1 / 85

The Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network

The Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network. A Randomized Trial Comparing Intravitreal Triamcinolone Acetonide to Focal/Grid Photocoagulation for Diabetic Macular Edema Sponsored by the National Eye Institute,

wesleyn
Download Presentation

The Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network A Randomized Trial Comparing Intravitreal Triamcinolone Acetonide to Focal/Grid Photocoagulation for Diabetic Macular Edema Sponsored by the National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

  2. Background

  3. Background – Diabetic Macular Edema • Common cause of vision loss • Focal/grid laser reduces chance of moderate vision loss • Search for better treatments includes intravitreal injection of triamcinolone (IVT)

  4. IntravitrealTriamcinolone (IVT) for DME • 2001-2002: potential benefit first reported1,2 • 2002: 52% of retina specialists had used IVT for DME3 • Short term improvement in visual acuity • Rapid decrease in retinal thickening on OCT 1- Jonas JB, et al. Am J Ophthalmol 2001;132:425-7 2- Martidis A, et al. Ophthalmology 2002;109:920-7 3- American Society of Retina Specialists Preferences and Trends Survey 2002

  5. Rationale for a Randomized Study • Short term data suggests benefit • Known side-effects • Risk of non-infectious endophthalmitis • Post-injection ocular inflammation reported with off-label intravitreal Kenalog (Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ) • No long term safety or efficacy data • No randomized comparison with standard care (focal/grid photocoagulation)

  6. Primary Study Objective • To compare the efficacy and safety of preservative-free IVT (1 mg or 4 mg) with focal/grid laser

  7. Study Design Multicenter, randomized clinical trial • Major Eligibility Criteria Assessed: • >18 years old • Type 1 or type 2 diabetes • Center-involved DME (with OCT CSF >250 µm) • VA letter score 73 to 24 (20/40 to 20/320) Eligible eyes randomized Subjects with 2 study eyes assigned alternative treatment in 2nd eye Focal/Grid Laser 4 mg IVT 1 mg IVT

  8. Follow-up and Treatment Schedule Randomized treatment at Month 0 Focal/Grid Laser 4 mg IVT 1 mg IVT • Re-treatment (within 4 wks) unlessany of the following: • Treatment successful • Substantial improvement in macular edema • Adverse eventsor maximal treatment • Further treatment appears futile Month 4 . . . Re-treatment assessed and protocol enforced at every 4-month interval visit Follow-up visits every 4 months* . . . Month 36 * Additional safety visits 4 days and 4 weeks after injections

  9. Efficacy Outcomes • Primary outcome assessment at 2 years • Primary measure: visual acuity (VA) • Scientific objective: mean change in VA • Regulatory objective for FDA: proportion with decrease in VA letter score >15 • Secondary measure: Retinal thickness on OCT

  10. Safety Outcomes • Injection-related events • Infectious or inflammatory endophthalmitis • Retinal detachment • Steroid-related toxicities • Cataract • IOP related effects

  11. Focal/Grid Photocoagulation Treatment Modified-ETDRS technique: *Cover areas of retinal thickening not judged to be due to microaneurysms 2 burn widths apart. If a fluorescein angiogram is obtained, cover areas of retinal thickening 2 burn widths apart within areas on angiography of diffuse leakage from retinal telangiectasis and consider covering areas of non-perfusion.

  12. IVT Treatment • Aseptic technique • Antibiotics on day of procedure (not required on days prior to injection) • 5% povidone iodine • Lid speculum • Injection of 0.05 cc volume with 27 or 30 gauge needle

  13. 2 and 3 Year Results

  14. Study Enrollment and Completion • 840 eyes (693 subjects) enrolled at 88 clinical sites • Treatment Groups • Laser: N = 330 • 1 mg: N = 256 • 4 mg: N = 254 • 2-year visit completion rate • 83% including deaths • 88% excluding deaths

  15. Completion of 3 Year Visit • Trial was discontinued following completion of all 2 year visits • Excluding deaths, 44% had potential* to complete, and of those 82% completed • 7% deaths • 48% non-completer w/out potential* • 9% non-completer w/potential* • 36% completed • Similar rates among treatment groups *Subjects enrolled <34 months (open window for 3 year visit) from the closeout date of the trial did not have potential to complete. 15

  16. Baseline Characteristics • Mean age: 63 years • Diabetes type: 5% type 1, 95% type 2 • Visual acuity (Snellen equivalent) • 20/40 to 20/63: 58% • Worse than 20/63 to better than 20/200: 38% • 20/200 to 20/320: 5% • OCT central subfield thickness • Mean: 424 microns • Range: 133 to 1164 microns

  17. Baseline Characteristics • Pseudophakic: 21% • Prior macular laser: 61% • Retinopathy severity: • Microaneurysms only: <1% • Mild to moderately severe non-proliferative: 61% • Severe non-proliferative: 12% • Non-high risk proliferative: 24% • High risk proliferative: 3%

  18. Treatment Prior to 2 Years * Includes only subjects with a 2 year visit † e.g., IVT in laser group, or laser in IVT groups

  19. Non-Randomized Treatments for DME Prior to 2 Years * Alternative = IVT in laser group, or focal/grid laser in IVT groups

  20. Number of Retreatmentsin 3rd Year* * Among completers of the 3 year visit 20

  21. Non-Randomized Treatments for DME During 3 Years* * Among completers of the 3 year visit †laser in IVT groups, IVT in laser group ‡ primarily vitrectomy, Kenalog, bevacizumab 21

  22. Primary Outcome:Mean Change in Visual Acuity at 2 Years * Adjusted for baseline VA and prior focal/grid laser

  23. Change in VA from Baseline to 3 Years* 23 * Among completers of the 3 year visit

  24. Median Visual Acuity in Laser Treated Eyes 20/32 20/40 Visual Acuity 20/50 Score 20/63 20/80 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Months 24

  25. Median Visual Acuity in Laser and 4 mg IVT Treated Eyes 20/32 20/40 Visual Acuity 20/50 Score 20/63 20/80 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Months 25

  26. Median Visual Acuity in Laser and IVT Treated Eyes 20/32 20/40 Visual # + * # * # Acuity 20/50 # Score 20/63 20/80 P < 0.005 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 * Laser vs. 1mg # Laser vs. 4mg + 1mg vs. 4mg Months 26

  27. Mean Visual Acuity Over 3 Years in All Eyes 20/32 20/40 Visual Acuity 20/50 Score 20/63 20/80 20 36 8 24 28 0 16 12 32 4 Months 27

  28. Mean Visual Acuity Limited to Completers of 3 Year Follow Up 20/32 20/40 Visual Acuity 20/50 Score 20/63 20/80 20 36 8 24 28 0 16 12 32 4 Months 28

  29. Mean Visual Acuity In All Eyes and in Completers 20/32 20/40 Visual Acuity 20/50 Score 20/63 20/80 20 36 8 24 28 0 16 12 32 4 Months 29

  30. 34% % Increased >10 Letters in Laser and 4mg Treated Eyes Months 30

  31. % Increased >10 Letters in Laser and IVT Treated Eyes Months 31

  32. % Decreased >10 Letters in Laser and 4mg Treated Eyes 19% Months

  33. % Decreased >10 Letters in Laser and IVT Treated Eyes Months

  34. Change in VA from 2 Years to 3 Years* * Among completers of both the 2 year and 3 year visit 34

  35. Change in VA from 2 Years to 3 Years* * Among completers of both the 2 year and 3 year visit 35

  36. % Increased >10 Letters at 2 YearsStratified by Baseline VA 13 13 129 12 92 94 N=189 149 149

  37. % Decreased >10 Letters at 2 Years Stratified by Baseline VA 149 149 N=189 92 94 12 13 129 13

  38. % Increased >10 Letters at 2 YearsStratified by Baseline CSF N=166 80 60 63 83 121 130 66 67

  39. % Decreased >10 Letters at 2 Years Stratified by Baseline CSF 66 60 130 67 N=166 80 83 63 121

  40. % Increased >10 Letters at 2 Years Stratified by Prior Laser N=132 158 198 102 96 154

  41. % Decreased >10 Letters at 2 Years Stratified by Prior Laser 96 N=132 102 154 158 198

  42. Visual Acuity at 2 YearsAccording to Lens Status Includes only subjects with a 2 year visit

  43. OCT Central Subfield (CSF) Thickening at 2 Years

  44. Change in CSFfrom Baseline to 3 Years* * Among completers of the 3 year visit 44

  45. Median Central Subfield Thickness in Laser Treated Eyes Central Subfield Thickness (microns) Months

  46. Median Central Subfield Thickness in Laser and 4mg Treated Eyes Central Subfield Thickness (microns) Months

  47. Median Central Subfield Thickness in Laser and IVT Treated Eyes Central Subfield Thickness (microns) Months

  48. % CSF <250 microns inLaser and 4mg Treated Eyes Months

  49. % CSF <250 microns inLaser and IVT Treated Eyes Months

  50. Change in CSFfrom 2 Years to 3 Years* * Among completers of both the 2 year and 3 year visit 50

More Related