IMPORTANCE Some eyes have persistent diabetic macular edema (DME) following anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy for DME. Subsequently adding intravitreous corticosteroids to the treatment regimen might result in better outcomes than continued anti-VEGF therapy alone.OBJECTIVE To compare continued intravitreous ranibizumab alone with ranibizumab plus intravitreous dexamethasone implant in eyes with persistent DME.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Phase 2 multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted at 40 US sites in 129 eyes from 116 adults with diabetes between February 2014 and December 2016. Eyes had persistent DME, with visual acuity of 20/32 to 20/320 after at least 3 anti-VEGF injections before a run-in phase, which included an additional 3 monthly 0.3-mg ranibizumab injections. Data analysis was according to intent to treat.INTERVENTIONS Following the run-in phase, study eyes that had persistent DME and were otherwise eligible were randomly assigned to receive 700 μg of dexamethasone (combination group, 65 eyes) or sham treatment (ranibizumab group, 64 eyes) in addition to continued 0.3-mg ranibizumab in both treatment arms as often as every 4 weeks based on a structured re-treatment protocol. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was change in mean visual acuity letter score at 24 weeks as measured by the electronic Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (E-ETDRS). The principal secondary outcome was change in mean central subfield thickness as measured with the use of optical coherence tomography. RESULTSOf the 116 randomized patients, median age was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 58-71 years); 50.9% were female and 60.3% were white. Mean (SD) improvement in visual acuity from randomization was 2.7 (9.8) letters in the combination group and 3.0 (7.1) letters in the ranibizumab group, with the adjusted treatment group difference (combination minus ranibizumab) of -0.5 letters (95% CI, −3.6 to 2.5; 2-sided P = .73). Mean (SD) change in central subfield thickness in the combination group was -110 (86) μm compared with -62 (97) μm for the ranibizumab group (adjusted difference, -52; 95% CI, −82 to −22; 2-sided P < .001). Nineteen eyes (29%) in the combination group experienced increased intraocular pressure or initiated treatment with antihypertensive eyedrops compared with 0 in the ranibizumab group (2-sided P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEAlthough its use is more likely to reduce retinal thickness and increase intraocular pressure, the addition of intravitreous dexamethasone to continued ranibizumab therapy does not improve visual acuity at 24 weeks more than continued ranibizumab therapy alone among eyes with persistent DME following anti-VEGF therapy.TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01945866

IMPORTANCEThe 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 PARTICIPANTSData 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 (Ն10 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 throughMay 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 RELEVANCEIn 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.

IMPORTANCE Vitreous hemorrhage from proliferative diabetic retinopathy can cause loss of vision. The best management approach is unknown.OBJECTIVE To compare initial treatment with intravitreous aflibercept vs vitrectomy with panretinal photocoagulation for vitreous hemorrhage from proliferative diabetic retinopathy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSRandomized clinical trial at 39 DRCR Retina Network sites in the US and Canada including 205 adults with vison loss due to vitreous hemorrhage from proliferative diabetic retinopathy who were enrolled from November 2016 to December 2017. The final follow-up visit was completed in January 2020.INTERVENTIONS Random assignment of eyes (1 per participant) to aflibercept (100 participants) or vitrectomy with panretinal photocoagulation (105 participants). Participants whose eyes were assigned to aflibercept initially received 4 monthly injections. Both groups could receive aflibercept or vitrectomy during follow-up based on protocol criteria. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was mean visual acuity letter score (range, 0-100; higher scores indicate better vision) over 24 weeks (area under the curve); the study was powered to detect a difference of 8 letters. Secondary outcomes included mean visual acuity at 4 weeks and 2 years. RESULTS Among 205 participants (205 eyes) who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 57 [11] years; 115 [56%] men; mean visual acuity letter score, 34.5 [Snellen equivalent, 20/200]), 95% (195 of 205) completed the 24-week visit and 90% (177 of 196, excluding 9 deaths) completed the 2-year visit. The mean visual acuity letter score over 24 weeks was 59.3(Snellen equivalent, 20/63) (95% CI, 54.9 to 63.7) in the aflibercept group vs 63.0 (Snellen equivalent, 20/63) (95% CI, 58.6 to 67.3) in the vitrectomy group (adjusted difference, −5.0 [95% CI, −10.2 to 0.3], P = .06). Among 23 secondary outcomes, 15 showed no significant difference. The mean visual acuity letter score was 52.6 (Snellen equivalent, 20/100) in the aflibercept group vs 62.3 (Snellen equivalent, 20/63) in the vitrectomy group at 4 weeks (adjusted difference, −11.2 [95% CI, −18.5 to −3.9], P = .003) and 73.7 (Snellen equivalent, 20/40) vs 71.0 (Snellen equivalent, 20/40) at 2 years (adjusted difference, 2.7 [95% CI, −3.1 to 8.4], P = .36). Over 2 years, 33 eyes (33%) assigned to aflibercept received vitrectomy and 34 eyes (32%) assigned to vitrectomy received subsequent aflibercept.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among participants whose eyes had vitreous hemorrhage from proliferative diabetic retinopathy, there was no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome of mean visual acuity letter score over 24 weeks following initial treatment with intravitreous aflibercept vs vitrectomy with panretinal photocoagulation. However, the study may have been underpowered, considering the range of the 95% CI, to detect a clinically important benefit in favor of initial vitrectomy with panretinal photocoagulation.

Interindividual variability of central corneal thickness has been found to be a source of error for conventional Goldmann applanation tonometry. The dynamic contour tonometer represents a potentially new technology for non-invasive and direct intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement, and has been proposed to accurately measure the true IOP irrespective of the corneal thickness. It is based on the principle that when the tip of the device exactly matches the contour of the cornea, the pressure measured by a transducer placed on its tip is an accurate indicator of the true IOP. This device is also capable of measuring the ocular pulse amplitude, a variable that has controversial significance in the diagnosis and management of glaucoma. Even though this technique seems to be very promising, further studies are required to conclusively determine the effectiveness of the dynamic contour tonometer in patients having an abnormal or irregular corneal contour.

No abstract