Effect of Baseline Subretinal Fluid on Treatment Outcomes in VIVID-DME and VISTA-DME Studies

To evaluate the effect of baseline subretinal fluid (SRF) on treatment outcomes with intravitreal aflibercept injection (IAI) versus laser treatment in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) in the VIVID and VISTA studies.

Post hoc analysis of 2 randomized controlled trials.

Eight hundred seventy-two patients with DME.

We randomized patients to receive IAI 2 mg every 4 weeks (2q4), IAI 2 mg every 8 weeks after 5 monthly doses (2q8), or laser.

Effect of presence or absence of baseline SRF on visual outcomes in the integrated dataset at weeks 52 and 100.

Mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) gains in the 2q4, 2q8, and laser arms at week 52 were +14.5, +11.0, and -2.3 letters, respectively, (those with baseline SRF) and +10.3, +10.6, and +2.5 letters, respectively, (those without). At week 100, mean gains were +13.5, +10.9, and -2.3 letters (those with baseline SRF) and +10.6, +10.0, and +2.7 letters (those without). The treatment effect for IAI versus laser from baseline to week 52 of 100 was greater for patients with baseline SRF versus those without (nominal P < 0.001, for interaction). The proportions of patients who gained 15 letters or more in the 2q4, 2q8, and laser arms at week 52 were 52.3%, 40.2%, and 8.9%, respectively, (those with baseline SRF) and 30.9%, 29.1%, and 8.2%, respectively, (those without) and at week 100 were 50.0%, 35.4%, and 12.9%, respectively, (those with baseline SRF) and 33.3%, 30.5%, and 12.5%, respectively, (those without). Time to first sustained SRF clearance seemed to be shorter in the IAI arms versus laser. The overall safety profile was similar in the IAI arms.

This post hoc analysis demonstrated the visual outcome benefits of IAI over laser, regardless of baseline SRF status. A greater treatment effect of IAI was observed in patients with baseline SRF versus those without; however, no meaningful impact of baseline SRF status on treatment outcomes with IAI was demonstrated, indicating that the differential effects of laser might have been the driving force behind the different treatment outcomes in both groups.