Article Text

Ranibizumab 0.5 mg treat-and-extend regimen for diabetic macular oedema: the RETAIN study
  1. Christian Prünte1,2,3,
  2. Franck Fajnkuchen4,
  3. Sajjad Mahmood5,
  4. Federico Ricci6,
  5. Katja Hatz1,3,
  6. Jan Studnička7,
  7. Vladimir Bezlyak8,
  8. Soumil Parikh8,
  9. William John Stubbings8,
  10. Andreas Wenzel8,
  11. João Figueira9,10,11,
  12. and the RETAIN Study Group
  1. 1Department of Ophthalmology, Vista Klinik, Binningen, Switzerland
  2. 2Kantonsspital Baselland, Eye Clinic, Liestal, Switzerland
  3. 3University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
  4. 4Centre d'Imagerie et Laser, Paris, France
  5. 5Royal Eye Hospital, Manchester, UK
  6. 6PTV Foundation, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, Rome, Italy
  7. 7Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital, Hradec Králové, Czech Republic
  8. 8Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland
  9. 9AIBILI, Coimbra, Portugal
  10. 10Coimbra Hospital and University Centre, Coimbra, Portugal
  11. 11Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
  1. Correspondence to Professor Christian Prünte, Department of Ophthalmology, Augenklinik Kantonsspital Baselland, Rheinstrasse 26, Liestal CH-4410, Switzerland; christian.pruente{at}ksbl.ch, christian{at}pruente.ch

Abstract

Aims To demonstrate non-inferiority of ranibizumab treat-and-extend (T&E) with/without laser to ranibizumab pro re nata (PRN) for best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in patients with diabetic macular oedema (DMO).

Methods A 24-month single-masked study with patients randomised 1:1:1 to T&E+laser (n=121), T&E (n=128) or PRN (control; n=123). All patients received monthly injections until BCVA stabilisation. The investigator decided on re-treatment in the PRN and treatment-interval adaptations in the T&E groups based on loss of BCVA stability due to DMO activity. Likewise, laser treatment was at investigator's discretion. Collectively, these features reflect a real-life scenario. Endpoints included mean average change in BCVA from baseline to months 1–12 (primary), mean BCVA change from baseline to months 12 and 24, treatment exposure and safety profile.

Results Both T&E regimens were non-inferior to PRN based on mean average BCVA change from baseline to months 1–12 (T&E+laser: +5.9 and T&E: +6.1 vs PRN: +6.2 letters; both p<0.0001). Mean BCVA change at month 24 was similar across groups (+8.3, +6.5 and +8.1 letters, respectively). The mean number of injections was 12.4 and 12.8 in the T&E+laser and T&E groups and 10.7 in the PRN group. The T&E regimens showed 46% reduction in the number of clinic visits. Over 70% of patients maintained their BCVA, with treatment intervals of ≥2 months over 24 months. Safety profile was consistent with that described in the product information.

Conclusions T&E is a feasible treatment option for patients with DMO, with a potential to reduce treatment burden. Slightly more injections were required versus PRN, likely due to the specifics of the T&E regimen applied here.

Trial registration number NCT01171976.

  • Vision
  • Clinical Trial
  • Macula
  • Treatment Medical
  • Treatment Lasers

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Supplementary materials

Linked Articles

  • At a glance
    Keith Barton James Chodosh Jost Jonas