Journal-based CME Course: Effect of Intravitreous Anti–Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor vs Sham Treatment for Prevention of Vision-Threatening Complications of Diabetic Retinopathy

Activity ID

8122

Expires

July 21, 2024

Format Type

Journal-based

CME Credit

1

Fee

$30

CME Provider: JAMA Ophthalmology

Description of CME Course

Importance  The role of anti–vascular endothelial growth factor injections for the management of nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) without center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME) has not been clearly established.

Objective  To determine the efficacy of intravitreous aflibercept injections compared with sham treatment in preventing potentially vision-threatening complications in eyes with moderate to severe NPDR.

Design, Setting, and Participants  Data for this study were collected between January 15, 2016, and May 28, 2020, from the ongoing DRCR Retina Network Protocol W randomized clinical trial, conducted at 64 US and Canadian sites among 328 adults (399 eyes) with moderate to severe NPDR (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study severity level, 43-53), without CI-DME. Analyses followed the intent-to-treat principle.

Interventions  Eyes were randomly assigned to 2.0 mg of aflibercept injections (n = 200) or sham (n = 199) given at baseline; 1, 2, and 4 months; and every 4 months through 2 years. Between 2 and 4 years, treatment was deferred if the eye had mild NPDR or better. Aflibercept was administered in both groups if CI-DME with vision loss (≥10 letters at 1 visit or 5-9 letters at 2 consecutive visits) or high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) developed.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Development of CI-DME with vision loss or PDR through May 2020, when the last 2-year visit was completed.

Results  Among the 328 participants (57.6% men [230 of 399 eyes]; mean [SD] age, 56 [11] years), the 2-year cumulative probability of developing CI-DME with vision loss or PDR was 16.3% with aflibercept vs 43.5% with sham. The overall hazard ratio for either outcome was 0.32 (97.5% CI, 0.21-0.50; P < .001), favoring aflibercept. The 2-year cumulative probability of developing PDR was 13.5% in the aflibercept group vs 33.2% in the sham group, and the 2-year cumulative probability of developing CI-DME with vision loss was 4.1% in the aflibercept group vs 14.8% in the sham group. The mean (SD) change in visual acuity from baseline to 2 years was −0.9 (5.8) letters with aflibercept and −2.0 (6.1) letters with sham (adjusted mean difference, 0.5 letters [97.5% CI, −1.0 to 1.9 letters]; P = .47).

Conclusions and Relevance  In this randomized clinical trial, among eyes with moderate to severe NPDR, the proportion of eyes that developed PDR or vision-reducing CI-DME was lower with periodic aflibercept compared with sham treatment. However, through 2 years, preventive treatment did not confer visual acuity benefit compared with observation plus treatment with aflibercept only after development of PDR or vision-reducing CI-DME. The 4-year results will be important to assess longer-term visual acuity outcomes.

Trial Registration  ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02634333

Disclaimers

1. This activity is accredited by the American Medical Association.
2. This activity is free to AMA members.

Register for this Activity