BACKGROUND The relative efficacy and safety of intravitreous aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab in the treatment of diabetic macular edema are unknown. METHODS 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. RESULTS 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). CONCLUSIONS 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.)

IMPORTANCE Panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) is standard treatment for reducing severe visual loss from proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). However, PRP can damage the retina, resulting in peripheral vision loss or worsening diabetic macular edema (DME). OBJECTIVE Compare ranibizumab versus PRP for PDR. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized clinical trial (55 U.S. sites) assessing non-inferiority of ranibizumab compared with PRP for vision outcomes; 305 adults with PDR enrolled February-December 2012 (mean age 52, 44% female, 52% white). Both eyes enrolled for 89 participants totaling 394 study eyes. The final 2-year visit was completed January 2015. INTERVENTIONS Ranibizumab group (N=191 eyes): intravitreous 0.5-mg ranibizumab and, PRP if treatment failed; ranibizumab as needed for DME. PRP group (N=203 eyes): PRP; ranibizumab as needed for DME. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Primary: mean visual acuity change at 2 years (5-letter non-inferiority margin; intention-to-treat analysis). Secondary: visual acuity area under the curve, peripheral visual field loss, DME development, neovascularization, vitrectomy, and safety. RESULTS Mean visual acuity letter improvement at 2 years was +2.8 in the ranibizumab group versus +0.2 in the PRP group (difference +2.2, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.5 to +5.0, non-inferiority P<0.001). Mean treatment group difference in visual acuity area under the curve over 2 years was +4.2 (95% CI: +3.0 to +5.4, P<0.001). Visual field sensitivity loss was worse (mean dB difference 372; 95% CI: 213 to 531, P<0.001), vitrectomy more frequent (15% versus 4%, difference 9%, 95% CI: 4% to 15%, P<0.001), and DME development more frequent (28% versus 9%, difference 19%, 95% CI: 10% to 28%, P<0.001) in the PRP versus ranibizumab group, respectively. Eyes with neither active nor regressed neovascularization at 2 years was similar (35% [ranibizumab group] versus 30% [PRP group], difference 3%, 95% CI: −7% to 12%, P=0.58). One eye (ranibizumab group) developed endophthalmitis. No significant differences between groups in rates of major cardiovascular events were identified. CONCLUSION Among eyes with PDR, treatment with ranibizumab resulted in visual acuity that was non-inferior to (not worse than) PRP treatment at two years. Although longer term follow-up is needed, ranibizumab may be a reasonable treatment alternative, at least through 2 years, for patients with PDR.

; for the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network IMPORTANCE Ranibizumab is a viable treatment option for eyes with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) through 2 years. However, longer-term results are needed. OBJECTIVE To evaluate efficacy and safety of 0.5-mg intravitreous ranibizumab vs panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) over 5 years for PDR. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network multicenter randomized clinical trial evaluated 394 study eyes with PDR enrolled February through December 2012. Analysis began in January 2018. INTERVENTIONS Eyes were randomly assigned to receive intravitreous ranibizumab (n = 191) or PRP (n = 203). Frequency of ranibizumab was based on a protocol-specified retreatment algorithm. Diabetic macular edema could be managed with ranibizumab in either group. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Mean change in visual acuity (intention-to-treat analysis) was the main outcome. Secondary outcomes included peripheral visual field loss, development of vision-impairing diabetic macular edema, and ocular and systemic safety. RESULTS The 5-year visit was completed by 184 of 277 participants (66% excluding deaths). Of 305 enrolled participants, the mean (SD) age was 52 (12) years, 135 (44%) were women, and 160 (52%) were white. For the ranibizumab and PRP groups, the mean (SD) number of injections over 5 years was 19.2 (10.9) and 5.4 (7.9), respectively; the mean (SD) change in visual acuity letter score was 3.1 (14.3) and 3.0 (10.5) letters, respectively (adjusted difference, 0.6; 95% CI, −2.3 to 3.5; P = .68); the mean visual acuity was 20/25 (approximate Snellen equivalent) in both groups at 5 years. The mean (SD) change in cumulative visual field total point score was −330 (645) vs −527 (635) dB in the ranibizumab (n = 41) and PRP (n = 38) groups, respectively (adjusted difference, 208 dB; 95% CI, 9-408). Vision-impairing diabetic macular edema developed in 27 and 53 eyes in the ranibizumab and PRP groups, respectively (cumulative probabilities: 22% vs 38%; hazard ratio, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7). No statistically significant differences between groups in major systemic adverse event rates were identified. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Although loss to follow-up was relatively high, visual acuity in most study eyes that completed follow-up was very good at 5 years and was similar in both groups. Severe vision loss or serious PDR complications were uncommon with PRP or ranibizumab; however, the ranibizumab group had lower rates of developing vision-impairing diabetic macular edema and less visual field loss. Patient-specific factors, including anticipated visit compliance, cost, and frequency of visits, should be considered when choosing treatment for patients with PDR. These findings support either anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy or PRP as viable treatments for patients with PDR.

; for the DRCR Retina Network IMPORTANCE Intravitreous injections of antivascular endothelial growth factor agents are effective for treating diabetic macular edema (DME) involving the center of the macula (center-involved DME [CI-DME]) with visual acuity impairment (20/32 or worse). The best approach to treating patients with CI-DME and good visual acuity (20/25 or better) is unknown. OBJECTIVE To compare vision loss at 2 years among eyes initially managed with aflibercept, laser photocoagulation, or observation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized clinical trial conducted at 91 US and Canadian sites among 702 adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Participants had 1 study eye with CI-DME and visual acuity of 20/25 or better. The first participant was randomized on November 8, 2013, and the final date of follow-up was September 11, 2018. INTERVENTIONS Eyes were randomly assigned to 2.0 mg of intravitreous aflibercept (n = 226) as frequently as every 4 weeks, focal/grid laser photocoagulation (n = 240), or observation (n = 236). Aflibercept was required for eyes in the laser photocoagulation or observation groups that had decreased visual acuity from baseline by at least 10 letters (Ն 2 lines on an eye chart) at any visit or by 5 to 9 letters (1-2 lines) at 2 consecutive visits. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was at least a 5-letter visual acuity decrease from baseline at 2 years. Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration adverse events (defined as myocardial infarction, stroke, or vascular or unknown death) were reported. RESULTS Among 702 randomized participants (mean age, 59 years; 38% female [n=264]), 625 of 681 (92% excluding deaths) completed the 2-year visit. For eyes with visual acuity that decreased from baseline, aflibercept was initiated in 25% (60/240) and 34% (80/236) in the laser photocoagulation and observation groups, respectively. At 2 years, the percentage of eyes with at least a 5-letter visual acuity decrease was 16% (33/205), 17% (36/212), and 19% (39/208

No abstract