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.)

Purpose Provide 2-year efficacy, safety and treatment results comparing three anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents for center-involved diabetic macular edema (DME) utilizing a standardized follow-up and retreatment regimen. Design Randomized clinical trial. Participants 660 participants with DME causing visual acuity (VA) impairment. Methods Randomization to 2.0-mg aflibercept, 1.25-mg repackaged (compounded) bevacizumab, or 0.3-mg ranibizumab intravitreous injections performed as frequently as monthly utilizing a protocol-specific follow-up and retreatment regimen. Focal/grid laser was added if DME persisted and was not improving at 6 months or later. Visits occurred every 4 weeks during year 1, and were extended up to every 4 months thereafter when VA and macular thickness were stable and injections were deferred. Main Outcome Measures Change in VA (efficacy), ocular/systemic adverse events (safety), retreatment frequency. Results Median numbers of injections in year 2 were 5, 6, 6 and over 2 years were 15, 16, 15 in the aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab groups, respectively (global P=0.08). Focal/grid laser was administered in 41%, 64%, and 52%, respectively (aflibercept-bevacizumab: P<0.001, aflibercept-ranibizumab: P=0.04, bevacizumab-ranibizumab: P=0.01). From baseline to 2 years, mean VA letter score improved by 12.8 with aflibercept, 10.0 with bevacizumab, and 12.3 with ranibizumab. Treatment group differences varied by baseline VA (interaction P=0.02). With worse baseline VA (20/50-20/320), mean improvement was 18.3, 13.3, and 16.1 letters, respectively (aflibercept-bevacizumab: P=0.02, aflibercept-ranibizumab: P=0.18, ranibizumab-bevacizumab: P=0.18). With baseline VA 20/32-20/40, mean improvement was 7.8, 6.8, and 8.6 letters, respectively (P>0.10 for pairwise comparisons). Anti-Platelet Trialists’ Collaboration (APTC) events occurred in 5% with aflibercept, 8% with bevacizumab, and 12% with ranibizumab (global P=0.047: aflibercept-bevacizumab: P=0.34, aflibercept-ranibizumab: P=0.047, ranibizumab-bevacizumab: P=0.20; global P=0.09 adjusted for potential confounders). Conclusion All 3 anti-VEGF groups had visual acuity improvement at 2 years with a decreased number of injections in year 2. VA outcomes were similar among treatment groups for eyes with baseline VA 20/32-20/40. Among eyes with worse baseline VA, aflibercept, on average, had superior 2-year VA outcomes compared with bevacizumab, but superiority of aflibercept over ranibizumab, noted at 1 year, was no longer identified. Higher APTC event rates with ranibizumab over 2 years warrants continued evaluation in future trials.

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.

Objective To report 5-year results from a previously reported trial evaluating intravitreal 0.5-mg ranibizumab with prompt versus deferred (for ≥24 weeks) focal/grid laser treatment for diabetic macular edema (DME). Design Multicenter randomized clinical trial. Participants Among participants from the trial with 3 years of follow-up who subsequently consented to a 2-year extension and survived through 5 years, 124 (97%) and 111 (92%) completed the 5-year visit, in the prompt and deferred groups, respectively. Methods Random assignment to ranibizumab every 4 weeks until no longer improving (with resumption if worsening) and either prompt or deferred (>= 24 weeks) focal/grid laser treatment. Main Outcome Measures Best-corrected visual acuity at the 5-year visit. Results The mean change in visual acuity letter score from baseline through the 5-year visit was +7.2 letters in the prompt laser group compared with +9.8 letters in the deferred laser group (mean difference -2.6 letters, 95% confidence interval -5.5 to +0.4 letters, P = 0.09). At the 5-year visit in the prompt vs. deferred laser groups respectively, there was vision loss of ≥10 letters in 9% vs. 8%, an improvement of ≥10 letters in 46% vs. 58%, and an improvement of >15 letters in 27% vs. 38% of participants. From baseline through 5 years, 56% of participants in the deferred group did not receive laser. The median number of injections was 13 vs. 17 in the prompt and deferral groups, including 54% and 45% receiving no injections during year 4 and 62% and 52% receiving no injections during year 5, respectively. Conclusions Five-year results suggest focal/grid laser treatment at the initiation of intravitreal ranibizumab is no better than deferring laser treatment for ≥24 weeks in eyes with DME involving the central macula with vision impairment. While over half of eyes where laser treatment is deferred may avoid laser for at least 5 years, such eyes may require more injections to achieve these results when following this protocol. Most eyes treated with ranibizumab and either prompt or deferred laser maintain vision gains obtained by the first year through 5 years with little additional treatment after 3 years.

No abstract

PurposeWe quantified retinal and choriocapillaris microvascular changes in healthy control eyes and different stages of diabetic retinopathy (DR) using optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA).MethodsThis retrospective cross-sectional study included 137 eyes of 86 patients with different stages of DR and 44 eyes of 26 healthy age-matched controls. Participants were imaged with a commercial OCTA device (RTVue-XR Avanti). We analyzed the superficial (SCP) and deep (DCP) retinal capillary plexus, the full retina, and choriocapillaris for the following OCTA parameters: foveal avascular zone, vessel density, percent area of nonperfusion (PAN), and adjusted flow index (AFI). We adjusted for age, sex, and the correlation between eyes of the same study participant in our statistical models.ResultsAll OCTA parameters showed a significant linear correlation with DR severity (P < 0.05) in the univariate models except for AFI measured in the SCP and these correlations remained significant after correcting for covariates. Compared to the other capillary layers, the AFI at the DCP decreased significantly with DR severity. When comparing individual disease severity groups as categories, eyes of subjects with diabetes without DR had significantly increased PAN and AFI in the SCP compared to healthy subjects (P < 0.05).ConclusionsRetinal and choriocapillaris vascular nonperfusion in OCTA is correlated significantly with disease severity in eyes with DR. Higher flow in the SCP may be an early marker of diabetic microvascular changes before clinical signs of DR. The steep decline of blood flow in the DCP with increasing DR severity suggests that alterations at the DCP warrant further investigation.

; for the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network 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.

No abstract