Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2016 Oct:170:206-213.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2016.08.008. Epub 2016 Aug 12.

Panretinal Photocoagulation Versus Ranibizumab for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: Patient-Centered Outcomes From a Randomized Clinical Trial

Wesley T Beaulieu  1 , Neil M Bressler  2 , Michele Melia  3 , Cynthia Owsley  4 , Calvin E Mein  5 , Jeffrey G Gross  6 , Lee M Jampol  7 , Adam R Glassman  3 ; Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Panretinal Photocoagulation Versus Ranibizumab for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: Patient-Centered Outcomes From a Randomized Clinical Trial

Wesley T Beaulieu et al. Am J Ophthalmol. 2016 Oct.

Abstract

Purpose: To compare patient-centered outcomes in patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) treated with ranibizumab vs panretinal photocoagulation (PRP).

Design: Randomized clinical trial.

Methods: Setting: Multicenter (55 U.S. sites).

Patient population: Total of 216 adults with 1 study eye out of 305 adults (excluding participants with 2 study eyes, because each eye received a different treatment) with PDR, visual acuity 20/320 or better, no history of PRP.

Intervention: Ranibizumab (0.5 mg/0.05 mL) vs PRP.

Main outcome measures: Change from baseline to 2 years in composite and prespecified subscale scores from the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25 (NEI VFQ-25), University of Alabama Low Luminance Questionnaire (UAB-LLQ), and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAIQ).

Results: For the NEI VFQ-25 and UAB-LLQ composite scores, ranibizumab-PRP treatment group differences (95% CI) were +4.0 (-0.2, +8.3, P = .06) and +1.8 (-3.5, +7.1, P = 0.51) at 1 year, and +2.9 (-1.5, +7.2, P = .20) and +2.3 (-2.9, +7.5, P = .37) at 2 years, respectively. Work productivity loss measured with the WPAIQ was 15.6% less with ranibizumab (-26.3%, -4.8%, P = .005) at 1 year and 2.9% (-12.2%, +6.4%, P = .54) at 2 years. Eighty-three ranibizumab participants (97%) were 20/40 or better in at least 1 eye (visual acuity requirement to qualify for an unrestricted driver's license in many states) at 2 years compared with 82 PRP participants (87%, adjusted risk ratio = 1.1, 95% CI: 1.0, 1.2, P = .005).

Conclusions: Though differences in some work productivity and driving-related outcomes favored ranibizumab over PRP, no differences between treatment regimens for PDR were identified for most of the other patient-centered outcomes considered.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Treatment group differences, adjusted for baseline score and optical coherence tomography (OCT) central subfield thickness, between the ranibizumab and panretinal photocoagulation groups for the change from baseline in the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25 (NEI VFQ-25) composite score and subscales at the 1-year (Left) and 2-year visits (Right). Whiskers represent the 95% confidence interval for the composite score (black square) or 99% confidence intervals for the subscales (gray circles). Values above the dashed line favor the ranibizumab group while values below the dashed line favor the PRP group.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Treatment group differences, adjusted for baseline score and optical coherence tomography (OCT) central subfield thickness, between the ranibizumab and PRP groups for the change from baseline in the University of Alabama at Birmingham Low Luminance Questionnaire (UAB-LLQ) composite score and subscales at the 1-year (Left) and 2-year visits (Right). Whiskers represent the 95% confidence interval for the composite score (black square) or 99% confidence intervals for the subscales (gray circles). Values above the dashed line favor the ranibizumab group while values below the dashed line favor the PRP group.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Treatment group differences, adjusted for baseline score and optical coherence tomography (OCT) central subfield thickness, between the ranibizumab and PRP groups for the change from baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAIQ) scores at the 1-year (Left) and 2-year visits (Right). Whiskers represent 99% confidence intervals. Values above the dashed line favor the PRP group while values below the dashed line favor the ranibizumab group.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Writing Committee for the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network Panretinal photocoagulation vs intravitreous ranibizumab for proliferative diabetic retinopathy: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314(20):2137–46. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mangione CM, Lee PP, Gutierrez PR, Spritzer K, Berry S, Hays RD. Development of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119(7):1050–8. - PubMed
    1. Owsley C, McGwin G, Jr., Scilley K, Kallies K. Development of a questionnaire to assess vision problems under low luminance in age-related maculopathy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47(2):528–35. - PubMed
    1. Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS, Dukes EM. The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. Pharmacoeconomics. 1993;4(5):353–65. - PubMed
    1. Lucentis(R) [package insert] Genentech I; South San Francisco, CA: Feb, 2015. [July 1, 2016]. http://www.gene.com/download/pdf/lucentis_prescribing.pdf.

Publication types

MeSH terms