Diabetic macular edema is the leading cause of moderate visual loss among patients with diabetes and can occur at any stage of retinopathy. It results from the accumulation of extracellular fluid within the retinal tissue caused by breakdown of retina-blood barrier and if left untreated ultimately will lead to visual loss. Chronic hyperglycemia leads to alternations in different cellular and molecular pathways leading to the breakdown of endothelial barrier and leakage of intravascular fluids into the extracellular space. Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain the pathogenesis of macular edema including hypoxia, inflammatory mediators, renin-angiotensin system, kallikrein-bradykinin system, protein kinase C (PKC), (
Xia et al. 1996;
Aiello 2002) and VEGF (
Aiello et al. 1997;
Ruckman et al. 1998). Several investigators found that VEGF, in particular VEGF-A
165, is a key factor in increasing vascular permeability. VEGF was found to induce structural changes in the endothelial tight junctions leading to increased permeability (
Antonetti et al. 1999).
The repeated intravitreal administration of anti-VEGF agents have been shown to be more effective than conventional focal/grid laser alone in the treatment of diabetic macular edema (
Elman et al. 2010). The Macugen Diabetic Retinopathy Study group recently presented data for the phase III trial for the treatment of DME with pegaptanib (Macugen®). In this study, 260 patients with DME were randomized to 0.3 mg pegaptanib or a sham injection every 6 weeks for the first year. In the second year, further injection was determined by the investigator based on the specific criteria. Laser treatment can be given starting from week 18 if deemed necessary by the investigator. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who experienced an improvement in vision from baseline of two lines, or 10 letters, on the ETDRS eye chart at 1 year. At 1 year, 37% of pegaptanib patients experience an improvement of 10 letters or more, compared to 20% of sham-treated patients (
p = 0.0047). On average, pegaptanib patients gained 5.2 letters of vision at year 1 compared to 1.2 letters for patients receiving sham. At the end of year 2, pegaptanib patients had gained on average 6.1 letters of vision compared to 1.3 letters for patients in the sham arm of the study (
P < 0.01) (
Sultan et al. 2011).
The DRCR.net conducted a pilot phase II trial to determine the efficacy and safety of intravitreal bevacizumab in the treatment of DME. The study compared five treatment groups: focal laser treatment alone, two groups with two different doses of bevacizumab (1.25 mg and 2.5 mg) at week 0 and 6, and two additional groups in which 1.25 mg bevacizumab was replaced by sham at week 6 or combined with laser treatment at week 3. The efficacy analysis was performed at 12 weeks and the 24-month safety results were reported as well. Compared with the focal laser-alone group, the bevacizumab groups showed a greater reduction in retinal thickness at 3 weeks but were not significantly different from the control group after that. Compared to the focal-laser alone group, the bevacizumab groups showed a larger improvement in vision with a median improvement in visual acuity of about 1 line at the 3-week visit, which was sustained through 12 weeks. The results of this pilot study suggested potential benefit of bevacizumab in the treatment DME but definitive efficacy results need a long-term phase III trial (
Scott et al. 2007). The READ-2 study (Ranibizumab for Edema of the mAcula in Diabetes) has also reported the phase II results on the efficacy of ranibizumab in DME compared to laser treatment. The study compared three treatment groups: 0.5 mg intravitreal ranibizumab (group 1), focal laser photocoagulation (group 2), and combined ranibizumab with focal laser (group 3). The results showed that the ranibizumab treated patients had better visual outcome over 6 months of follow-up. At month 6, the mean gain in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was significantly greater in group 1 (+7.24 letters,
p = 0.01) compared with group 2 (-0.43 letters), and group 3 (+3.80 letters) was not statistically different from groups 1 or 2 (
Nguyen et al. 2009).
The DRCR.net has published the 1-year results of a phase III trial comparing focal grid laser alone to ranibizumab with prompt or deferred focal/grid laser, or intravitreal triamcinolone with prompt focal/grid laser () (
Elman et al. 2010). It is the largest and most comprehensive randomized controlled trial to date on ranibizumab for the treatment of diabetic macular edema. The patients were randomized into four treatments arms: 0.5 mg intravitreal ranibizumab with prompt laser treatment (
n = 187), 0.5 mg intravitreal ranibizumab with deferred laser treatment (
n = 188), focal/grid laser alone with sham injection (
n = 293) and 4 mg intravitreal triamcinolone with prompt laser treatment (
n = 186). For the 1-year primary outcome, the mean change in the visual acuity letter score from baseline was significantly greater in the ranibizumab with prompt laser group (+9,
p = 0.001) and ranibizumab with deferred laser group (+9,
p = 0.001) but not in the triamcinolone with prompt laser group (+4,
p = 0.31) as compared with sham injections and prompt laser (+3). The results also reflected both a greater proportion of eyes with a substantial improvement of 10 letters or more (50% and 47% vs. 28%) and 15 letters or more (30% and 28% vs. 15%) and a lower proportion of eyes with a substantial worsening of 10 letters or more (4% and 3% vs. 13%) and 15 letters or (2% and 2% vs. 8%) in the 2 ranibizumab groups compared with the sham + prompt laser group. The study reported that preliminary 2-year outcomes generally mirrored the 1-year primary outcome results but the 2-year follow-up has only been completed for 57% of patients. The OCT results comparing the sham/prompt laser and the ranibizumab groups generally paralleled the overall visual acuity results, favoring the ranibizumab groups. The study reported a favorable safety profile for intravitreal ranibizumab with 0.08% incidence of endophthalmitis and no significant increase in the cardiovascular events compared to controls.
An interesting finding that was noticed by subgroup analysis was a beneficial effect on retinopathy progression (). Both ranibizumab groups showed a trend toward a reduction in 2-level retinopathy progression and an increase in 2-level retinopathy regression, but this was not statistically significant. Using a surrogate of retinopathy progression, both the ranibizumab and triamcinolone groups showed statistically significant reduction in the incidence of vitreous hemorrhage and the need for panretinal laser photocoagulation compared to sham-focal/grid laser group (3%,
p = 0.002 and 3%,
p = 0.02, respectively, vs. 8%) (
Elman et al. 2010). Similar effect on retinopathy progression has been seen in other anti-VEGF studies.
The first-year results of another phase III trial that compares ranibizumab to laser treatment (Efficacy and Safety of Ranibizumab in Patients With Visual Impairment Due to Diabetic Macular Edema [RESTORE]) have also been reported. The study included 345 patients that were divided into three treatment groups: ranibizumab with sham laser, laser with sham injection, and combined ranibizumab/laser. The results showed that 37% of patients treated with ranibizumab 0.5 mg alone, and 43% of those treated with ranibizumab plus laser therapy, had substantial vision improvement of 10 letters or more compared to 16% of patients treated with laser alone. The RESTORE study showed that over 1 year, patients treated with ranibizumab plus laser gained 5.9 letters and those treated with ranibizumab gained 6.1 letters whereas, patients receiving laser therapy gained only 0.8 letters compared to baseline (
Mitchell et al. 2011).
There are two ongoing phase III trials that are evaluating the efficacy of ranibizumab compared to sham injection (A Study of Ranibizumab Injection in Subjects With Clinically Significant Macular Edema With Center Involvement Secondary to Diabetes Mellitus [RIDE] and A Study of Ranibizumab Injection in Subjects With Clinically Significant Macular Edema With Center Involvement Secondary to Diabetes Mellitus [RISE]). Both studies have enrolled approximately 366 patients and will be completed in 2012.
Other anti-VEGF therapies for macular edema such as VEGF trap have been shown in phase I trials to have encouraging efficacy and good safety profile in DME. The VEGF trap study included five patients given single 4.0 mg of VEGF trap and followed up over 6 weeks. By the end of the follow-up duration, most of the patients showed a trend toward visual acuity improvement and reduction in central foveal thickness (
Do et al. 2009).
PKC-β inhibitor, ruboxistaurin, given orally, has been shown to delay progression of DME to a sight-threatening stage and may ameliorate edema-associated visual decline in patients with persisting severe DME (
PKC-DMES Study Group 2007;
Davis et al. 2009). PKC-DRS2 group conducted a large multicenter randomized study in which they compared 32 mg of ruboxistaurin given orally to placebo over 36 months. The study included 685 patients from approximately 70 centers. Ruboxistaurin reduced the risk of moderate visual loss to 5.5% compared to 9.1% in placebo-treated patients (
p = 0.034). In addition, mean visual acuity was better in the ruboxistaurin-treated patients after 12 months (15 letters improvement: 4.9% vs. 2.4%, and 15-letter worsening: 6.7% vs. 9.9% in ruboxistaurin-treated patients relative to placebo,
p = 0.005). Ruboxistaurin treatment also was associated with less frequent progression of edema to within 100 µm of the center (68% vs. 50%,
p = 0.003). Treatment with ruboxistaurin reduced the risk of initial laser treatment by 26% (
p = 0.008) (
Aiello et al. 2006). Further clinical studies of ruboxistaurin are ongoing.