4.4 Article

Patient-Reported Visual Function Outcomes Improve After Ranibizumab Treatment in Patients With Vision Impairment Due to Diabetic Macular Edema Randomized Clinical Trial

Journal

JAMA OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 131, Issue 10, Pages 1339-1347

Publisher

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2013.4592

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Novartis Pharma AG
  2. Pfizer
  3. Solvay (Abbott)
  4. Bayer
  5. Alcon
  6. Allergan
  7. Genentech Inc
  8. Lumenis Inc
  9. National Eye Institute
  10. Notal Vision
  11. Optovue
  12. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc
  13. EMMES Corporation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

IMPORTANCE Few data are available on relative changes in vision-related function after treatment for diabetic macular edema (DME). OBJECTIVE To determine the impact of intravitreal ranibizumab, 0.5 mg, compared with laser on patient-reported visual function. DESIGN Phase 3, randomized, double-masked, 12-month study. SETTING Outpatient retina practices in Australia, Canada, and Europe. PARTICIPANTS Patients 18 years or older with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus and visual impairment due to DME. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to ranibizumab plus sham laser (n = 116), ranibizumab plus laser (n = 118), or sham injections plus laser (n = 111). Ranibizumab and sham injections were given for 3 consecutive months then as needed; laser plus sham laser treatment was given at baseline then as needed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire 25 (NEI VFQ-25) scores at 0, 3, and 12 months for patients receiving 1 or more study treatments with 1 or more postbaseline NEIVFQ-25 assessments and last observation carried forward for missing data. RESULTS Mean baseline NEI VFQ-25 composite scores were 72.8, 73.5, and 74.1 in the ranibizumab, laser, and ranibizumab plus laser groups, respectively. At 12 months, the mean composite scores (95% CIs) improved by 5.0 (ranibizumab vs laser, 2.6 to 7.4; P=.01 vs laser) and 5.4 (ranibizumab plus laser vs laser alone, 3.3 to 7.4; P=.004 vs laser) from baseline in the ranibizumab and ranibizumab plus laser groups, respectively, compared with 0.6 (-1.8 to 3.0) for the laser group. Near activities scores improved by 9.0 (ranibizumab vs laser, 5.0 to 13.0; P=.01) and 9.1 (ranibizumab plus laser vs laser, 5.6 to 12.6; P=.006) compared with 1.1 (-3.0 to 5.2) for the laser group, whereas distance activities scores improved by 5.3 (ranibizumab vs laser, 1.8 to 8.9; P=.04) and 5.6 (ranibizumab plus laser vs laser, 2.3 to 9.0; P=.03) compared with 0.4 (-3.1 to 3.8) for the laser group. Patients with better baseline visual acuity or lower central retinal thickness had greater improvements with ranibizumab treatment compared with laser in composite and some subscale scores compared with patients with worse visual acuity or higher central retinal thickness. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE These data provide vision-related, patient-reported outcome evidence that mirrors visual acuity outcomes and supports benefits from ranibizumab or ranibizumab plus laser treatment for patients with DME and characteristics similar to those enrolled in this randomized clinical trial.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available