Randomized clinical trial evaluating intravitreal ranibizumab or saline for vitreous hemorrhage from proliferative diabetic retinopathy.
ABSTRACT: 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.To evaluate intravitreal ranibizumab compared with intravitreal saline injections on vitrectomy rates for vitreous hemorrhage from PDR.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.Community-based and academic-based ophthalmology practices specializing in retinal diseases.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.Eyes were randomly assigned to 0.5-mg intravitreal ranibizumab (n = 125) or intravitreal saline (n = 136) at baseline and 4 and 8 weeks.Cumulative probability of vitrectomy within 16 weeks.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.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.The study is listed on www.clinicaltrials.gov, under identifier NCT00996437 (website registration date October 14, 2009).
SUBMITTER: Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network*
Project description:The standard care for proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) usually is panretinal photocoagulation, an inherently destructive treatment that can cause iatrogenic vision loss. Therefore, evaluating the effects of therapies for diabetic macular edema on development or worsening of PDR might lead to new therapies for PDR.To evaluate the effects of intravitreal ranibizumab or triamcinolone acetonide, administered to treat diabetic macular edema, on worsening of diabetic retinopathy.Exploratory analysis was performed on worsening of retinopathy, defined as 1 or more of the following: (1) worsening from no PDR to PDR, (2) worsening of 2 or more severity levels on reading center assessment of fundus photographs in eyes without PDR at baseline, (3) having panretinal photocoagulation, (4) experiencing vitreous hemorrhage, or (5) undergoing vitrectomy for the treatment of PDR.Community- and university-based ophthalmology practices.Individuals with central-involved diabetic macular edema causing visual acuity impairment.Eyes were assigned randomly to sham with prompt focal/grid laser, 0.5 mg of intravitreal ranibizumab with prompt or deferred (≥24 weeks) laser, or 4 mg of intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide with prompt laser.Three-year cumulative probabilities for retinopathy worsening.For eyes without PDR at baseline, the 3-year cumulative probabilities for retinopathy worsening (P value comparison with sham with prompt laser) were 23% using sham with prompt laser, 18% with ranibizumab with prompt laser (P = .25), 7% with ranibizumab with deferred laser (P = .001), and 37% with triamcinolone with prompt laser (P = .10). For eyes with PDR at baseline, the 3-year cumulative probabilities for retinopathy worsening were 40%, 21% (P = .05), 18% (P = .02), and 12% (P < .001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Intravitreal ranibizumab appears to be associated with a reduced risk of diabetic retinopathy worsening in eyes with or without PDR. Intravitreal triamcinolone also appears to be associated with a reduced risk of PDR worsening. These findings suggest that use of these drugs to prevent worsening of diabetic retinopathy may be feasible. Given the exploratory nature of these analyses, the risk of endophthalmitis following intravitreal injections, and the fact that intravitreal triamcinolone can cause cataract or glaucoma, use of these treatments to reduce the rates of worsening of retinopathy, with or without PDR, does not seem warranted at this time.
Project description:PURPOSE:To compare rates and identify predictive factors for events that represent worsening of proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) in eyes treated with panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) or ranibizumab. DESIGN:Randomized clinical trial (55 United States sites). PARTICIPANTS:Three hundred ninety-four study eyes from 305 adults with PDR, visual acuity (VA) 20/320 or better, and no history of PRP. INTERVENTION:Panretinal photocoagulation or intravitreous ranibizumab injections (0.5 mg/0.05 ml). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Time from randomization to a composite PDR-worsening outcome defined as the first occurrence of vitreous hemorrhage, retinal detachment, anterior segment neovascularization, or neovascular glaucoma. RESULTS:Through 2 years, the cumulative probability of worsening PDR was 42% (PRP) versus 34% (ranibizumab; hazard ratio [HR], 1.33; 99% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.98; P = 0.063). Worse baseline levels of diabetic retinopathy severity (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study scale) were associated with increased risk of worsening PDR, regardless of treatment group (64% [high-risk PDR or worse] vs. 23% [moderate PDR or better]; HR, 3.97; 99% CI, 2.48 to 6.36; P < 0.001). In the PRP group, eyes receiving pattern scan versus conventional single-spot PRP also were at higher risk for worsening PDR (60% vs. 39%; HR, 2.04; 99% CI, 1.02 to 4.08; P = 0.008), regardless of the number of spots placed or the number of sittings to complete the initial PRP. Eyes in both groups with vision-impairing (VA 20/32 or worse) center-involved diabetic macular edema (DME) at baseline were required to receive ranibizumab for center-involved DME. Therefore the composite outcome was compared by treatment in the subgroup of eyes that did not have vision-impairing center-involved DME at baseline. For these eyes, the rate of PDR-worsening was greater with PRP than ranibizumab (45% vs. 31%; HR, 1.62; 99% CI, 1.01 to 2.60; P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS:In eyes with PDR, ranibizumab resulted in less PDR worsening compared with PRP, especially in eyes not required to receive ranibizumab for center-involved DME. Although anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy requires a more frequent visit schedule than PRP, these findings provide additional evidence supporting the use of ranibizumab as an alternative therapy to PRP for PDR, at least through 2 years.
Project description:PURPOSE:To evaluate the outcomes of intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) use in patients with a vitreous hemorrhage (VH) secondary to proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). DESIGN:Retrospective, interventional case series. METHODS:Patients who presented to Scheie Eye Institute between January 2008 and January 2015 with a new VH secondary to PDR and treated with IVB were included. Exclusion criteria consisted of IVB treatment prior to the study, a history of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV), and less than 1 year of follow-up. Outcomes of interest were additional treatments including PPV, injections, and panretinal photocoagulation (PRP), as well as visual acuity at baseline and at 1 year. RESULTS:Of the 111 eligible eyes, 55 (49.5%) had PRP, 35 (31.6%) were managed with injections alone, and 21 (18.9%) had PPV after 1 year. The overall average number of injections during this time was 2 (range, 1-9), and 13 (11.7%) eyes were managed with a single injection alone. Of the 69 eyes with 2 years of follow-up, 43 (62.3%) had PRP, 16 (23.2%) were treated with injections alone, and 10 (14.5%) had PPV. CONCLUSIONS:This study underscores the potentially important role that IVB injections have in the management of patients with VH secondary to PDR. The results indicate that a proportion of patients may be treated with a minimal amount of intervention requiring 1 or 2 anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections only. Also, the rate of PPV at 2 years (27.9%, n = 31) suggests that most patients may be managed nonsurgically.
Project description:To compare efficacy and safety of intravitreal aflibercept (IVA) injection with panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) versus early vitrectomy for diabetic vitreous hemorrhage (VH). Prospective, randomized study that included 34 eyes with diabetic VH. They were divided into two groups, Group ? (17 eyes) received three successive IVA injections followed by PRP and group ?? (17 eyes) for whom early vitrectomy was done. Follow up was carried out after one, two, three, six and nine months. The primary outcome measure was change in the mean best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) after nine months, secondary outcome measures were mean duration of clearance of VH and rate of recurrent hemorrhage with any additional treatment in both groups. Complications were reported. There was no statistically significant difference regarding initial demographic criteria between both groups. The mean final log MAR BCVA was statistically better than the initial BCVA in both groups (0.51?±?0.20, 1.17?±?0.48 for group I and 0.48?±?0.18, 1.44?±?0.44 for group II, P <?0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between both groups regarding the mean final Log Mar BCVA (0.51?±?0.20 for group I, 0.48?±?0.18 for group II, p ??0.05), the mean duration of clearance of VH was 7.8?±?1.8?weeks, 5?days for group I and II respectively. PRP was completely done for all eyes in group I after three months. The difference in the recurrence rate between group I (29.4%) and group II (11.8%) was statistically significant (p <?0.05). Vitrectomy was done for three eyes (17.6%) due to recurrent non-resolving VH in group I. late recurrent VH occurred in two eyes (11.8%) in group II, IVA was given with complete clearance of the hemorrhage. No vision threatening complications were reported in both groups. Both intravitreal injection of aflibercept followed by PRP and early vitrectomy are effective and safe modalities for treatment of diabetic vitreous hemorrhage. Early vitrectomy leads to faster vision gain with less incidence of recurrence than intravitreal injection. Randomized clinical trial under the number of NCT04153253 on November 6, 2019 "Retrospectively registered".
Project description:Diabetes is a major cause of visual impairment among working-age adults in the United States. The proliferative form of diabetic retinopathy is associated with severe vision loss (acuity <5/200). The standard treatment in proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) is panretinal photocoagulation (PRP), which is effective but has established side effects such as peripheral visual-field constraints. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is thought to drive the process of vascular proliferation. Drugs targeting VEGF (anti-VEGF) have been studied extensively in diabetic macular edema (DME), and results have shown that diabetic retinopathy regresses with anti-VEGF treatment. Recent studies show that anti-VEGF is not inferior to PRP for PDR while treatment is maintained, though recurrence rate when anti-VEGF treatment is stopped is unclear. In vitreous hemorrhage where PRP cannot be performed, use of anti-VEGF medications can treat underlying PDR and delay or reduce need for vitrectomy. Limitations of anti-VEGF treatment, however, require careful patient selection and monitoring. This review discusses recent clinical trials and guidelines for anti-VEGF use in PDR.
Project description:To investigate the prognostic significance of macular capillary drop-out and previous panretinal laser photocoagulation in diabetic macular oedema treated with intravitreal ranibizumab.Retrospective observational case series. Treatment-naive patients with diabetic macular oedema that had been treated with intravitreal ranibizumab as per the RESTORE study protocol for at least 12?months were included. Some patients (n=15) had previous panretinal laser photocoagulation. Best-corrected visual acuity and central retina thickness were recorded monthly. The foveal avascular zone and the perifoveal capillaries were quantitatively and qualitatively assessed on fluorescein angiography on two occasions during the observational period.From the 46 eyes (46 patients) in this study, 13 (28%) had evidence of perifoveal capillary drop-out. Central retinal thickness was significantly thinner at baseline (p=0.02) and throughout the study period in these eyes compared with those with normal perifoveal capillaries. Both groups responded with a significant gain of best-corrected visual acuity to ranibizumab treatment (7.6±3.3 and 6.3±1.3 ETDRS letters, respectively). Eyes with previous panretinal laser photocoagulation displayed a comparable final outcome regarding function and morphology, requiring a similar intensity of intravitreal injections.Perifoveal capillary drop-out did not limit the gain of visual acuity from intravitreal ranibizumab treatment. The reduction of central retina thickness was similar to that seen in eyes with normal perifoveal capillaries. Central retinal thickness in eyes with perifoveal capillary drop-out was generally reduced. However, this did not affect their benefit from treatment. Ranibizumab did not increase the amount of perifoveal capillary loss.
Project description:To compare the effect and safety of intravitreal conbercept (IVC), intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR), or intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA) injection on 23-gauge (23-G) pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR).Fifty patients (60 eyes) of varying degrees of PDR were randomly grouped into 3 groups (1?:?1?:?1) (n = 20 in each group). The 23-G PPV was performed with intravitreal conbercept or ranibizumab injection 3-7?days before surgery or intravitreal TA injection during surgery. The experiment was randomized controlled, with a noninferiority limit of five letters. Main outcome measures included BCVA, operation time, incidence of iatrogenic retinal breaks, endodiathermy rate, and silicone oil tamponade.At 6 months after surgery, there were no significant differences of BCVA improvements, operation time, incidence of iatrogenic retinal breaks, endodiathermy rate, silicone oil tamponade, vitreous clear-up time, and the incidence of intraoperative bleeding between the IVC and IVR groups (all P values ? 0.05), but they were significantly different from the IVTA group (all P values < 0.05). IOP increases did not show significant differences between the IVC and IVR groups, but both were significantly different with the IVTA group. More patients had higher postoperative IOP in the IVTA group.The intravitreal injection of conbercept, ranibizumab, or TA for PDR had a significant different effect on outcomes of 23-G PPV surgery. Conbercept and ranibizumab can reduce difficulty of the operation, improve the success rate of PPV surgery, and decrease the incidence of postoperative complications.
Project description:To evaluate 14-week effects of intravitreal ranibizumab or triamcinolone in eyes receiving focal/grid laser for diabetic macular edema and panretinal photocoagulation.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.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.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.
Project description:Purpose. To determine the efficacy of intravitreal ranibizumab injection as adjuvant therapy in the treatment of neovascular glaucoma (NVG) accompanied by postvitrectomy diabetic vitreous hemorrhage (PDVH). Methods. Eighteen NVG patients (18 eyes) accompanied by PDVH were enrolled in this prospective, monocenter, 12-month, interventional case series. The consecutive 18 patients with an IOP ? 25?mmHg despite being treated with the maximum medical therapy were treated with intravitreal ranibizumab injections. Vitreous surgery or/with Ahmed valve implantation were indicated if no clinical improvement in vitreous haemorrhage and uncontrolled IOP was shown. Results. Ten patients got clear vitreous and controlled IOP only with 2.7 ± 1.8 injections of ranibizumab without additional surgery. Vitrectomy or/with Ahmed valve implantation was administered in the other 8 eyes due to uncontrolled VH and IOP. At follow-up month 12, all the 18 eyes gained clear vitreous. At month 12 BCVA improved significantly compared to baseline. The baseline and follow-up at month 12 IOP/medication usage were 36.7 ± 8.1?mmHg on 3.4 ± 0.7 medications and 16.2 ± 4.9?mmHg on 0.67 ± 0.77 medications, respectively. Conclusions. The findings suggest that intravitreal ranibizumab injection as adjuvant therapy for treatment of NVG accompanied by PDVH may be safe and potentially effective. This clinical trial is registered with NCT02647515.
Project description:PURPOSE:To demonstrate superiority of intravitreal ranibizumab 0.5 mg compared to focal and peripheral laser treatment in patients with radiation retinopathy for choroidal melanoma. METHODS:Inclusion criteria were as follows: patients with radiation retinopathy and visual acuity impairment due to radiation maculopathy accessible for laser therapy, age???18 years, and BCVA less than 20/32. The main objective was to study the change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) over 6 months from ranibizumab 0.5 mg (experimental) compared to focal laser of the macula and panretinal laser treatment of the ischemic retina (control) in patients with radiation retinopathy in choroidal melanoma. The secondary objectives of the radiation retinopathy study were to compare functional and anatomical results between ranibizumab and laser group over 12 months and to measure the frequency of vitreous hemorrhage and rubeosis iridis. RESULTS:The intention-to-treat analysis included 31 patients assigned to ranibizumab (n?=?15) or laser treatment (n?=?16). In terms of BCVA at month 6, ranibizumab was superior to laser treatment, with an advantage of 0.14 logMAR, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.25, p?=?0.030. The positive effect of ranibizumab disappeared after treatment was discontinued. Similar results without statistically significant difference were found with respect to macular thickness. In both groups, no change was observed at month 6 in the size of ischemia in the macula or periphery compared to baseline. There was 1 case of vitreous hemorrhage in the laser group and no case of rubeosis iridis over time. CONCLUSIONS:This study showed a statistically significant improvement in visual acuity and clear superiority of ranibizumab compared to laser treatment up to 26 weeks, but this effect disappeared at week 52 after completion of intravitreal treatment. Ranibizumab and PRP are considered equivalent in terms of the non-appearance of proliferative radiation retinopathy during the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION:EudraCT Number: 2011-004463-69.