Effectiveness and safety of ranibizumab 0.5 mg in treatment-naïve patients with diabetic macular edema: Results from the real-world global LUMINOUS study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the one-year effectiveness and safety of ranibizumab 0.5 mg in treatment- naïve patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) enrolled in the real-world LUMINOUS study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 5-year, prospective, observational, open-label, global study which recruited 30,138 patients across all approved indications. Consenting patients (≥18 years) who were treatment-naïve or previously treated with ranibizumab or other ocular treatments were treated as per the local ranibizumab label. Here, we present the change in visual acuity (VA) (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letter score; primary treated eye) at Year 1, as well as the change in VA based on injection frequencies (≤4 and ≥5), treatment exposure, and the overall adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs) in treatment-naïve DME patients. RESULTS: Of the 4,710 DME patients enrolled in the study, 1,063 were treatment-naïve. At baseline, mean age was 64.5 years, 54.7% were male, and 69.2% were white. At 1 year, mean VA letter score improved by +3.5 (n = 502) from a baseline of 57.7 with a mean of 4.5 injections. Presented by injection frequencies ≤4 and ≥5, VA letter score gains were 0.5 (n = 264) and 6.9 (n = 238) from baseline letter scores of 56.6 and 59.0, respectively. Over 5 years, the incidence of ocular/non-ocular AEs and SAEs was 7.2%/10.1% and 0.3%/5.8%, respectively. No endophthalmitis cases were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The LUMINOUS study included patients with DME with more diverse baseline characteristics than those in randomized clinical trials. The 1-year data showed improvement in VA with low number of injections in treatment- naïve patients with DME. Greater VA gains were observed in patients who received ≥5 injections. No new safety findings were identified. LUMINOUS confirms the effectiveness and safety of ranibizumab for the treatment of patients with DME in a real-world clinical practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".