接受帕塔单抗钠或假治疗的糖尿病性黄斑水肿患者的视力和健康相关生活质量变化。
Changes in vision- and health-related quality of life in patients with diabetic macular edema treated with pegaptanib sodium or sham.
机构信息
Pfizer Ltd., Walton Oaks, Dorking Road, Tadworth, Surrey KT207NS, UK.
出版信息
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011 Sep 29;52(10):7498-505. doi: 10.1167/iovs.11-7613.
PURPOSE
To compare vision function and self-reported quality of life (QoL) in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) treated with intravitreous pegaptanib 0.3 mg or sham injection.
METHODS
This randomized (1:1), controlled, multicenter trial included subjects with DME (center point thickness on OCT, ≥ 250 μm) and visual acuity (VA) ≤ 65 letters and ≥ 35 letters. In year 1, pegaptanib or sham was administered every 6 weeks with focal/grid photocoagulation at investigator discretion after week 18. Subjects received injections as often as every 6 weeks per pre-specified criteria in year 2. Primary efficacy endpoint: proportion gaining ≥10 letters of VA from baseline to week 54. Change in QoL from baseline to weeks 54 and 102 was assessed with the 25-item National Eye Institute-Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ 25) and the EQ-5D.
RESULTS
One hundred thirty-three pegaptanib- and 127 sham-treated subjects were in the year 1 intent-to-treat population. From baseline to week 54, ≥ 10 letter gains seen in 49 (36.8%) pegaptanib- and 25 (19.7%) sham-treated subjects (odds ratio [95% CI]: 2.38 [1.32-4.30]; P = 0.0047). At 2 years, the VA trend favored pegaptanib. The NEI-VFQ 25 domains of Near Vision, Distance Vision, and Social Functioning (week 54) and Distance Vision, Social Functioning, Mental Health, and Composite Score (week 102) demonstrated clinically meaningful (>5-point between-group difference) and statistically significant (P < 0.05) benefits favoring pegaptanib. No significant difference in the mean change in generic EQ-5D-weighted utility scores was seen.
CONCLUSIONS
The VA improvement from pegaptanib treatment versus sham is reflected by improved vision-related QoL as reported by the DME patient (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00605280).
目的
比较玻璃体腔内注射培加他尼 0.3mg 与假注射治疗糖尿病黄斑水肿(DME)患者的视力功能和自我报告的生活质量(QoL)。
方法
本随机(1:1)、对照、多中心试验纳入 DME(OCT 中心点厚度,≥250μm)和视力(VA)≤65 个字母和≥35 个字母的患者。在第 1 年,培加他尼或假注射每 6 周给药,在第 18 周后根据研究者的判断进行局部/格栅光凝。在第 2 年,根据预先指定的标准,每 6 周内接受注射的频率最高可达每 6 周。主要疗效终点:与基线相比,第 54 周 VA 增加≥10 个字母的比例。使用 25 项国立眼科研究所视觉功能问卷(NEI-VFQ 25)和 EQ-5D 评估从基线到第 54 周和第 102 周的 QoL 变化。
结果
133 例培加他尼和 127 例假治疗患者纳入第 1 年意向治疗人群。与基线相比,第 54 周时,49 例(36.8%)培加他尼和 25 例(19.7%)假治疗患者(优势比[95%CI]:2.38[1.32-4.30];P=0.0047)VA 增加≥10 个字母。在第 2 年,VA 趋势有利于培加他尼。第 54 周时,NEI-VFQ 25 近视力、远视力和社会功能域(第 54 周)和远视力、社会功能、心理健康和综合评分(第 102 周)表现出具有临床意义(组间差异>5 分)和统计学意义(P<0.05)的益处,有利于培加他尼。在平均变化的通用 EQ-5D 加权效用评分方面,未见显著差异。
结论
与假注射相比,培加他尼治疗的 VA 改善反映了 DME 患者报告的与视力相关的 QoL 改善(ClinicalTrials.gov 编号,NCT00605280)。