Changes in activity impairment and work productivity after treatment for vitreous hemorrhage due to proliferative diabetic retinopathy: Secondary outcomes from a randomized controlled trial (DRCR Retina Network Protocol AB).

BackgroundVitreous hemorrhage from proliferative diabetic retinopathy can cause severe vision loss. DRCR Retina Network Protocol AB was a randomized clinical trial comparing intravitreal aflibercept versus vitrectomy with panretinal photocoagulation and found no difference in the average rate of visual recovery over 104 weeks. Herein, we describe patient-reported outcome measures from Protocol AB.MethodsSecondary analysis of a multicenter (39 sites) randomized clinical trial. The Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire was administered at 4, 12, 24, 36, 52, 68, 84, and 104 weeks. Main outcomes were mean change in activity impairment and work productivity loss over 24 and 104 weeks (area under the curve).ResultsMean (SD) activity impairment at baseline was 58% (27%) in the aflibercept group (N = 99) and 56% (30%) in the vitrectomy group (N = 105). The mean reduction in activity impairment from baseline over 24 weeks was 21% (25%) in the aflibercept group and 27% (31%) in the vitrectomy group (adjusted difference = -6.8% [95% CI, -12.7% to -0.9%], P = .02); over 104 weeks, the adjusted mean difference was -3.1% (95% CI, -9.2% to 3.0%, P = .31). Mean work productivity loss at baseline was 51% (28%) in the aflibercept group (N = 44) and 58% (30%) in the vitrectomy group (N = 43). The mean reduction in work productivity loss from baseline over 24 weeks (area under the curve) was 19% (23%) in the aflibercept group and 31% (24%) in the vitrectomy group (adjusted difference = -8.3% [95% CI, -16.8% to 0.2%], P = .06); over 104 weeks, the adjusted mean difference was -9.1% (95% CI, -18.4% to 0.2%, P = .05).ConclusionsParticipants with vitreous hemorrhage from proliferative diabetic retinopathy had less activity impairment over 24 weeks when treated initially with vitrectomy and panretinal photocoagulation versus intravitreal aflibercept. The trend was similar for work productivity but not statistically significant. By 104 weeks, the improvements were similar in the two treatment groups.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02858076

Assessing the Effect of Personalized Diabetes Risk Assessments During Ophthalmologic Visits on Glycemic Control

Importance: Optimization of glycemic control is critical to reduce diabetes related complications, but long-term success is challenging. Although vision loss is among the greatest fears of individuals with diabetes, comprehensive personalized diabetes education and risk assessments are not consistently employed in ophthalmology settings. Objective: To determine whether point-of-care measurement of HbA1c and personalized diabetes complication risk assessments performed during retinal ophthalmology visits improve glycemic control as assessed by HA1c. Design/Setting: Ophthalmologist office based clinical trial where investigators from 42 sites were randomly assigned to provide either study-prescribed augmented diabetes assessment and education, or usual care. Participants: Adults with type 1 or 2 diabetes enrolled into two cohorts: “more frequent” than annual follow-up (502 control and 488 intervention participants) and “annual” follow-up (368 and 388 participants). Intervention(s): Point-of-care measurement of HbA1c, blood pressure, and retinopathy severity; individualized estimate of retinopathy progression risk derived from the visit findings; structured comparison and review of past and current clinical findings; and structured education with immediate assessment and feedback regarding participant understanding. Intervention was performed at enrollment and routine ophthalmic follow-up visits scheduled at least 12 weeks apart. Main Outcome Measure(s): Mean change in HbA1c from baseline to 1 year. Secondary outcomes included body mass index, blood pressure, and diabetes self-management practices and attitudes surveys. Results: In the “more frequent” cohort, mean (SD) change in HbA1c at 1 year was −0.1% (1.5%) in the control group and −0.3% (1.4%) in the intervention group (adjusted mean difference −0.09%, 95% confidence interval −0.29% to +0.12%, P=0.35). In the “annual” cohort, mean (SD) change in HBA1c was 0.0% (1.1%) and −0.1% (1.6%), respectively (mean difference −0.05%, 95% confidence interval −0.27% to +0.18% P=0.63). Results were similar for all secondary outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Long-term optimization of glycemic control is not achieved by a majority of individuals with diabetes. Addition of personalized education and risk assessment during retinal ophthalmology visits, as provided in this study, did not result in HbA1c improvement compared with usual care over 1 year. These data suggest that optimizing glycemic control remains a substantive challenge requiring interventional paradigms other than those examined in this study

Effect of Intravitreous Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor vs Sham Treatment for Prevention of Vision-Threatening Complications of Diabetic Retinopathy: The Protocol W Randomized Clinical Trial

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

Lutein/zeaxanthin for the treatment of age-related cataract: AREDS2 randomized trial report no. 4

Age-related cataract is a leading cause of visual impairment in the United States. The prevalence of age-related cataract is increasing, with an estimated 30.1 million Americans likely to be affected by 2020. To determine whether daily oral supplementation with lutein/zeaxanthin affects the risk for cataract surgery. The Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 (AREDS2), a multicenter, double-masked clinical trial, enrolled 4203 participants, aged 50 to 85 years, at risk for progression to advanced age-related macular degeneration. Participants were randomly assigned to daily placebo; lutein/zeaxanthin, 10mg/2mg; omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids, 1 g; or a combination to evaluate the effects on the primary outcome of progression to advanced age-related macular degeneration. Cataract surgery was documented at annual study examination with the presence of pseudophakia or aphakia, or reported during telephone calls at 6-month intervals between study visits. Annual best-corrected visual acuity testing was performed. A secondary outcome of AREDS2 was to evaluate the effects of lutein/zeaxanthin on the subsequent need for cataract surgery. A total of 3159 AREDS2 participants were phakic in at least 1 eye and 1389 of 6027 study eyes underwent cataract surgery during the study, with median follow-up of 4.7 years. The 5-year probability of progression to cataract surgery in the no lutein/zeaxanthin group was 24%. For lutein/zeaxanthin vs no lutein/zeaxanthin, the hazard ratios for progression to cataract surgery was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.84-1.10; P = .54). For participants in the lowest quintile of dietary intake of lutein/zeaxanthin, the hazard ratio comparing lutein/zeaxanthin vs no lutein/zeaxanthin for progression to cataract surgery was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.48-0.96; P = .03). The hazard ratio for 3 or more lines of vision loss was 1.03 (95% CI, 0.93-1.13; P = .61 for lutein/zeaxanthin vs no lutein/zeaxanthin). Daily supplementation with lutein/zeaxanthin had no statistically significant overall effect on rates of cataract surgery or vision loss. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00345176