visual acuity irrespective of initial visual acuity. A final visual acuity less than or equal to 20/200 was recorded in 57 of 61 (93%) of ischemic eyes and 53 of 107 (50%) of nonischemic eyes.

Secondary Analyses of the Effects of Lutein/Zeaxanthin on Age-Related Macular Degeneration Progression: AREDS2 Report No. 3

IMPORTANCE The Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) formulation for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) contains vitamin C, vitamin E, beta carotene, and zinc with copper. The Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 (AREDS2) assessed the value of substituting lutein/zeaxanthin in the AREDS formulation because of the demonstrated risk for lung cancer from beta carotene in smokers and former smokers and because lutein and zeaxanthin are important components in the retina. OBJECTIVE To further examine the effect of lutein/zeaxanthin supplementation on progression to late AMD. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS The Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 is a multicenter, double-masked randomized trial of 4203 participants, aged 50 to 85 years, at risk for developing late AMD; 66% of patients had bilateral large drusen and 34% had large drusen and late AMD in 1 eye. INTERVENTIONS In addition to taking the original or a variation of the AREDS supplement, participants were randomly assigned in a factorial design to 1 of the following 4 groups: placebo; lutein/zeaxanthin, 10 mg/2 mg; omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty 3 acids, 1.0 g; or the combination. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURE S Documented development of late AMD by central, masked grading of annual retinal photographs or by treatment history. RESULTS In exploratory analysis of lutein/zeaxanthin vs no lutein/zeaxanthin, the hazard ratio of the development of late AMD was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.82-0.99; P = .04). Exploratory analyses of direct comparison of lutein/zeaxanthin vs beta carotene showed hazard ratios of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.69-0.96; P = .02) for development of late AMD, 0.78 (95% CI, 0.64-0.94; P = .01) for development of neovascular AMD, and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.70-1.26; P = .67) for development of central geographic atrophy. In analyses restricted to eyes with bilateral large drusen at baseline, the direct comparison of lutein/zeaxanthin vs beta carotene showed hazard ratios of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.61-0.96; P = .02) for progression to late AMD, 0.65 (95% CI, 0.49-0.85; P = .002) for neovascular AMD, and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.69-1.39; P = .91) for central geographic atrophy. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE The totality of evidence on beneficial and adverse effects from AREDS2 and other studies suggests that lutein/zeaxanthin could be more appropriate than beta carotene in the AREDS-type supplements. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00345176.

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.

Optic nerve decompression surgery improves visual function in patients with pseudotumor cerebri.

Papilledema from pseudotumor cerebri can cause severe loss of visual acuity and visual field. We performed optic nerve decompression surgery on 17 patients with pseudotumor cerebri who, despite maximum conventional therapy, developed progressive loss of visual acuity and/or visual field. Postoperatively, visual acuity improved or stabilized in 33 of 34 eyes (97%). Visual fields improved in 20 of 21 eyes that underwent surgery. Optic nerve decompression surgery relieves local cerebrospinal fluid pressure on the optic nerve. Progressive loss of visual function associated with pseudotumor cerebri can be reversed or stabilized with optic nerve sheath decompression surgery.