No abstract

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

No abstract

IMPORTANCE Panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) is standard treatment for reducing severe visual loss from proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). However, PRP can damage the retina, resulting in peripheral vision loss or worsening diabetic macular edema (DME). OBJECTIVE Compare ranibizumab versus PRP for PDR. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized clinical trial (55 U.S. sites) assessing non-inferiority of ranibizumab compared with PRP for vision outcomes; 305 adults with PDR enrolled February-December 2012 (mean age 52, 44% female, 52% white). Both eyes enrolled for 89 participants totaling 394 study eyes. The final 2-year visit was completed January 2015. INTERVENTIONS Ranibizumab group (N=191 eyes): intravitreous 0.5-mg ranibizumab and, PRP if treatment failed; ranibizumab as needed for DME. PRP group (N=203 eyes): PRP; ranibizumab as needed for DME. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Primary: mean visual acuity change at 2 years (5-letter non-inferiority margin; intention-to-treat analysis). Secondary: visual acuity area under the curve, peripheral visual field loss, DME development, neovascularization, vitrectomy, and safety. RESULTS Mean visual acuity letter improvement at 2 years was +2.8 in the ranibizumab group versus +0.2 in the PRP group (difference +2.2, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.5 to +5.0, non-inferiority P<0.001). 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<0.001). Visual field sensitivity loss was worse (mean dB difference 372; 95% CI: 213 to 531, P<0.001), vitrectomy more frequent (15% versus 4%, difference 9%, 95% CI: 4% to 15%, P<0.001), and DME development more frequent (28% versus 9%, difference 19%, 95% CI: 10% to 28%, P<0.001) in the PRP versus ranibizumab group, respectively. Eyes with neither active nor regressed neovascularization at 2 years was similar (35% [ranibizumab group] versus 30% [PRP group], difference 3%, 95% CI: −7% to 12%, P=0.58). One eye (ranibizumab group) developed endophthalmitis. No significant differences between groups in rates of major cardiovascular events were identified. CONCLUSION Among eyes with PDR, treatment with ranibizumab resulted in visual acuity that was non-inferior to (not worse than) PRP treatment at two years. Although longer term follow-up is needed, ranibizumab may be a reasonable treatment alternative, at least through 2 years, for patients with PDR.

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Port Delivery System with ranibizumab (PDS) for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) treatment.Design: Phase 2, multicenter, randomized, active treatmentecontrolled clinical trial.Participants: Patients diagnosed with nAMD within 9 months who had received 2 or more prior antievascular endothelial growth factor intravitreal injections and were responsive to treatment.Methods: Patients were randomized 3:3:3:2 to receive the PDS filled with ranibizumab 10 mg/ml, 40 mg/ml, 100 mg/ml, or monthly intravitreal ranibizumab 0.5-mg injections.Main Outcome Measures: Time to first implant refill assessed when the last enrolled patient completed the month 9 visit (primary efficacy end point), improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central foveal thickness (CFT), and safety.Results: The primary analysis population was 220 patients, with 58, 62, 59, and 41 patients in the PDS 10-mg/ml, PDS 40-mg/ml, PDS 100-mg/ml, and monthly intravitreal ranibizumab 0.5-mg arms, respectively. Median time to first implant refill was 8.7, 13.0, and 15.0 months in the PDS 10-mg/ml, PDS 40-mg/ml, and PDS 100-mg/ml arms, respectively. At month 9, the adjusted mean BCVA change from baseline was -3.2 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters, -0.5 ETDRS letters, þ5.0 ETDRS letters, and þ3.9 ETDRS letters in the PDS 10-mg/ml, PDS 40-mg/ml, PDS 100-mg/ml, and monthly intravitreal ranibizumab 0.5-mg arms, respectively. At month 9, the adjusted mean CFT change from baseline was similar in the PDS 100-mg/ml and monthly intravitreal ranibizumab 0.5-mg arms. The optimized PDS implant insertion and refill procedures were generally well tolerated. After surgical procedure optimization, postoperative vitreous hemorrhage rate was 4.5% (7/157; 1 event classified as serious). There was no evidence of implant clogging.Conclusions: In the phase 2 Ladder trial, the PDS was generally well tolerated and demonstrated a dose response across multiple end points in patients with nAMD. The PDS 100-mg/ml arm showed visual and anatomic outcomes comparable with monthly intravitreal ranibizumab 0.5-mg injections but with a reduced total number of ranibizumab treatments. The PDS has the potential to reduce treatment burden in nAMD while maintaining vision.

Among patients with macular edema due to central retinal or hemiretinal vein occlusion, intravitreal bevacizumab was noninferior to aflibercept with respect to visual acuity after 6 months of treatment.