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
. 2019 Jan;126(1):87-95.
doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.08.001. Epub 2018 Aug 7.

Rationale and Application of the Protocol S Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Algorithm for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Rationale and Application of the Protocol S Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Algorithm for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy

Jennifer K Sun et al. Ophthalmology. 2019 Jan.

Abstract

Purpose: To present the rationale, guidelines, and results of ranibizumab treatment for proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) in Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network (DRCR.net) Protocol S.

Design: Post hoc analyses from a randomized clinical trial.

Participants: Three hundred five participants (394 study eyes) having PDR without prior panretinal photocoagulation (PRP).

Methods: Intravitreous ranibizumab (0.5 mg) versus PRP for PDR. Ranbizumab-assigned eyes (n = 191) received monthly injections for 6 months unless resolution was achieved after 4 injections. After 6 months, injections could be deferred if neovascularization was stable over 3 consecutive visits (sustained stability). If neovascularization worsened, monthly treatment resumed. Panretinal photocoagulation could be initiated for failure or futility criteria.

Main outcome measures: Neovascularization status through 2 years.

Results: At 1 month, 19% (35 of 188) of ranibizumab-assigned eyes showed complete neovascularization resolution and an additional 60% (113) showed improvement. At 6 months, 52% (80 of 153) showed neovascularization resolution, 3% (4) were improved, 37% (56) were stable, and 8% (13) had worsened since the last visit. Among eyes with versus without resolved neovascularization at 6 months, the median (interquartile range) number of injections between 6 months and 2 years was 4 (1-7; n = 73) versus 7 (4-11; n = 67; P < 0.001). Injections were deferred in 68 of 73 eyes (93%) meeting sustained stability at least once during the study; 62% (42 of 68) resumed injections within 16 weeks after deferral. At 2 years, 43% (66 of 154) showed neovascularization resolution, 5% (7) showed improvement, 23% (36) were stable, and 27% (42) had worsened since the last visit. Only 3 eyes met criteria for failure or futility through 2 years.

Conclusions: The DRCR.net treatment algorithm for PDR can provide excellent clinical outcomes through 2 years for patients initiating anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy for PDR. When choosing between anti-VEGF and PRP as first-line therapy for PDR, treatment decisions should be guided by consideration of the relative advantages of each therapeutic method and anticipated patient compliance with follow-up and treatment recommendations.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: Authors have potential conflicts of interest to report and will list them on their conflict of interest forms returned to the journal.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Principles of the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network (DRCR.net) Anti-VEGF Treatment Algorithm for proliferative diabetic retinopathy. * 4-week, not 1-month, intervals were used. † 4 injections were required every 4 weeks initially; it is not known whether a different number of injections initially would have worked as well. DRCR.net also required 2 additional injections at months 5 and 6 unless there was complete absence of neovascularization (“resolved”). ‡ Relevant details: 1) deferral of injections due to stability occurred only when “sustained stability” criteria were met, defined as neovascularization clinically unchanged at the current visit and the and last 2 injection visits, 2) “resolved” was defined as absence of neovascularization of the iris, neovascularization of the disc, neovascularization elsewhere, and neovascularization of the angle (if the angle was assessed). § Injection was at investigator discretion if neovascularization status was sustained stability or resolved and was performed 15% and 23% of the time in these cases, respectively. ∥ Panretinal photocoagulation was permitted if failure criteria were met, namely, if neovascularization worsened substantially despite at least 4 monthly injections or iris neovascularization involving the angle developed. ¶ Follow-up continued every 4 weeks through the 52-week visit and did not permit extension of follow-up until after the 52-week visit. If injection was withheld due to no resolution or sustained stability at 3 consecutive visits following the week 52 visit, follow-up interval was doubled to 8 weeks and then again to 16 weeks if still no change.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Paired baseline (A, C, E, G) and follow-up (B, D, F, H) fundus photographs of retinal neovascularization (NV) showing 4 types of NV change over time. Resolved: NV that fully resolved without any residual vessels or fibrosis 1 week after anti-VEGF treatment (A, B). Improved: NV decreased in extent and severity 1 week after anti-VEGF therapy but with some residual NV and fibrosis (C, D). Stable: NV that remained stable in extent and severity over a period of 1 year without treatment (E, F). Worsened: NV of the disc that worsened in extent and severity over 32 Weeks (G, H).
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Status of retinal neovascularization at each visit as determined by investigators (R = randomization visit at which injection was required).
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Percentage of eyes with stable neovascularization or sustained stability of neovascularization (stability at 3 consecutive visits) at each visit.
Figure 5:
Figure 5:
Cumulative probability of resuming injections after deferral due to sustained stability of neovascularization (stability at 3 consecutive visits).

References

    1. Klein R, Klein BE, Moss SE, Davis MD, DeMets DL. The Wisconsin epidemiologic study of diabetic retinopathy. III. Prevalence and risk of diabetic retinopathy when age at diagnosis is 30 or more years. Arch Ophthalmol. 1984;102:527–32. - PubMed
    1. Stratton IM, Kohner EM, Aldington SJ, et al. UKPDS 50: risk factors for incidence and progression of retinopathy in Type II diabetes over 6 years from diagnosis. Diabetologia. 2001;44(2):156–63. - PubMed
    1. The Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research Group. Photocoagulation treatment of proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Clinical application of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (DRS) findings, DRS Report Number 8. Ophthalmology. 1981;88(7):583–600. - PubMed
    1. Writing Committee for the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network, Gross JG, Glassman AR, et al. Panretinal photocoagulation vs intravitreous ranibizumab for proliferative diabetic retinopathy: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314(20):2137–46. - PMC - PubMed
    1. The Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research Group. Preliminary report on effects of photocoagulation therapy. Am J Ophthalmol. 1976;81(4):383–96. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources