Wells John A, Glassman Adam R, Jampol Lee M, Aiello Lloyd Paul, Antoszyk Andrew N, Baker Carl W, Bressler Neil M, Browning David J, Connor Crystal G, Elman Michael J, Ferris Frederick L, Friedman Scott M, Melia Michele, Pieramici Dante J, Sun Jennifer K, Beck Roy W
Palmetto Retina Center, West Columbia, South Carolina.
Jaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, Florida.
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016 Feb;134(2):127-34. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2015.4599.
Comparisons of the relative effect of 3 anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents to treat diabetic macular edema warrant further assessment.
To provide additional outcomes from a randomized trial evaluating 3 anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents for diabetic macular edema within subgroups based on baseline visual acuity (VA) and central subfield thickness (CST) as evaluated on optical coherence tomography.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Post hoc exploratory analyses were conducted of randomized trial data on 660 adults with diabetic macular edema and decreased VA (Snellen equivalent, approximately 20/32 to 20/320). The original study was conducted between August 22, 2012, and August 28, 2013. Analysis was conducted from January 7 to June 2, 2015.
Repeated 0.05-mL intravitreous injections of 2.0 mg of aflibercept (224 eyes), 1.25 mg of bevacizumab (218 eyes), or 0.3 mg of ranibizumab (218 eyes) as needed per protocol.
One-year VA and CST outcomes within prespecified subgroups based on both baseline VA and CST thresholds, defined as worse (20/50 or worse) or better (20/32 to 20/40) VA and thicker (≥400 µm) or thinner (250 to 399 µm) CST.
In the subgroup with worse baseline VA (n = 305), irrespective of baseline CST, aflibercept showed greater improvement than bevacizumab or ranibizumab for several VA outcomes. In the subgroup with better VA and thinner CST at baseline (61-73 eyes across 3 treatment groups), VA outcomes showed little difference between groups; mean change was +7.2, +8.4, and +7.6 letters in the aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab groups, respectively. However, in the subgroup with better VA and thicker CST at baseline (31-43 eyes), there was a suggestion of worse VA outcomes in the bevacizumab group; mean change from baseline to 1 year was +9.5, +5.4, and +9.5 letters in the aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab groups, respectively, and VA letter score was greater than 84 (approximately 20/20) in 21 of 33 (64%), 7 of 31 (23%), and 21 of 43 (49%) eyes, respectively. The adjusted differences and 95% CIs were 39% (17% to 60%) for aflibercept vs bevacizumab, 25% (5% to 46%) for ranibizumab vs bevacizumab, and 13% (-8% to 35%) for aflibercept vs ranibizumab.
These post hoc secondary findings suggest that for eyes with better initial VA and thicker CST, some VA outcomes may be worse in the bevacizumab group than in the aflibercept and ranibizumab groups. Given the exploratory nature of these analyses and the small sample size within subgroups, caution is suggested when using the data to guide treatment considerations for patients.
clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01627249.
比较3种抗血管内皮生长因子药物治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿的相对疗效值得进一步评估。
基于光学相干断层扫描评估的基线视力(VA)和中心子野厚度(CST),在亚组中提供一项评估3种抗血管内皮生长因子药物治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿的随机试验的更多结果。
设计、设置和参与者:对660例患有糖尿病性黄斑水肿且视力下降(Snellen等效视力,约20/32至20/320)的成年人的随机试验数据进行事后探索性分析。原研究于2012年8月22日至2013年8月28日进行。分析于2015年1月7日至6月2日进行。
根据方案,必要时重复玻璃体内注射0.05 mL的2.0 mg阿柏西普(224只眼)、1.25 mg贝伐单抗(218只眼)或0.3 mg雷珠单抗(218只眼)。
基于预先设定的亚组中,根据基线VA和CST阈值(定义为较差[20/50或更差]或较好[20/32至20/40]的VA以及较厚[≥400 µm]或较薄[250至399 µm]的CST)得出的1年VA和CST结局。
在基线VA较差的亚组(n = 305)中,无论基线CST如何,在多个VA结局方面,阿柏西普比贝伐单抗或雷珠单抗显示出更大的改善。在基线时VA较好且CST较薄的亚组(3个治疗组共61 - 73只眼)中,各治疗组间VA结局差异不大;阿柏西普、贝伐单抗和雷珠单抗组的平均变化分别为+7.2、+8.4和+7.6个字母。然而,在基线时VA较好且CST较厚的亚组(31 - 43只眼)中,提示贝伐单抗组的VA结局较差;从基线到1年的平均变化在阿柏西普、贝伐单抗和雷珠单抗组中分别为+9.5、+5.4和+9.5个字母,VA字母评分在33只眼中的21只(64%)、31只眼中的7只(23%)和43只眼中的21只(49%)分别大于84(约20/20)。阿柏西普与贝伐单抗相比的调整差异及95%置信区间为39%(17%至60%),雷珠单抗与贝伐单抗相比为25%(5%至46%),阿柏西普与雷珠单抗相比为13%(-8%至35%)。
这些事后次要研究结果表明,对于初始VA较好且CST较厚的眼睛,贝伐单抗组某些VA结局可能比阿柏西普组和雷珠单抗组更差。鉴于这些分析的探索性性质以及亚组内样本量较小,在使用这些数据指导患者的治疗决策时应谨慎。
clinicaltrials.gov标识符:NCT01627249。