Browsing by Author "Melia, Michele"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Defining “Strong” versus “Weak” Response to Anti-VEGF Treatment for Center-Involved Diabetic Macular Edema
    (Wolters Kluwer, 2023) Sun, Jennifer K.; Beaulieu, Wesley T.; Melia, Michele; Ferris, Frederick L., III; Maturi, Raj K.; Nielsen, Jared S.; Solomon, Sharon D.; Jampol, Lee M.; DRCR Retina Network; Ophthalmology, School of Medicine
    Background/purpose: To define "strong" versus "weak" antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment response in eyes with center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME). Methods: Exploratory analyses of three DRCR Retina Network randomized trials of eyes with CI-DME treated with aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab. Thresholds of 5-, 10-, and 15-letter gain defined strong visual acuity (VA) response when baseline VA was 20/25-20/32, 20/40-20/63, or 20/80-20/320, respectively. Thresholds of 50, 100, or 200- µ m reduction defined strong anatomical response when baseline central subfield thickness (CST) was <75, ≥75 to <175, or ≥175- µ m above standard thresholds. Additional thresholds from regression equations were calculated. Results: At 24 weeks, outcomes for strong response were achieved by 476 of 958 eyes (50%) for VA and 505 eyes (53%) for CST. At 104 weeks among the 32% of eyes with strong VA and CST response at 24 weeks, 195 of 281 (69%) maintained strong VA and CST response, whereas 20 (7%) had neither strong VA nor strong CST response. Outcomes rates were similar across protocols and when defined using regression equations. Conclusion: These phenotypes are suitable for efforts to identify predictive biomarkers for response to anti-VEGF therapy for DME and might facilitate comparison of treatment response among diverse cohorts with DME.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Effect of Intravitreous Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor vs Sham Treatment for Prevention of Vision-Threatening Complications of Diabetic Retinopathy: The Protocol W Randomized Clinical Trial
    (American Medical Association, 2021) Maturi, Raj K.; Glassman, Adam R.; Josic, Kristin; Antoszyk, Andrew N.; Blodi, Barbara A.; Jampol, Lee M.; Marcus, Dennis M.; Martin, Daniel F.; Melia, Michele; Salehi-Had, Hani; Stockdale, Cynthia R.; Punjabi, Omar S.; Sun, Jennifer K.; DRCR Retina Network; Ophthalmology, School of Medicine
    Importance: The role of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections for the management of nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) without center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME) has not been clearly established. Objective: To determine the efficacy of intravitreous aflibercept injections compared with sham treatment in preventing potentially vision-threatening complications in eyes with moderate to severe NPDR. Design, setting, and participants: Data for this study were collected between January 15, 2016, and May 28, 2020, from the ongoing DRCR Retina Network Protocol W randomized clinical trial, conducted at 64 US and Canadian sites among 328 adults (399 eyes) with moderate to severe NPDR (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study severity level, 43-53), without CI-DME. Analyses followed the intent-to-treat principle. Interventions: Eyes were randomly assigned to 2.0 mg of aflibercept injections (n = 200) or sham (n = 199) given at baseline; 1, 2, and 4 months; and every 4 months through 2 years. Between 2 and 4 years, treatment was deferred if the eye had mild NPDR or better. Aflibercept was administered in both groups if CI-DME with vision loss (≥10 letters at 1 visit or 5-9 letters at 2 consecutive visits) or high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) developed. Main outcomes and measures: Development of CI-DME with vision loss or PDR through May 2020, when the last 2-year visit was completed. Results: Among the 328 participants (57.6% men [230 of 399 eyes]; mean [SD] age, 56 [11] years), the 2-year cumulative probability of developing CI-DME with vision loss or PDR was 16.3% with aflibercept vs 43.5% with sham. The overall hazard ratio for either outcome was 0.32 (97.5% CI, 0.21-0.50; P < .001), favoring aflibercept. The 2-year cumulative probability of developing PDR was 13.5% in the aflibercept group vs 33.2% in the sham group, and the 2-year cumulative probability of developing CI-DME with vision loss was 4.1% in the aflibercept group vs 14.8% in the sham group. The mean (SD) change in visual acuity from baseline to 2 years was -0.9 (5.8) letters with aflibercept and -2.0 (6.1) letters with sham (adjusted mean difference, 0.5 letters [97.5% CI, -1.0 to 1.9 letters]; P = .47). Conclusions and relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, among eyes with moderate to severe NPDR, the proportion of eyes that developed PDR or vision-reducing CI-DME was lower with periodic aflibercept compared with sham treatment. However, through 2 years, preventive treatment did not confer visual acuity benefit compared with observation plus treatment with aflibercept only after development of PDR or vision-reducing CI-DME. The 4-year results will be important to assess longer-term visual acuity outcomes.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Four-Year Visual Outcomes in the Protocol W Randomized Trial of Intravitreous Aflibercept for Prevention of Vision-Threatening Complications of Diabetic Retinopathy
    (American Medical Association, 2023) Maturi, Raj K.; Glassman, Adam R.; Josic, Kristin; Baker, Carl W.; Gerstenblith, Adam T.; Jampol, Lee M.; Meleth, Annal; Martin, Daniel F.; Melia, Michele; Punjabi, Omar S.; Rofagha, Soraya; Salehi-Had, Hani; Stockdale, Cynthia R.; Sun, Jennifer K.; DRCR Retina Network; Ophthalmology, School of Medicine
    Importance: Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections in eyes with nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) without center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME) reduce development of vision-threatening complications from diabetes over at least 2 years, but whether this treatment has a longer-term benefit on visual acuity is unknown. Objective: To compare the primary 4-year outcomes of visual acuity and rates of vision-threatening complications in eyes with moderate to severe NPDR treated with intravitreal aflibercept compared with sham. The primary 2-year analysis of this study has been reported. Design, setting, and participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted at 64 clinical sites in the US and Canada from January 2016 to March 2018, enrolling 328 adults (399 eyes) with moderate to severe NPDR (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] severity level 43-53; range, 0 [worst] to 100 [best]) without CI-DME. Interventions: Eyes were randomly assigned to 2.0 mg aflibercept (n = 200) or sham (n = 199). Eight injections were administered at defined intervals through 2 years, continuing quarterly through 4 years unless the eye improved to mild NPDR or better. Aflibercept was given in both groups to treat development of high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) or CI-DME with vision loss. Main outcomes and measures: Development of PDR or CI-DME with vision loss (≥10 letters at 1 visit or ≥5 letters at 2 consecutive visits) and change in visual acuity (best corrected ETDRS letter score) from baseline to 4 years. Results: Among participants (mean age 56 years; 42.4% female; 5% Asian, 15% Black, 32% Hispanic, 45% White), the 4-year cumulative probability of developing PDR or CI-DME with vision loss was 33.9% with aflibercept vs 56.9% with sham (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.40 [97.5% CI, 0.28 to 0.57]; P < .001). The mean (SD) change in visual acuity from baseline to 4 years was -2.7 (6.5) letters with aflibercept and -2.4 (5.8) letters with sham (adjusted mean difference, -0.5 letters [97.5% CI, -2.3 to 1.3]; P = .52). Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration cardiovascular/cerebrovascular event rates were 9.9% (7 of 71) in bilateral participants, 10.9% (14 of 129) in unilateral aflibercept participants, and 7.8% (10 of 128) in unilateral sham participants. Conclusions and relevance: Among patients with NPDR but without CI-DME at 4 years treatment with aflibercept vs sham, initiating aflibercept treatment only if vision-threatening complications developed, resulted in statistically significant anatomic improvement but no improvement in visual acuity. Aflibercept as a preventive strategy, as used in this trial, may not be generally warranted for patients with NPDR without CI-DME.