Diabetic Macular Edema and Diode Subthreshold Micropulse Laser: A Randomized Double-Masked Noninferiority Clinical Trial

Abstract

Purpose: To determine clinical effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of subthreshold micropulse laser (SML), compared with standard laser (SL), for diabetic macular edema (DME) with central retinal thickness (CRT) < 400 μm.

Design: Pragmatic, multicenter, allocation-concealed, double-masked, randomized, noninferiority trial.

Participants: Adults with center-involved DME < 400 μm and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of > 24 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters in one/both eyes.

Methods: Randomization 1:1 to 577 nm SML or SL treatment. Retreatments were allowed. Rescue with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies or steroids was permitted if 10 or more ETDRS letter loss occurred, CRT increased > 400 μm, or both.

Main outcome measures: Primary outcome was mean change in BCVA in the study eye at 24 months (noninferiority margin 5 ETDRS letters). Secondary outcomes were mean change from baseline to month 24 in binocular BCVA; CRT and mean deviation of Humphrey 10-2 visual field in the study eye; percentage meeting driving standards; EuroQoL EQ-5D-5L, 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25), and Vision and Quality of Life Index (VisQoL) scores; cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained; adverse effects; and number of laser and rescue treatments.

Results: The study recruited fully (n = 266); 87% of SML-treated and 86% of SL-treated patients had primary outcome data. Mean ± standard deviation BCVA change from baseline to month 24 was -2.43 ± 8.20 letters and -0.45 ± 6.72 letters in the SML and SL groups, respectively. Subthreshold micropulse laser therapy was deemed not only noninferior but also equivalent to SL therapy because the 95% confidence interval (CI; -3.9 to -0.04 letters) lay wholly within both upper and lower margins of the permitted maximum difference (5 ETDRS letters). No statistically significant difference was found in binocular BCVA (0.32 ETDRS letters; 95% CI, -0.99 to 1.64 ETDRS letters; P = 0.63); CRT (-0.64 μm; 95% CI, -14.25 to 12.98 μm; P = 0.93); mean deviation of the visual field (0.39 decibels (dB); 95% CI, -0.23 to 1.02 dB; P = 0.21); meeting driving standards (percentage point difference, 1.6%; 95% CI, -25.3% to 28.5%; P = 0.91); adverse effects (risk ratio, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.06-1.34; P = 0.11); rescue treatments (percentage point difference, -2.8%; 95% CI, -13.1% to 7.5%; P = 0.59); or EQ-5D, NEI-VFQ-25, or VisQoL scores. Number of laser treatments was higher in the SML group (0.48; 95% CI, 0.18-0.79; P = 0.002). Base-case analysis indicated no differences in costs or QALYs.

Conclusions: Subthreshold micropulse laser therapy was equivalent to SL therapy, requiring slightly higher laser treatments.

Keywords: Anti-VEGF; DME; Diabetic macular edema; Macular laser; Micropulse.