In 1985, the ETDRS (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study) demonstrated that focal (direct/grid) laser photocoagulation reduces moderate vision loss caused by diabetic macular oedema (DMO) by 50% or more and described “clinically significant macular oedema” (ETDRS Research Group, 1985), which defined the parameters for treatment for the next 26 years.
In 2011, two large randomised controlled trials substantiated the safety and efficacy of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) drugs for diabetic retinopathy:
- The RESTORE (Ranibizumab Monotherapy or Combined with Laser versus Laser Monotherapy for Diabetic Macular Edema) study was an industry-sponsored, multicentre randomised controlled trial in 73 centres across 13 countries (Mitchell et al, 2011).
- The DRCR.net (Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network) study, a randomised controlled trial funded by the US National Institutes of Health, was conducted at 52 clinical sites in the US (Elman et al, 2011).
In the RESTORE study, the proportions of participants gaining 10 letters in visual acuity in their treated eye after 12 months of treatment were 37% in those randomised to ranibizumab monotherapy, 43% in those randomised to ranibizumab plus laser photocoagulation and 15% in those randomised to laser photocoagulation alone (P<0.001). The proportions of participants who lost 10 letters of visual acuity in their treated eye after 12 months were 3%, 4% and 13%, respectively (P<0.05).
In the DRCR.net study, after 12 months of treatment a gain of 10 letters in visual acuity was reported in 47% of eyes treated with ranibizumab plus deferred laser photocoagulation, 51% of eyes treated with ranibizumab plus prompt laser photocoagulation and 28% of eyes treated with laser photocoagulation alone (P<0.001). After 12 months a loss of 10 letters in the treated eye was reported in 3%, 3% and 13% of eyes respectively, (P≤0.001).
In 2011, NICE decided not to recommend ranibizumab for the treatment of DMO, largely owing to the high costs (approximately £1000 per injection at that time) associated with the drug. In early 2013, NICE overturned its ruling and recommended ranibizumab as an option for treating visual impairment due to diabetic macular oedema only if (NICE, 2013):
- The person has a central retinal thickness of 400 µm or more.
- And the manufacturer provides ranibizumab with the discount agreed as part of the patient access scheme (as revised in 2012).
Other possible VEGF inhibitors include aflibercept, which is currently being reviewed by NICE for DMO, and bevacizumab, which is a preparation that has yet to be tested sufficiently against DMO to be approved for use in this indication. In addition, there are other intravitreal VEGF inhibitors that have not yet obtained a European licence. Competition and time will reduce the cost.
The workload for intravitreal injections is increasing. In Gloucestershire, a county with a population of 600 000, we are needing to give over 7000 intravitreal injections per annum, the vast majority being for age-related macular degeneration. Approximately 700 of these were for diabetic macular oedema this year.
The economic arguments are complicated, pitting prioritisation of healthcare to prevent more visual loss from DMO against providing better facilities in other aspects of healthcare (e.g. renal dialysis or cardiac surgery).
Having watched people lose their vision over the years from centre-involving DMO and the potential that these drugs show, I believe that they are worth the cost. However, we also need further advances in this field, such as VEGF inhibitors that have a longer duration of action than 4 weeks, can be administered orally or in an eye drop preparation rather than requiring intravitreal injections, and are less expensive.
Diabetes &
Primary Care
Issue:
Vol:16 | No:05
Intravitreal VEGF inhibitors for diabetic macular oedema: Are they worth the cost?
In 1985, the ETDRS (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study) demonstrated that focal (direct/grid) laser photocoagulation reduces moderate vision loss caused by diabetic macular oedema (DMO) by 50% or more and described “clinically significant macular oedema” (ETDRS Research Group, 1985), which defined the parameters for treatment for the next 26 years.
In 2011, two large randomised controlled trials substantiated the safety and efficacy of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) drugs for diabetic retinopathy:
In the RESTORE study, the proportions of participants gaining 10 letters in visual acuity in their treated eye after 12 months of treatment were 37% in those randomised to ranibizumab monotherapy, 43% in those randomised to ranibizumab plus laser photocoagulation and 15% in those randomised to laser photocoagulation alone (P<0.001). The proportions of participants who lost 10 letters of visual acuity in their treated eye after 12 months were 3%, 4% and 13%, respectively (P<0.05).
In the DRCR.net study, after 12 months of treatment a gain of 10 letters in visual acuity was reported in 47% of eyes treated with ranibizumab plus deferred laser photocoagulation, 51% of eyes treated with ranibizumab plus prompt laser photocoagulation and 28% of eyes treated with laser photocoagulation alone (P<0.001). After 12 months a loss of 10 letters in the treated eye was reported in 3%, 3% and 13% of eyes respectively, (P≤0.001).
In 2011, NICE decided not to recommend ranibizumab for the treatment of DMO, largely owing to the high costs (approximately £1000 per injection at that time) associated with the drug. In early 2013, NICE overturned its ruling and recommended ranibizumab as an option for treating visual impairment due to diabetic macular oedema only if (NICE, 2013):
Other possible VEGF inhibitors include aflibercept, which is currently being reviewed by NICE for DMO, and bevacizumab, which is a preparation that has yet to be tested sufficiently against DMO to be approved for use in this indication. In addition, there are other intravitreal VEGF inhibitors that have not yet obtained a European licence. Competition and time will reduce the cost.
The workload for intravitreal injections is increasing. In Gloucestershire, a county with a population of 600 000, we are needing to give over 7000 intravitreal injections per annum, the vast majority being for age-related macular degeneration. Approximately 700 of these were for diabetic macular oedema this year.
The economic arguments are complicated, pitting prioritisation of healthcare to prevent more visual loss from DMO against providing better facilities in other aspects of healthcare (e.g. renal dialysis or cardiac surgery).
Having watched people lose their vision over the years from centre-involving DMO and the potential that these drugs show, I believe that they are worth the cost. However, we also need further advances in this field, such as VEGF inhibitors that have a longer duration of action than 4 weeks, can be administered orally or in an eye drop preparation rather than requiring intravitreal injections, and are less expensive.
In 1985, the ETDRS (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study) demonstrated that focal (direct/grid) laser photocoagulation reduces moderate vision loss caused by diabetic macular oedema (DMO) by 50% or more and described “clinically significant macular oedema” (ETDRS Research Group, 1985), which defined the parameters for treatment for the next 26 years.
In 2011, two large randomised controlled trials substantiated the safety and efficacy of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) drugs for diabetic retinopathy:
In the RESTORE study, the proportions of participants gaining 10 letters in visual acuity in their treated eye after 12 months of treatment were 37% in those randomised to ranibizumab monotherapy, 43% in those randomised to ranibizumab plus laser photocoagulation and 15% in those randomised to laser photocoagulation alone (P<0.001). The proportions of participants who lost 10 letters of visual acuity in their treated eye after 12 months were 3%, 4% and 13%, respectively (P<0.05).
In the DRCR.net study, after 12 months of treatment a gain of 10 letters in visual acuity was reported in 47% of eyes treated with ranibizumab plus deferred laser photocoagulation, 51% of eyes treated with ranibizumab plus prompt laser photocoagulation and 28% of eyes treated with laser photocoagulation alone (P<0.001). After 12 months a loss of 10 letters in the treated eye was reported in 3%, 3% and 13% of eyes respectively, (P≤0.001).
In 2011, NICE decided not to recommend ranibizumab for the treatment of DMO, largely owing to the high costs (approximately £1000 per injection at that time) associated with the drug. In early 2013, NICE overturned its ruling and recommended ranibizumab as an option for treating visual impairment due to diabetic macular oedema only if (NICE, 2013):
Other possible VEGF inhibitors include aflibercept, which is currently being reviewed by NICE for DMO, and bevacizumab, which is a preparation that has yet to be tested sufficiently against DMO to be approved for use in this indication. In addition, there are other intravitreal VEGF inhibitors that have not yet obtained a European licence. Competition and time will reduce the cost.
The workload for intravitreal injections is increasing. In Gloucestershire, a county with a population of 600 000, we are needing to give over 7000 intravitreal injections per annum, the vast majority being for age-related macular degeneration. Approximately 700 of these were for diabetic macular oedema this year.
The economic arguments are complicated, pitting prioritisation of healthcare to prevent more visual loss from DMO against providing better facilities in other aspects of healthcare (e.g. renal dialysis or cardiac surgery).
Having watched people lose their vision over the years from centre-involving DMO and the potential that these drugs show, I believe that they are worth the cost. However, we also need further advances in this field, such as VEGF inhibitors that have a longer duration of action than 4 weeks, can be administered orally or in an eye drop preparation rather than requiring intravitreal injections, and are less expensive.
Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research Group (1985) Photocoagulation for diabetic macular edema. Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study report number 1. Arch Ophthalmol 103: 1796–806
Elman MJ, Bressler NM, Qin H et al (2011) Expanded 2-year follow-up of ranibizumab plus prompt or deferred laser or triamcinolone plus prompt laser for diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology 118: 609–14
Mitchell P, Bandello F, Schmidt-Erfurth U et al (2011) The RESTORE study: ranibizumab monotherapy or combined with laser versus laser monotherapy for diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology 118: 615–25
NICE (2013) Ranibizumab for treating diabetic macular oedema (rapid review of technology appraisal guidance 237). NICE, London. Available at: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta274 (accessed 09.05.14)
Interactive case study: Non-diabetic hyperglycaemia – Prediabetes
Diabetes Distilled: Smoking cessation cuts excess mortality rates after as little as 3 years
Impact of Freestyle Libre 2 on diabetes distress and glycaemic control in people on twice-daily pre-mixed insulin
Updated guidance from the PCDS and ABCD: Managing the national GLP-1 RA shortage
Diabetes Distilled: Fib-4 – A diagnostic and prognostic marker for liver and cardiovascular events and mortality
At a glance factsheet: Tirzepatide for management of type 2 diabetes
Editorial: Lipid management, tirzepatide and hybrid closed-loop: What does new NICE guidance recommend?
Diagnosing and managing non-diabetic hyperglycaemia.
17 Apr 2024
The mortality benefits of smoking cessation may be greater and accrue more rapidly than previously understood.
2 Apr 2024
Expanding CGM eligibility criteria to include this patient group may be beneficial.
27 Mar 2024
Advice on selecting alternative glucose-lowering therapies when GLP-1 RAs used in the management of type 2 diabetes in adults are unavailable.
22 Mar 2024