1 / 46

Comparison of PRP and Ranibizumab for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy

This study compares the efficacy and safety of Panretinal Photocoagulation (PRP) with intravitreous ranibizumab in treating proliferative diabetic retinopathy over 5 years. Results show notable visual acuity and visual field outcomes with decreased need for vitrectomies and development of central-involved DME.

lcrocker
Download Presentation

Comparison of PRP and Ranibizumab for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy

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. Protocol S DRCR.net Prompt PRP vs. Ranibizumab + Deferred PRP for PDR Study

  2. Background • DRCR.net Protocol S (PRP vs. Ranibizumab for PDR) • Primary outcome: mean change in VA from baseline to 2-years with ranibizumab no worse than (non-inferior to) PRP • Secondary outcomes: • Ranibizumab: • superior mean VA over course of 2 years (AUC) • superior mean visual field outcomes at 2 years (although not necessarily perceived by study participant per NEI VFQ-25 questionnaire) • 3-fold decrease in occurrence of vitrectomies • decreased development of central-involved DME with vision impairment over 2 years among eyes without this at baseline • PRP rarely given for failure or futility of ranibizumab to control PDR • more visits and injections • only cost effective (within range frequently cited as cost-effective in the United States) when DME present and causing vision impairment

  3. Study Design Randomized, multi-center clinical trial (55 Sites) • Participants meeting all of the following criteria: • Age ≥18 years with Type 1 or type 2 diabetes • Study eye(s) meeting all of the following criteria (a participant can have 2 study eyes): • PDR • No history of PRP • Best corrected visual acuity letter score ≥24 • (~Snellen equivalent 20/320 or better) • Eyes with or without central-involved DME were eligible Primary Objective: Compare the efficacy and safety of PRP with that of intravitreous ranibizumab (0.5-mg in 0.05 mL) for proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR)

  4. Follow-up Schedule • PRP group: Visits every 16 weeks* • Ranibizumab group: Visits every 4 weeks to assess for PDR treatment • Both groups simultaneously evaluated for DME treatment Baseline to 1 Year • PRP group: Visits every 16 weeks* • Ranibizumab group: Visits every 4wk to 16wk to assess for PDR treatment • Interval is extended if injections for PDR and DME deferred (“Defer and Extend”) 1 Year to 5 Years *Eyes with DME could be seen more frequently for DME treatment as needed.

  5. Visit Completion 394 Eyes Randomized (305 Participants) Ranibizumab Group N = 191 PRP Group N = 203 Baseline 2-Years Excluding Deaths 88% 86% 5-Years Excluding Deaths 69% 65% 5-Years Overall 61% 61%

  6. Ocular Baseline Characteristics at Enrollment Required ranibizumab at baseline *Stratus equivalent; 2 eyes in each group were excluded because OCT CST measurements were missing. **Eyes with visual acuity letter score ≤ 78 (20/32 or worse) AND OCT CST ≥ machine and gender specific thresholds

  7. Ocular Baseline Characteristics at Enrollment *Diabetic retinopathy level data were missing for 2 in the ranibizumab group and 4 in the PRP group.

  8. Ocular Baseline Characteristicsby 5-Year Completion Status *Stratus equivalent; 1 eye in each group was excluded because OCT CST measurements were missing.

  9. Ocular Baseline Characteristicsby 5-Year Completion Status * Diabetic retinopathy level data were missing for 2 non-completers in the Ranibizumab group, and 4 completers in the PRP group.

  10. Results

  11. Treatment

  12. Mean Number of Injections 5-Year Completers Only

  13. Number of Intravitreous Injections by Year Ranibizumab Group, 5-Year Completers Only

  14. Panretinal Photocoagulation at Follow-up

  15. Visual Acuity

  16. Visual Acuity at 5-Years

  17. Mean Changes in VA From Baseline Over Time -OverallCohort 5-Year Adjusted Mean Difference: +0.6 letters 95% Confidence Interval: (-2.3, +3.5), P = .68 +3.1 +3.0 N = 191 N = 117 N = 203 N = 123

  18. Mean Changes in VA From Baseline Over Time for 5-Year Completers Only 5-Year AUC Difference: +1.6 letters 95% Confidence Interval: (0, 3.2), P = .05 +3.3 +1.5 N = 117 of 191 N = 123 of 203 Outlying values were truncated to 3 SD from the mean

  19. Change in VA Letter Score at 5-Years

  20. VA at 5-Years Stratified by Baseline DME with Decreased VA

  21. Mean Change in Cumulative Visual Field Total Point Score (30-2 + 60-4) - Overall Cohort -330 -527 5-Year Adjusted Mean Difference: 208 dB 95% Confidence Interval(-9, 408), P = .04 N = 81 N = 41 N = 86 N = 38 Outlying values were truncated to 3 SD from the mean

  22. Median Change in Cumulative Visual Field Total Point Score (30-2 + 60-4) - Overall Cohort -244 -480 N = 81 N = 41 N = 86 N = 38 Outlying values were truncated to 3 SD from the mean

  23. Mean Change in Cumulative Visual Field Point Score (30-2) - Overall Cohort -157 -190 5-Year Adjusted Mean Difference: 29 dB 95% Confidence Interval(-91, 148), P = .64 N = 84 N = 44 N = 88 N = 41 Outlying values were truncated to 3 SD from the mean

  24. Mean Change in Cumulative Visual Field Point Score (60-4) - Overall Cohort -199 -348 5-Year Adjusted Mean Difference: 140 dB 95% Confidence Interval(16, 265), P = .03 N = 82 N = 43 N = 87 N = 41 Outlying values were truncated to 3 SD from the mean

  25. Mean Change in Cumulative Visual Field Point Score for 5-Year Completers in Ranibizumab Group without PRP Treatment -96 -119 Outlying values were truncated to 3 SD from the mean

  26. Median Change in Cumulative Visual Field Point Score for 5-Year Completers in Ranibizumab Group without PRP Treatment -87 -87 Outlying values were truncated to 3 SD from the mean

  27. Development of Vision- Impairing DME:Central Subfield Thickening with Visual Acuity ~20/32 or Worse

  28. Development of Vision-Impairing DME Among Eyes Without Vision-Impairing DME at Baseline Hazard Ratio = 0.4 95% CI: 0.3 to 0.7 P < .001 38% 22%

  29. Diabetic Retinopathy

  30. DR on Fundus Photographs at 5 Years* *Observed data only, only include eyes with active NV at baseline as graded by reading center. **Not applicable or cannot determine for PRP group.

  31. DR Adverse Events: Over 5 Years

  32. Development of Retinal Detachment Hazard Ratio = 0.4 95% CI: 0.2 to 0.8 P = .004 18% 7%

  33. Development of First Vitreous Hemorrhage after Baseline Difference = 4% 95% CI: -7% to 16% P = .47 58% 54%

  34. Safety

  35. Ocular Adverse Events Event defined as occurring at least once through 5 years.

  36. Systemic Adverse Events Event defined as occurring at least once through 5 years. *Anti-platelet Trialists’ Collaboration Arterial Thromboembolic Events.

  37. Time to First APTC Event* *Anti-platelet Trialists’ Collaboration Arterial Thromboembolic Events.

  38. Systemic Adverse Events Event defined as occurring at least once through 5 years.

  39. Summary: 5-Year ResultsVisits, Injections, PRP Sessions • 66% of participants (excluding death) completing 5-year visit (117 eyes in ranibizumab and 123 eyes in PRP group) • Median number of visits* • Ranibizumab = 43 • PRP = 21 • Mean number of injections • Ranibizumab = 19 • PRP = 5 • Mean number of PRP sessions • Ranibizumab = 0 • PRP = 2 * Counting participants with one study eye only

  40. Summary: 5-Year ResultsCentral and Peripheral Vision • Mean change in VA letter score • Ranibizumab = 3.1±14.3 letters • PRP = 3.0±10.5 letters • Difference = 0.6 (95% CI: -2.3 to 3.5) • Mean change in cumulative visual field total point score (HFA 30-2 + 60-4) • Ranibizumab = -330±645 dB (N = 41) • PRP = -527±635 dB (N = 38) • Difference = 208 (95% CI: 9 to 408)

  41. Summary: 5-Year ResultsComplications • Development of Vision-Impairing DME (~Snellen equivalent 20/32 or worse) • Ranibizumab = 22% • PRP = 38% • Hazard Ratio = 0.4 (95% CI: 0.3 to 0.7) • Underwent Vitrectomy • Ranibizumab = 15% • PRP = 22% • Hazard Ratio = 0.5 (95% CI: 0.3 to 0.8) • No statistically significant differences between groups in major SAE rates were identified.

  42. Discussion • VA in both treatment groups was good (mean ~20/25) and patient reported vision-related quality of life scores were similar between the groups over 5 years, even though more eyes in the PRP group developed vision-impairing DME. • Overall, for participants completing the 5-year visit, few eyes in either group developed neovascular glaucoma or iris neovascularization and the rates were similar between groups. • The overall rate of retinal detachment in the PRP group was higher (15% vs 6%). • Most of these did not progress to involve the center of the macula and did not undergo vitrectomy, suggesting the detachments were not vision-threatening.

  43. Discussion • Few eyes in either group (6%) had substantial visual loss(≥15 letters from baseline). • On average the PRP group on average had more peripheral visual field loss through 2 years than ranibizumab group; however, visual field loss, on average, progressed in both the PRP and ranibizumab groups from years 2 through 5 and the difference between groups diminished in this small sub-study. • Further analysis of this finding seems warranted. • Almost half of all eyes developed vitreous hemorrhage with 22% vs 41% needing vitrectomy in the ranibizumab and PRP groups respectively. • The decision to perform vitrectomy was made by an unmasked investigator.

  44. Discussion • Despite the reduction in the mean number of injections for participants in the ranibizumab group, mean VA change from baseline remained fairly constant between 2 and 5 years. • While there have been inconsistent reports of increased APTC events for patients receiving anti-VEGF, this full 5-year dataset does not show any definitive differences. • No ocular safety concerns were identified.

  45. Discussion • Major Study Limitations • Retention for this study was less than 65% for each group. • No differences were identified between baseline factors and treatment groups for the completers vs non-completers. • Eyes in the ranibizumab group that did not complete follow-up had more improvement in VA and OCT CST at their last measured follow-up visit. • The outcomes for participants who did not complete the study are unknown.

  46. Conclusion • Loss to follow-up was relatively high. • Visual acuity in most study eyes that completed follow-up was very good. • Severe vision loss or serious PDR complications were uncommon in either group. • Ranibizumab group had lower rates of developing vision-impairing DME and less visual field loss. • There were no meaningful treatment group differences in patient-centered outcomes. • These findings support either ranibizumab or PRP as viable treatments for PDR. • Patient-specific factors, including anticipated visit compliance, number of visits, cost, and systemic health should be considered when choosing a treatment for PDR.

More Related