Sponsored by the National Eye Institute,

A Randomized Trial Comparing Intravitreal A Randomized Trial Comparing Intravitreal Triamcinolone Triamcinolone to Focal/Grid Photocoagulation to Focal/Grid Photocoagulation

for Diabetic Macular Edemafor Diabetic Macular Edema

1

Sponsored by the National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

2

Intravitreal Triamcinolone for DME 2001-2002: potential benefit first reported1,2

Short term improvement in visual acuity Rapid decrease in retinal thickening on OCT 2005: 91% of retina specialists surveyed (N=371)

would use IVT for persistent DME3

Community equipoise present: Randomized, controlled comparison with standard care (focal/grid photocoagulation) needed1- Jonas JB, et al. Am J Ophthalmol 2001;132:425-72- Martidis A, et al. Ophthalmology 2002;109:920-73- American Society of Retina Specialists Preferences and Trends Survey 2005

3

DRCR.net Study Design Multicenter, randomized clinical trial Three treatment groups

• Focal/grid laser• 1 mg IVT• 4 mg IVT

Duration of follow-up: 3 years Follow-up visits and re-treatment as often as

every 4 months

4

Primary Study Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of preservative-free IVT (1 mg or 4 mg) with focal/grid laser

5

Efficacy Outcomes

Primary outcome assessment at 2 years Primary outcome measure: visual acuity

• Scientific objective: mean change in VA• Regulatory objective for FDA: proportion with

decrease in VA letter score >15Secondary measure: Retinal thickening on OCT

6

At least 18 years old Type 1 or type 2 diabetes Center-involved DME confirmed on OCT

• (central subfield thickness >250 microns) Best-corrected VA letter score 73 to 24

• (Snellen equivalent 20/40 to 20/320)

Major Eligibility Criteria

7

ResultsResults

8

840 eyes (693 subjects) enrolled at 88 clinical sites (2004-2006)

Treatment Groups• Laser: N = 330• 1 mg: N = 256• 4 mg: N = 254

2-year visit completion rate • 88% excluding deaths

Study Enrollment and Completion

9

Primary Outcome:Mean Change in Visual Acuity at 2 Years

Mean Change in VA (letter score)

LaserN=330

1 mgN=256

4 mgN=254

+1 -2 -3 Pairwise

Comparisons Mean Difference* P value*

Laser vs. 1 mg +3.5 letters 0.02Laser vs. 4 mg +4.6 letters 0.0021 mg vs. 4 mg +1.1 letters 0.49

* Adjusted for baseline VA and prior focal/grid laser

0 4 8 12 16 20 24

Laser1 mg4 mg

10Months

VisualAcuityScore

20/80 -

20/50 -

20/32 -

Median Visual Acuity inLaser and IVT Treated Eyes

P < 0.005* Laser vs. 1mg# Laser vs. 4mg+ 1mg vs. 4mg

20/40 -

20/63 -

*

# + * # * #

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

4 8 12 16 20 24

Laser1 mg4 mg

11Months

% Increased >10 Letters inLaser and IVT Treated Eyes

12

Visual Acuity at 2 YearsAccording to Lens Status

Mean Change in VA (letter score) Laser 1 mg 4 mg

Pseudophakic at 2 Yrs or Minimal or No

Cataract at 2 Yrs

N=178 N=136 N=159

+3 0 0

Includes only subjects with a 2 year visit

Pseudophakic at Baseline

N=54 N=48 N=43

+2 +2 -1

Laser (All eyes)

1 mg (All eyes)

4 mg (All eyes)

13

Mean Visual Acuity Over 3 Years in All Eyes

Months

VisualAcuityScore

20/80

20/50

20/32

20/40

20/63

0 12 16 20 244 8 28 32 36

14

OCT Central Subfield (CSF) Thickening at 2 Years

Change in OCT CSF LaserN=220

1 mgN=178

4 mgN=162

Mean* -139 -86 -77

Thickening Decreased >50% 67% 46% 48%

Thickness <250 microns 53% 34% 38%

*Pairwise Comparisons P valueLaser v 1 mg <0.001Laser v 4 mg <0.0011 mg v 4 mg 0.91

15

Median OCT Central Subfield Thickness in Laser and IVT Treated Eyes

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 4 8 12 16 20 24

Laser1 mg4 mg

Months

Central Subfield

Thickness(microns)

16

Change in CSFfrom 2 Years to 3 Years*

2 year CSF >=250LaserN=50

1mgN=59

4mgN=54

Mean change (microns) -79 -44 -84<250 microns at 3 years 36% 31% 39%Decreased >=20% and >=50 microns 54% 34% 46%

Increased >=20% and >=50 microns 10% 12% 13%

* Among completers of both the 2 year and 3 year visit

17

Major Ocular Adverse EventsDuring 2 Years of Follow-up

LaserN=330

1 mgN=256

4 mgN=254

Endophthalmitis* 0 0 0Pseudoendophthalmitis 0 0 0Retinal detachment† 2 2 3Retinal vein occlusion† 3 1 2Retinal artery occlusion† 1 0 0

Glaucoma procedure 0 0 4

Vitrectomy‡ 31 26 19

* 1 case of endophthalmitis occurred after vitrectomy, not related to study drug injection† Judged not necessarily related to treatment‡ Includes vitrectomy for diabetic macular edema, vitreous hemorrhage or other cause

18

Intraocular Pressure During 3 Years of Follow-up*

LaserN=115

1 mgN=93

4 mgN=98

Increase >10 mmHg any time 3% 17% 31%Mean IOP at 3 yr visit (mmHg) 16 17 16IOP >21 mmHg at 3 yr visit 5% 15% 10%On IOP-lowering meds at 3 yr visit 8% 12% 30%

* Among completers of the 3 year visit

19

Cataract Surgery Prior to 2 Years

Laser 1 mg 4 mg

Phakic at Baseline N=262 N=203 N=197

Cataract Surgery 13% 23% 51%

20

Cumulative Probability of Cataract Surgery* Over 3 Years

* Among phakic eyes at baseline

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Laser (N=262)

1 mg (N=203)

4 mg (N=197)

4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36Months

83%

46%

31%

21

Conclusion VA benefit in 4 mg IVT group at 4 months

consistent with published case series However, no difference in VA between IVT

groups and laser group by 1 year By 2 years, there was a greater VA benefit and

fewer side effects (IOP and cataract) in laser group compared with the IVT groups 3 year results similar to the 2 year results

OCT results mirrored VA results

22

Conclusion

Results re-affirm importance of laser in management of DME

Focal/grid currently most effective treatment for patients with DME (with characteristics similar to those enrolled in this trial)

Focal/grid currently benchmark against which other new treatments for DME should be compared in clinical trials for DME