FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2173824016> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2173824016 abstract "Afterdecadesofusing focal/grid laserphotocoagulation to reduce the riskofvision losswithdiabeticmacularedema(DME), thecurrent therapyhasshifted to intravitreal injectionsofanti– vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents, which can result in gains in visual acuity (VA). Investigators from theDiabetic Retinopathy Clinical ResearchNetwork1 report in this issueof JAMAOphthalmology the findings fromthe secondary analyses of data previously reported in a comparative trial of 3 anti-VEGFagents—aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab—for the treatment of DME.2 The current report examines the1-yearoutcomesof subgroups thatwerebothprespecified and post hoc.1 The comparative trial randomized 660 participants with DME into 3 groups: participants received 0.05-mL intravitreal injections of 2 mg of aflibercept, 1.25 mg of bevacizumab, or 0.3 mg of ranibizumab.2 All 3 drugs resulted in substantial improvement, on average, in VA at 1 year, with mean improvement occurring by 1 month. Prespecified subgroup analyses were based on baseline VA, worse VA (Snellen equivalent of 20/50 or worse), or better VA (Snellen equivalent of 20/32 or 20/40). All 3 agents were considered to have similar effects on VA for participants whose baseline VA was 20/30 or 20/40. However, for participants whose baseline VA was 20/50 or worse, improvement in VA was greatest with aflibercept while the effects of ranibizumab and bevacizumab on VA were similar. In addition, the participants who received aflibercept also required less supplemental focal/grid laser photocoagulation than did the patients who received ranibizumab or bevacizumab. In thecurrent report, additional exploratoryanalyseswere conducted, again stratified by baseline VA, to evaluate the 1-year VA outcomes in greater detail.1 In addition to themean VA gain at 1 year, the proportion of participants experiencing visual gain or loss of 10, 15, or more letters were previously published.2 The additional data presented included an unusualdetailed listingofVAoutcomesat 1 year, includinganalyses of the proportion of participants achieving VA of 20/20 at 1 year in each of the treatment groups. Post hoc analyseswere alsoconductedbasedonstratificationbybaseline retinal thickness as measured by optical coherence tomography in addition tobaselineVA.Central subfield thicknesswasdivided into thicker (>400μm)or thinner (250-399μm)categories.Thescatter plot in eFigure 1 in the current report1 showedonly amodest correlationof retinal thicknesswithVA, similar to the scatterplotpublished inastudypreviously reportedbytheDiabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network.3 Participants with thickenedor thinned retinamayhaveawide rangeofVAs.The current analyses showed separate interactions of baseline VA with treatment and baseline central subfield thickness with treatment, but when both 2-way interactions were included in the analyses, only baseline VA remained statistically significant.1 It is not surprising that, regardless of central subfield thickness, baseline VA remains the most important factor in determining the visual outcomes at 1 year for the treatment, given themodest correlationwithVAof retinal thickness as measured by optical coherence tomography. Despite these findings in the subgroup analyses, the investigators expressed concern about the efficacy of bevacizumab.1Asnoted intheabstract, for thesubgroupofeyes with better initial VA and thicker central subfield thickness, “some VA outcomesmay beworse in the bevacizumab group than in theafliberceptandranibizumabgroups.”1Do thesenew data persuade us that there are clinically important differences among the 3 anti-VEGF agents, especially for bevacizumab? I concurwith the investigators’ ownstatements about thesedata: “Given theexploratorynatureof theseanalysesand the small sample size within subgroups, caution is suggested when using the data to guide treatment considerations for patients.”1 These data cannot provide support to further differentiate the effects of the 3 treatments. In fact, these data fully support the investigators’ initial conclusion that, for persons with DME presenting with better initial VA, all 3 antiVEGF agents were appropriate while the greatest visual gain was achieved with aflibercept treatment in participants presenting with the poorest VA. The proportion of persons in the general population presenting with DME with visual impairment of 20/50 or worse is difficult to ascertain because clinical trials have limitations on the degree of VA for patient eligibility. Population-based studiesdonothavesufficientnumbersofpersonsaffectedwith DME to provide reliable statistics (R. Klein, MD, written communication, August 13, 2015). However, the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study,4 which was a clinical trial conducted in the 1980s that acceptedparticipantswithDMEwith a variety of levels of VA and with no lower limits on VA, suggested that 75%of patients presenting to a general clinicwith DMEhave a VA of 20/40 or better. One could assume that this proportionwouldbemarkedly increased in thepresent, as the medical care of glycemic andbloodpressure control andmanagement of dyslipidemia for persons with diabetes mellitus have vastly improved over the decades. Regardless of the precise number of personswith varying degrees of baseline VA seeking treatment for DME, the issues surrounding compounding pharmacies for bevacizumab, or types of health insurance coverage, bevacizumab remains an important player in this trio of anti-VEGF therapies. Because of itsmarkedly reduced cost andbecause of the findings from thiscomparative trial,bevacizumabstill canbea first-line treatRelated article page 127 1-Year Efficacy of Anti-VEGF Agents in Diabetic Macular Edema Original Investigation Research" @default.
• W2173824016 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2173824016 creator A5090802305 @default.
• W2173824016 date "2016-02-01" @default.
• W2173824016 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2173824016 title "Drilling Deeper for Treatment Choices in Diabetic Macular Edema" @default.
• W2173824016 cites W1574902248 @default.
• W2173824016 cites W1786299986 @default.
• W2173824016 doi "https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2015.4652" @default.
• W2173824016 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26606738" @default.
• W2173824016 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W2173824016 type Work @default.
• W2173824016 sameAs 2173824016 @default.
• W2173824016 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2173824016 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2173824016 hasAuthorship W2173824016A5090802305 @default.
• W2173824016 hasConcept C118487528 @default.
• W2173824016 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2173824016 hasConcept C134018914 @default.
• W2173824016 hasConcept C168563851 @default.
• W2173824016 hasConcept C2776694085 @default.
• W2173824016 hasConcept C2777802072 @default.
• W2173824016 hasConcept C2778257484 @default.
• W2173824016 hasConcept C2778749236 @default.
• W2173824016 hasConcept C2779829184 @default.
• W2173824016 hasConcept C2781100027 @default.
• W2173824016 hasConcept C2985127711 @default.
• W2173824016 hasConcept C555293320 @default.
• W2173824016 hasConcept C67761136 @default.
• W2173824016 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2173824016 hasConceptScore W2173824016C118487528 @default.
• W2173824016 hasConceptScore W2173824016C126322002 @default.
• W2173824016 hasConceptScore W2173824016C134018914 @default.
• W2173824016 hasConceptScore W2173824016C168563851 @default.
• W2173824016 hasConceptScore W2173824016C2776694085 @default.
• W2173824016 hasConceptScore W2173824016C2777802072 @default.
• W2173824016 hasConceptScore W2173824016C2778257484 @default.
• W2173824016 hasConceptScore W2173824016C2778749236 @default.
• W2173824016 hasConceptScore W2173824016C2779829184 @default.
• W2173824016 hasConceptScore W2173824016C2781100027 @default.
• W2173824016 hasConceptScore W2173824016C2985127711 @default.
• W2173824016 hasConceptScore W2173824016C555293320 @default.
• W2173824016 hasConceptScore W2173824016C67761136 @default.
• W2173824016 hasConceptScore W2173824016C71924100 @default.
• W2173824016 hasLocation W21738240161 @default.
• W2173824016 hasLocation W21738240162 @default.
• W2173824016 hasOpenAccess W2173824016 @default.
• W2173824016 hasPrimaryLocation W21738240161 @default.
• W2173824016 hasRelatedWork W1792426984 @default.
• W2173824016 hasRelatedWork W1851059930 @default.
• W2173824016 hasRelatedWork W2009318764 @default.
• W2173824016 hasRelatedWork W2050823312 @default.
• W2173824016 hasRelatedWork W2069542053 @default.
• W2173824016 hasRelatedWork W2084673333 @default.
• W2173824016 hasRelatedWork W2093786875 @default.
• W2173824016 hasRelatedWork W2123241447 @default.
• W2173824016 hasRelatedWork W2227583243 @default.
• W2173824016 hasRelatedWork W2289075344 @default.
• W2173824016 hasRelatedWork W2327541576 @default.
• W2173824016 hasRelatedWork W2538328375 @default.
• W2173824016 hasRelatedWork W2605764224 @default.
• W2173824016 hasRelatedWork W2669540614 @default.
• W2173824016 hasRelatedWork W2789784671 @default.
• W2173824016 hasRelatedWork W2885315742 @default.
• W2173824016 hasRelatedWork W2900342679 @default.
• W2173824016 hasRelatedWork W2906947679 @default.
• W2173824016 hasRelatedWork W2971540737 @default.
• W2173824016 hasRelatedWork W3196499993 @default.
• W2173824016 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2173824016 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2173824016 magId "2173824016" @default.
• W2173824016 workType "article" @default.