Inside the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network
BY VIRGINIA PICKLES, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR
Since 2002, the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research (DRCR) Network has been conducting clinically relevant multicenter research studies focused on diabetes-induced retinal disorders. To date, the network has published approximately 50 papers, providing real-world guidance that clinicians have come to rely upon.
“The DRCR Network provides the framework for collecting data on hundreds of patients with similar degrees of diabetic retinopathy, enabling clinicians across the country to study treatments in a manner that would not be possible in a single private office or a single university,” says Harry W. Flynn, Jr., MD, professor and J. Donald M. Gass Chair of Ophthalmology at Bascom Palmer Eye Institute in Miami and a member of the DRCR Network Data and Safety Monitoring Committee. “Using similar entry criteria and similar data-collection forms, DRCR Network researchers can assess a population of patients and their responses to treatment in a relatively short time.”
The studies conducted by the DRCR Network represent the collaborative efforts of more than 400 U.S. physicians at more than 115 participating sites. Studies are funded primarily by the National Eye Institute, although some support may be provided by the private sector. For example, study drugs used in some protocols were donated by pharmaceutical companies.
Three core centers support the network’s overall operation and leadership: the Jaeb Center in Tampa, Fla. (the coordinating center), the National Eye Institute in Bethesda, Md., and the office of the chairman, Lee M. Jampol, MD. Various subcommittees ensure the consistency, safety and integrity of the trials and publications. The protocols are suggested by the investigators themselves. “Let’s say a promising new drug has come on the market and has shown some benefit in case series, but its overall benefit with 1 or 2 years of follow-up is unproven,” Dr. Flynn explains. “The Protocol Committee submits its recommendation to the Executive Committee, which discusses the pros and cons of new approaches. If they approve it, the Protocol Committee develops a full study protocol. After approval by the Data and Safety Monitoring Committee, the protocol can be put into action, and patients can be recruited for the DRCR trial.”
Table 1 recaps some of the key DRCR Network studies published over the last several years, reflecting the rapid evolution of treatments for diabetic eye diseases. Clinicians are anxiously awaiting 2-year data from Protocol T to learn if the results obtained at 1 year are maintained. One recently approved trial is Protocol V, which is currently recruiting participants to determine if patients with center-involving diabetic macular edema who have good visual acuity should be treated with laser or anti-VEGF therapy or observed.
KEY TAKEAWAY POINTS | ||
---|---|---|
Comparison of the modified Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study and mild macular grid laser photocoagulation strategies for diabetic macular edema.
Arch Ophthalmol. 2007;125:469-480. |
Protocol A | » Modified ETDRS focal photocoagulation should continue to be a standard approach for treating diabetic macular edema. |
A randomized trial comparing intra-vitreal triamcinolone acetonide and focal/grid photocoagulation for diabetic macular edema.
Ophthalmology. 2008;115:1447-1459. |
Protocol B | » Focal/grid photocoagulation is more effective and has fewer side effects than 1-mg or 4-mg doses of preservative-free intravitreal triamcinolone for the treatment of DME.
» Focal/grid photocoagulation should be the benchmark against which other treatments are compared in clinical trials of DME. |
Vitrectomy outcomes in eyes with diabetic macular edema and vitreomacular traction.
Ophthalmology. 2010;117:1087-1093. |
Protocol D | » After vitrectomy for DME and vitreomacular traction, retinal thickening was reduced in most eyes.
» 28% to 49% of eyes with characteristics similar to those included in this study are likely to have VA improvement; 13% to 31% are likely to have worsening. |
Observational study of the development of diabetic macular edema following panretinal (scatter) photocoagulation given in one or four sittings.
Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127:132-140. |
Protocol F | » Clinically meaningful differences are unlikely in OCT thickness or VA following application of PRP in one sitting compared with four sittings.
» PRP costs to some patients in terms of travel and lost productivity, as well as to eye care providers, may be reduced. |
Randomized trial evaluating Intravitreal ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema with prompt versus deferred laser treatment: 5-year randomized trial results.
Ophthalmology. 2015;122:375-381. |
Protocol I | » Focal/grid laser at the initiation of intravitreal ranibizumab is no better than deferring laser treatment for ≥24 weeks in eyes with DME involving the central macula with vision impairment.
» Most eyes treated with ranibizumab and either prompt or deferred laser maintain vision gains obtained by the first year through 5 years with little additional treatment after 3 years. |
Evaluation of results 1 year following short-term use of ranibizumab for vitreous hemorrhage due to proliferative diabetic retinopathy.
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014;132:889-890. |
Protocol N | » There is little likelihood of a clinically important difference between ranibizumab and saline on the rate of vitrectomy in eyes with vitreous hemorrhage from proliferative diabetic retinopathy. |
Aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema
N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1193-1203. |
Protocol T | » All 3 agents improved vision in eyes with center-involved DME, but the relative effect depended on baseline VA.
» At worse levels of initial VA (20/50 or worse), aflibercept was more effective at improving vision. |
“Clinical trials performed by the DRCR Network have been enormously successful,” Dr. Flynn says. “Many of them have altered our standard of care for diabetic eye diseases.” ❖