Please select the outcome measures that correspond to the clinical trial below.
Title: A Comparative Effectiveness Study of Intravitreal Aflibercept, Bevacizumab and Ranibizumab for Diabetic Macular Edema
Brief Summary: Although multiple studies have suggested that treatment with ranibizumab is safe and efficacious and superior to focal/grid laser alone for patients with center-involved diabetic macular edema (DME), there may be barriers in place to widespread adoption of ranibizumab use given its high cost per dose and the need for multiple treatments over time. Prioritizing resources from a public health policy perspective could be easier if more precise estimates regarding the risks and benefits of other anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapies were available, especially when the difference in costs could be billions of dollars over just a few years. Thus, there is a clear rationale at this time to explore potential anti-VEGF alternatives to ranibizumab that might prove to be as or more efficacious, might deliver equally lasting or longer-lasting treatment effects, and cost substantially less. Of the potentially available alternative anti-VEGF agents for this trial, bevacizumab and aflibercept are the best candidates for a direct comparison study. Bevacizumab shares the most similar molecular structure, costs far less, and is widely available. Furthermore, there is already preliminary evidence to suggest that it may be efficacious in the treatment of DME and it is already being widely used for this indication. Although aflibercept has a similar cost per unit dose to ranibizumab, it has the potential to decrease treatment burden and associated cost. If results from a comparative trial demonstrate improved efficacy or suggest similar efficacy of bevacizumab or aflibercept over ranibizumab, this information might give clinicians scientific rationale to substitute either one of these drugs for ranibizumab in the treatment of DME, and might thereby have substantial implications for public policy in terms of future estimates of health care dollars and possibly number of treatments necessary for anti-VEGF treatment of diabetic macular disease.

Because of its availability and lower cost, bevacizumab is already currently in widespread clinical use for treatment of DME despite the lack of FDA approval for this indication. Thus, a clinical trial that suggested whether bevacizumab could be used as a safe and efficacious alternative to ranibizumab could substantially impact nationwide practice patterns for treatment of DME by either validating the current use of bevacizumab or by demonstrating improved outcomes with ranibizumab or aflibercept treatment for DME.

Study Objective The primary objective of the proposed research is to compare the efficacy and safety of (1) intravitreal aflibercept, (2) intravitreal bevacizumab, and (3) intravitreal ranibizumab when given to treat central-involved DME in eyes with visual acuity of 20/32 to 20/320.


Options:
A: Percentage of Patients Who Gained ≥ 15 Letters in Their Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) Score From Baseline at Month 24 (Baseline to Month 24)
B: Overall Change in Electronic Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Visual Acuity Letter Score From Baseline to 1-year (Baseline to 1-year); Change in Electronic Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Visual Acuity Letter Score From Baseline to 1-year: Baseline Visual Acuity Letter Score <69 (Baseline to 1-year); Change in Electronic Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Visual Acuity Letter Score From Baseline to 1-year: Baseline Visual Acuity Letter Score 78-69 (Baseline to 1-year)
C: Difference Between the Baseline Level of Visual Acuity (Letters) of the Study Eye and the Mean Visual Acuity Averaged Over All Monthly Post-baseline Assessments From Month 1 to Month 12 (Baseline through the end of study (Month 12)); Mean Change From Baseline in Visual Acuity (Letters) of the Study Eye at Month 12 (Baseline through the end of study (Month 12))
D: Core Study: Difference Between the Baseline Level of Visual Acuity (Letters) of the Study Eye and the Mean Visual Acuity Averaged Over All Monthly Post-baseline Assessments From Month 1 to Month 12 (Baseline through the end of study (Month 12)); Extension Study: Percentage of Participants With Ocular Adverse Events (AEs) in the Study Eye in the 24 Month Extension Study (Extension baseline (Month 12 -end of core study) to Month 36 (end of extension study) [24 Months]); Extension Study: Percentage of Participants With Non-Ocular Adverse Events (AEs) in the 24 Month Extension Study (Extension baseline (Month 12 -end of core study) to Month 36 (end of extension study) [24 Months])

Answer: B