Cargando…

Ranibizumab in Diabetic Macular Oedema – A Benefit–risk Analysis of Ranibizumab 0.5 mg PRN Versus Laser Treatment

Introduction: The structured Benefit–risk Action Team (BRAT) approach aims to assist healthcare decision makers in treatment assessments. We applied BRAT to compare the benefit–risk profile of ranibizumab 0.5 mg versus laser photocoagulation for the treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DMO). Method...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ziemssen, Focke, Cruess, Alan, Dunger-Baldauf, Cornelia, Margaron, Philippe, Snow, Howard, Strain, William David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Touch Medical Media 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5813472/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29632615
http://dx.doi.org/10.17925/EE.2017.13.02.91
Descripción
Sumario:Introduction: The structured Benefit–risk Action Team (BRAT) approach aims to assist healthcare decision makers in treatment assessments. We applied BRAT to compare the benefit–risk profile of ranibizumab 0.5 mg versus laser photocoagulation for the treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DMO). Methods: One-year data for the ranibizumab 0.5 mg pro re nata (PRN) and laser arms of the phase III trials RESPOND (NCT01135914; n=220), RESTORE (NCT00687804; n=345), and REVEAL (NCT00989989; n=396) were included in the analysis. The benefit measures included ≥10 letters gain/avoidance of loss in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), achieving central retinal thickness (CRT) <275 μm, and 25-item Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ-25) outcomes. The risks measures included endophthalmitis, intraocular pressure increase, hypertension, proteinuria, arterial/venous thromboembolic events and deaths. Results: Ranibizumab treatment provided significant benefits compared with laser for ≥10 letter BCVA gain at month 12 (387/1,000 versus 152/1,000 patients), CRT <275 μm at 12 months (474/1,000 versus 348/1,000 patients), and improvement of ≥6.06 on the VFQ-25 near activities subscale (325/1,000 versus 245/1,000 patients). Results for the risk measures were similar for both treatments. Conclusions: Superior clinically relevant outcomes were observed with ranibizumab 0.5 mg PRN compared with laser without compromising on safety. This analysis further supports the positive benefit–risk profile of ranibizumab 0.5 mg PRN.