Wells John A, Glassman Adam R, Ayala Allison R, Jampol Lee M, Aiello Lloyd Paul, Antoszyk Andrew N, Arnold-Bush Bambi, Baker Carl W, Bressler Neil M, Browning David J, Elman Michael J, Ferris Frederick L, Friedman Scott M, Melia Michele, Pieramici Dante J, Sun Jennifer K, Beck Roy W
N Engl J Med. 2015 Mar 26;372(13):1193-203. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1414264. Epub 2015 Feb 18.
The relative efficacy and safety of intravitreous aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab in the treatment of diabetic macular edema are unknown.
At 89 clinical sites, we randomly assigned 660 adults (mean age, 61±10 years) with diabetic macular edema involving the macular center to receive intravitreous aflibercept at a dose of 2.0 mg (224 participants), bevacizumab at a dose of 1.25 mg (218 participants), or ranibizumab at a dose of 0.3 mg (218 participants). The study drugs were administered as often as every 4 weeks, according to a protocol-specified algorithm. The primary outcome was the mean change in visual acuity at 1 year.
From baseline to 1 year, the mean visual-acuity letter score (range, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better visual acuity; a score of 85 is approximately 20/20) improved by 13.3 with aflibercept, by 9.7 with bevacizumab, and by 11.2 with ranibizumab. Although the improvement was greater with aflibercept than with the other two drugs (P<0.001 for aflibercept vs. bevacizumab and P=0.03 for aflibercept vs. ranibizumab), it was not clinically meaningful, because the difference was driven by the eyes with worse visual acuity at baseline (P<0.001 for interaction). When the initial visual-acuity letter score was 78 to 69 (equivalent to approximately 20/32 to 20/40) (51% of participants), the mean improvement was 8.0 with aflibercept, 7.5 with bevacizumab, and 8.3 with ranibizumab (P>0.50 for each pairwise comparison). When the initial letter score was less than 69 (approximately 20/50 or worse), the mean improvement was 18.9 with aflibercept, 11.8 with bevacizumab, and 14.2 with ranibizumab (P<0.001 for aflibercept vs. bevacizumab, P=0.003 for aflibercept vs. ranibizumab, and P=0.21 for ranibizumab vs. bevacizumab). There were no significant differences among the study groups in the rates of serious adverse events (P=0.40), hospitalization (P=0.51), death (P=0.72), or major cardiovascular events (P=0.56).
Intravitreous aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab improved vision in eyes with center-involved diabetic macular edema, but the relative effect depended on baseline visual acuity. When the initial visual-acuity loss was mild, there were no apparent differences, on average, among study groups. At worse levels of initial visual acuity, aflibercept was more effective at improving vision. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01627249.).
玻璃体内注射阿柏西普、贝伐单抗和雷珠单抗治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿的相对疗效和安全性尚不清楚。
在89个临床地点,我们将660例患有累及黄斑中心的糖尿病性黄斑水肿的成年人(平均年龄61±10岁)随机分为三组,分别接受2.0mg玻璃体内注射阿柏西普(224例参与者)、1.25mg玻璃体内注射贝伐单抗(218例参与者)或0.3mg玻璃体内注射雷珠单抗(218例参与者)。根据方案指定的算法,研究药物每4周给药一次。主要结局是1年时视力的平均变化。
从基线到1年,阿柏西普组视力字母评分(范围为0至100,分数越高视力越好;85分约相当于20/20)平均提高13.3分,贝伐单抗组提高9.7分,雷珠单抗组提高11.2分。尽管阿柏西普组的改善程度大于其他两种药物(阿柏西普与贝伐单抗相比,P<0.001;阿柏西普与雷珠单抗相比,P=0.03),但在临床上并无显著意义,因为这种差异是由基线视力较差的眼睛驱动的(交互作用P<0.001)。当初始视力字母评分为78至69(约相当于20/32至20/40)时(51%的参与者),阿柏西普组平均改善8.0分,贝伐单抗组改善7.5分,雷珠单抗组改善8.3分(各两两比较P>0.50)。当初始字母评分低于69(约20/50或更差)时,阿柏西普组平均改善18.9分,贝伐单抗组改善11.8分,雷珠单抗组改善14.2分(阿柏西普与贝伐单抗相比,P<0.001;阿柏西普与雷珠单抗相比,P=0.003;雷珠单抗与贝伐单抗相比,P=0.21)。研究组在严重不良事件发生率(P=0.40)、住院率(P=0.51)、死亡率(P=0.72)或主要心血管事件发生率(P=0.56)方面无显著差异。
玻璃体内注射阿柏西普、贝伐单抗或雷珠单抗可改善累及黄斑中心的糖尿病性黄斑水肿患者的视力,但相对疗效取决于基线视力。当初始视力丧失较轻时,各研究组平均无明显差异。在初始视力较差时,阿柏西普在改善视力方面更有效。(由美国国立卫生研究院资助;ClinicalTrials.gov编号,NCT01627249。)