Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:

Ординатура / Офтальмология / Английские материалы / Diabetes and Ocular Disease Past, Present, and Future Therapies 2nd edition_Scott, Flynn, Smiddy_2009

.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
28.03.2026
Размер:
7.27 Mб
Скачать

274 Diabetes and Ocular Disease

In the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) study (Table 14.3) [58], among 9795 participants with type 2 diabetes, those treated with fenofibrate were less likely than controls to need laser treatment (5.2% vs. 3.6%, P < 0.001). However, the severity of diabetic retinopathy, indications for laser treatment, and type of laser treatment (focal or pan-retinal) were not reported.

The Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS), a randomized clinical trial of 2830 patients with type 2 diabetes, did not find atorvastatin to be effective in reducing diabetic retinopathy progression [68,69]. The study was limited by substantial missing data (only 65% had retinopathy status at baseline) and lack of photographic grading for diabetic retinopathy. There are several ongoing RCTs that may clarify the role of lipid reduction in diabetic retinopathy. The Atorvastatin Study for Prevention of Coronary Endpoints in NIDDM (ASPEN) [70] will evaluate the effects of atorvastatin in diabetic retinopathy and the ACCORD-EYE study [53] will compare treatment to increase high density lipoprotein (HDL) and reduce low density lipoprotein (LDL) (fibrate + statin) with LDL reduction only (statin and placebo) on diabetic retinopathy.

SECONDARY INTERVENTION

Medical Interventions. Various other medical interventions for diabetic retinopathy are described in Table 14.3 and summarized below.

Antiplatelet Agents. With regards to the efficacy and safety of aspirin, the ETDRS showed that aspirin (650 mg/day) had no beneficial effect on diabetic retinopathy progression or loss of visual acuity in patients with diabetic macular edema or severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy during 9-years of follow-up [59,60]. Aspirin treatment was not associated with an increased rate of vitrectomy [59,60]. A smaller randomized clinical trial evaluating aspirin alone and in combination with dipyridamole reported a reduction in microaneurysms on fluorescein angiograms in both groups as compared to placebo [61]. A similar trend was seen in a small randomized clinical trial [62] evaluating ticlodipine although results were not statistically significant.

Protein Kinase C Inhibitors. In recent years, there has been significant interest in the use of protein kinase C (PKC) inhibitors for treatment of diabetic retinoipathy. Hyperglycemia induces synthesis of diacylglycerol in vascular cells, leading to activation of PKC isozymes, particularly PKC-ß. Excessive PKC activation is thought to be a key pathophysiological mechanism of diabetic retinopathy. The PKC-Diabetic Retinopathy Study evaluated the effects of ruboxistaurin, an orally active, selective PKC-ß inhibitor [63]. The study randomized 252 patients with moderate to severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy to receive ruboxistaurin (8, 16, or 32 mg) or placebo. No significant difference in diabetic retinopathy progression was seen after 36 months of follow-up, although patients treated with 32 mg of ruboxistaurin had a significant reduction in the risk of moderate visual loss. Treatment was well tolerated with few adverse events, largely mild gastrointestinal symptoms. A larger study, which randomized 685 patients, showed similar results [71].

Table 14.3. Randomized Controlled Trials of Medical Interventions in Diabetic Retinopathy

Author

Diagnosis

Intervention

N

Fenofibrate

Type 2 DM

Fenofibrate vs

9795

Intervention and

Total cholesterol

placebo

 

Event Lowering

3 to 6.5 mmol/L and

 

 

in Diabetes

no lipid-lowering Rx

 

 

(FIELD study) [58]

at baseline

 

 

ETDRS [59]

Mild-to-severe

Aspirin 650 md/day

3711

Chew E, et al. [60]

NPDR or early PDR

vs placebo

 

The DAMAD Study

Early diabetic

Aspirin (330 mg tds)

475

Group [61]

retinopathy

alone vs Aspirin +

 

 

(type 1 and

dipyridamole

 

 

type 2 DM)

(75 mg tds) vs

 

 

 

placebo

 

The Ticlopidine

NPDR

Ticlopidine

435

Microangiopathy

 

hydrochloride

 

of Diabetes study

 

(antiplatelet agent)

 

(TIMAD) [62]

 

vs. placebo

 

Outcome

Comment

Follow up

Treatment ↓ reported

Not main endpoint. Large

5 yrs

need for retinal laser

loss of data. Severity of DR,

 

photocoagulation

indication for laser and the

 

(5.2%vs 3.6%, P = 0.0003).

type of laser (focal or

 

 

panretinal) not reported.

 

VH in 32% aspirin vs. 30%

Aspirin had no effect on DR

3 yrs

placebo, P = 0.48)*.

incidence/progression, VH,

 

No difference in the

or need for vitrectomy.

 

severity of vitreous/

 

 

preretinal hemorrhages

 

 

(P = 0.11)* or rate of

 

 

resolution (P = 0.86)

 

 

Aspirin alone and aspirin

Loss to follow-up of 10%

3 yrs

+ dipyridamole ↓ mean

patients.

 

yearly increases in MA on

 

 

FFA (Aspirin-alone group

 

 

(0.69 ± 5.1); aspirin +

 

 

dipyridamole (0.34 ± 3.0),

 

 

placebo (1.44 ± 4.5)

 

 

(P = 0.02)

 

 

Treatment ↓ yearly MA

Adverse reactions included

3 yrs

progression on FFA

neutropenia (severe in one

 

(0.23 ± 6.66 vs

case), diarrhea, and rash.

 

1.57 ± 5.29; P = 0.03).

 

 

Treatment ↓ progression to

 

 

PDR (P = 0.056)*

 

 

(Continued)

Table 14.3. (Continued)

Author

Diagnosis

Intervention

N

Cullen JF, et al. [57]

Exudative diabetic

Atromid-S

 

 

maculopathy

(clofibrate)

 

The PKC-DRS Study

Moderately severe to

Ruboxistaurin RBX

252

Group [63]

very severe NPDR

(8, 16, or 32 mg/day)

 

 

(ETDRS severity

vs placebo

 

 

level between 47B -

 

 

 

53E), VA ≥20/125 and

 

 

 

no previous scatter

 

 

 

photocoagulation

 

 

PKC-DRS2 Study

Moderately severe to

Ruboxistaurin 32

685

Group

very severe NPDR

mg/day vs placebo

 

 

(ETDRS severity

 

 

 

level between 47B -

 

 

 

53E), VA ≥20/125 and

 

 

 

no previous scatter

 

 

 

photocoagulation)

 

 

PKC-DME Study [64]

DME > 300 microns

Ruboxistaurin

686

 

from center. (ETDRS

32 md/day

 

 

severity level 20–47A,

 

 

 

VA ≥75 ETDRS letters

 

 

 

and no previous laser)

 

 

Outcome

Comment

Follow up

 

 

 

↓ hard exudates but

Lacked power.

1 yr

no statistical

 

 

improvement in VA

 

 

No significant effect on

RBX ↓ of SMVL was only seen

36 to 46

progression DR.

in eyes with definite DME at

months

32 mg RBX delayed

baseline (10% RBX vs. 25%

 

occurrence of MVL

placebo, P = 0.017).

 

(P = 0.038) and SMVL

 

 

(P = 0.226)*.

 

 

In multivariable Cox

 

 

proportional hazard

 

 

analysis, RBX 32 mg ↓ risk

 

 

of MVL vs. placebo (hazard

 

 

ratio 0.37 [95% CI 0.17–0.80],

 

 

P = 0.012).

 

 

No significant effect on progression DR. Treatment ↓ risk of sustained MVL (5.5% treated vs 9.1% placebo, P = 0.034)

No significant effect on progression to sight threatening DME or need for focal laser.

3 yrs

Variation in application focal

3 yrs

laser between centers. 32 mg

 

RBX reduced progression

 

of DME vs placebo in

 

secondary analysis (P = 0.054

 

unadjusted)

 

The Sorbinol

Type 1 diabetics

oral sorbinil

497

No significant effect on

Hypersensitivity reaction in

41

Retinopathy Trial [65]

 

250 mg vs placebo

 

progression DR (28%

7% sorbinil treated group.

months

 

 

 

 

sorbinil vs. 32% placebo;

 

 

 

 

 

 

P = 0.344)*.

 

 

Gardner TW, et al.

DME (no

astemizole, an

63

No effect on retinal

54/63 patients (86%)

1-yr

[66]

previous macular

antihistamine,

 

thickening or HEx

completed 1 year of follow up

 

 

photocoagulation)

versus placebo

 

(photographs graded by

 

 

 

 

 

 

modified ETDRS protocol)

 

 

Grant MB, et al. [67]

Severe NPDR or early

Max tolerated

23

Treatment ↓ progression

Thyroxine replacement

15

 

non-high-risk PDR

doses octreotide

 

to high risk PDR needing

therapy needed in all

months

 

 

(200–5,000 μg/day

 

PRP (1/22 eyes treated vs

treated patients

 

 

 

subcutaneously vs

 

9/24 controls, P<0.006)

 

 

 

 

conventional treat-

 

Octreotide ↓ progression

 

 

 

 

ment

 

DR (27% vs 42% controls;

 

 

 

 

 

 

P = 0.0605)*.

 

 

VH = vitreous hemorrhage; NPDR = nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy, NV = neovascularization; NVD = neovascularization of the disk, PDR = proliferative diabetic retinopathy, DME = diabetic macular edema, PRP = panretinal photocoagulation; RR = risk reduction; MVL = moderate visual loss, SVL = severe visual loss; Hex = hard exudates, vs. = versus; BP = blood pressure.

278 Diabetes and Ocular Disease

The PKC-Diabetic Macular Edema Study reported no significant reduction in progression of diabetic retinopathy or incidence of diabetic macular edema in 686 patients with mild to moderate nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy with no prior laser therapy [64,72]. However, there was a trend for a reduction in clinically significant diabetic macular edema among patients treated with 32 mg ruboxistaurin (P = 0.041), with a larger effect when patients with HbA1c levels of 10% or greater were excluded (P = 0.019).

Aldose Reductase Inhibitors. The rate controlling enzyme in the polyol pathway of glucose metabolism is aldose reductase. Excess glucose is converted into fructose and sorbitol in the retina and may play a key role in the pathogenesis of diabetic retinopathy. Two aldose reductase inhibitors, sorbinil (Pfizer, New York, NY) and tolrestat (Wyeth-Ayerst, St. Davids, PA) showed no statistically significant effect in reducing diabetic retinopathy incidence or progression in RCTs of 3 to 5 years duration [65]. About 7% of the patients assigned to sorbinil in one randomized clinical trial developed a hypersensitivity reaction in the first 3 months [65].

Growth Hormone/Insulin-like Growth Factor Inhibitors. Studies showing improvements in diabetic retinopathy following surgical hypophysectomy [73,74], and of elevated serum and ocular levels of insulin-like growth factor in patients with severe diabetic retinopathy led to researchers investigating the use of agents inhibiting the growth hormone–insulin-like growth factor pathway for prevention of diabetic retinopathy [75]. A small randomized clinical trial over 15 months among 23 patients reported reduction in retinopathy severity with octreotide, a synthetic analogue of somatostatin that blocks growth hormone [67], but another trial conducted over 1 year among 20 patients [76] evaluating continuous subcutaneous infusion of octreotide found no significant benefits. Two larger trials currently evaluating extended release octreotide injection [77,78] have reported inconclusive preliminary results [79], with significant adverse effects (e.g., diarrhoea, cholelithiasis, hypoglycemic episodes).

Laser and Surgical Interventions for Severe Nonproliferative Diabetic Retinopathy and Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy

Panretinal Laser Photocoagulation. There is strong evidence that panretinal laser photocoagulation (PRP) is useful for treating severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy and proliferative diabetic retinopathy [80] (Table 14.4). Two landmark clinical trials, the Diabetic Retinopathy Study (DRS) [80,81] and the ETDRS [82], provide high-quality data on the effectiveness and safety of PRP on clinically relevant outcomes.

The DRS randomized 1758 patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy in at least one eye or bilateral severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy to PRP or no treatment. At 2 years, severe visual loss (visual acuity <5/200 on two successive visits) was seen in 6.4% of treated versus 15.9% of untreated eyes, with the greatest benefit in eyes with high-risk characteristics (new vessels at the optic disc or vitreous hemorrhage with new vessels elsewhere), in which the risk of severe visual

Table 14.4. Randomized Controlled Trials of Laser Treatment in Nonproliferative and Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy and Diabetic

Macular Edema

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study

N

Retinopathy severity Intervention

Outcome

Comments

Follow up

 

 

 

 

 

 

NonProliferative and Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy

 

 

Rohan et al.

2243

NPDR/PDR (± DME)

Peripheral PRP

PRP ↓ risk of blindness in eyes

Review/Meta-

 

 

± focal laser vs

with PDR by 61% (combined

analysis of 5

 

 

observation

“best estimate” based on

trials [83]

 

 

 

5 RCTs including Diabetic

 

 

 

 

Retinopathy Study and British

 

 

 

 

Multicenter Study)

Diabetic

1742

Severe NPDR

Peripheral PRP

PRP ↓ risk of SVL by 52% at 2 yrs

Retinopathy

 

(bilateral) or PDR

± focal laser vs

90/650 (14%) treated vs 171/519

Study (DRS) [81]

 

(± DME

observation

(33%) deferred treatment RR

 

 

 

 

0.42 (0.34 to 0.53)

 

 

 

 

Eyes with “high risk” features

 

 

 

 

had most benefit (57% ↓

 

 

 

 

risk SVL)

Early Treatment

3711

mild-to-severe

One eye of each

SVL in 2.6% treated vs 3.7%

Diabetic

 

NPDR or early PDR

patient assigned

deferred treatment

Retinopathy

 

(± DME in both

to early PRP ±

PRP ↓ risk vitrectomy

Study (ETDRS)

 

eyes)

focal vs deferral

(2.3% treated vs 4% deferred)

[84,85]

 

 

of treatment

↓ risk of SVL or vitrectomy

 

 

 

 

4% with early photocoagulation

 

 

 

 

vs 6% in deferred group

British

107

PDR (bilateral

Xenon-arc laser

PRP ↓ risk of blindness 5%

Multicenter

 

symmetrical)

photocoagulation vs

vs 17% observed RR 0.29

study [86]

 

 

observation

(0.11 to 0.77)

Criteria for study inclusion,

1 to 5 yrs

quality assessment, baseline

 

comparability and adverse

 

effects of included studies

 

not described

 

Decreased VA and

5 yrs

constriction of peripheral

 

visual field in some eyes

 

Eyes assigned to deferral

5 yrs

of PRP did not receive any

 

focal laser for any coexsistant

 

DME, until the positive

 

results of macular treatment

 

were released

 

Large loss to FU (28%)

5 to 7 yrs

Only 77 completed the

 

5 yr follow-up.

 

No intention to treat analysis

 

(Continued)

Table 14.4. (Continued)

 

 

 

 

 

Study

N

Retinopathy severity

Intervention

Outcome

Comments

Follow up

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Patients with NVD at entry had

 

 

 

 

 

 

greatest difference. Treated

 

 

 

 

 

 

eyes that became blind had

 

 

 

 

 

 

less treatment than those that

 

 

 

 

 

 

retained vision.

 

 

British

99

NPDR

Peripheral xenon arc

PRP ↓ visual deterioration

Large loss to FU

5 yrs

Multicenter

 

 

laser vs observation

32% treated vs 55% controls

No intention to treat analysis

 

Study [87]

 

 

 

RR 0.49 (0.32 to 0.74)

 

 

Hercules BL,

94

Symmetrical PDR

PRP vs observation

PRP ↓ risk of blindness

Incomplete masking

3 yrs

et al. [88]

 

involving optic disc

 

7%(7/94) compared to 38%

No ITA

 

 

 

 

 

(36/94) RR 0.19 (0.09 to 0.41)

 

 

Patz A, et al. [89]

66

NPDR (+ DME)

PRP vs observation

Treatment ↓ visual deterioration

Poorly specified criteria

26

 

 

 

 

(6% treated vs 63% controls) RR

Loss not specified

months

 

 

 

 

0.10 (0.04 to 0.26)

 

 

Lövestam-

81

Severe NPDR and

All participants

35% (14/40) eyes treated for

Time-point for PRP not

2.9 ±

Adrian, M [90]

 

PDR in type 1

treated with PRP.

severe NPDR developed NV.

randomly assigned.

1.5 yrs

(2003)

 

diabetes patients

(one randomly

VH less frequent in treated

Adverse outcomes not

 

 

 

 

selected eye per

eyes with severe NPDR vs PDR

assessed. Inclusion/exclusion

 

 

 

 

patient entered into

(2/40 vs 12/41; P = 0.007).

criteria, blinding, intention to

 

 

 

 

study)

↓ vitrectomy for VH in eyes

treat analysis not specified.

 

 

 

 

 

treated for severe NPDR

Coexistent CSME was treated

 

 

 

 

 

(1/40 versus 6/41; P = 0.052).

with macular laser

 

 

 

 

 

↓ visual impairment in eyes

 

 

 

 

 

 

treated for severe NPDR

 

 

 

 

 

 

compared to PDR (4/40 vs

 

 

 

 

 

 

10/40; P = 0.056).

 

 

Diabetic Macular Edema

 

 

 

ETDRS [91]

2244

Bilateral DME (mild-

Focal argon laser

Treatment ↓ moderate visual

 

 

to-moderate NPDR)

(754 eyes) vs

loss (RR 0.50 (0.47 to 0.53).

 

 

 

observation

Benefits most marked in

 

 

 

(1490 eyes).

eyes with CSME, particularly

 

 

 

 

if the center of the macula

 

 

 

 

was involved or imminently

 

 

 

 

threatened (subgroup analysis)

Blankenship GW,

39

Bilateral symmet-

Grid argon laser vs

Visual deterioration in 7/30

et al. [93]

 

rical DME (mod-

observation

(23%) eyes with laser vs 13/30

 

 

severe NPDR)

 

(43%) eyes with no treatment;

 

 

 

 

RR 0.54, (CI 0.25 to 1.16)*

Olk RJ, et al. [94]

92

Diffuse DME ±

Modified grid argon

Treatment ↓ risk of moderate

 

 

CSME

laser vs observation

visual loss by 50% to 70%. Loss

 

 

 

 

of VA reduced compared with

 

 

 

 

no treatment at 1 yr (RR 0.84)

 

 

 

 

and at 2 yrs (RR 0.78, CI 0.60 to

 

 

 

 

0.96)

Interim report

76

Bilateral

Xenon-arc laser

8 treated vs 18 control eyes

of a multicenter

 

symmetrical DME

vs observation

blind.

controlled study

 

 

 

Prognosis was best in those

[95]

 

 

 

with initial VA ≥ 6/24

Ladas ID, et al.

42

Diffuse DME (NPDR)

Modified grid argon

Trend for improved VA with

[96]

 

 

laser vs observation

treatment at 1 and 2yrs. No dif-

 

 

 

 

ference in VA at 3 years. *

3 yrs

2 yrs

2 yrs

Only 44 patients at 2 yrs,

3 yrs

and 25 after 3yrs

 

No masking.

3 yrs

Poor characterization of

 

groups.

 

DME = diabetic macular edema; CSME = clinically significant macular edema; PRP = panretinal laser photocoagulation; VA = visual acuity; VF = visual fields; MVL = moderate visual loss, SVL = severe visual loss; VH = vitreous hemorrhage; NPDR = nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy, NV = neovascularization; NVD = neovascularization of the disk, PDR = proliferative diabetic retinopathy, RR = risk reduction; CI = confidence intervals (95%); vs. = versus; BP = blood pressure.

282 Diabetes and Ocular Disease

loss was reduced by 50% [80]. The ETDRS [82] randomized 3711 patients with less severe diabetic retinopathy and visual acuity >20/100 to early PRP or deferral (4-monthly observation, and treatment if high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy developed). Early PRP treatment decreased the risk of high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy by 50% as compared to deferral, although the incidence of severe visual loss was low in both early and deferral groups (2.6% vs. 3.7%).

The effectiveness of PRP has been confirmed by other RCTs [86–88] and a meta-analysis with a combined data of 2243 patients [83].

There are well-known adverse effects of PRP. These include visual field constriction (important for driving [97,98]), reduced night vision, color vision changes, reduced contrast sensitivity, inadvertent laser burn, macular edema exacerbation, acute glaucoma, and traction retinal detachment [99]. The possibility of visual loss immediately following PRP is also well recognized. The DRS reported vision loss of 2 to 4 lines within 6 weeks of PRP in 10% to 23% of patients versus 6% for controls [100].

Surgical Vitrectomy for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy. Vitrectomy is used for treatment of eyes with advanced diabetic retinopathy, including proliferative diabetic retinopathy with nonclearing vitreous hemorrhage or fibrosis, areas of traction involving or threatening the macula, and more recently, persistent diabetic macular edema with vitreous traction (Table 14.5) [101]. The Diabetic Retinopathy Vitrectomy Study (DRVS) randomized 616 eyes with recent vitreous hemorrhage and visual acuity ≤5/200 for at least 1 month to early vitrectomy within 6 months or observation [102–105]. After 2 years follow-up, 25% of the early vitrectomy group versus 15% of the observation group had ≥20/40 vision, with the benefits maintained at 4 years and longer in type 1 diabetes. The DRVS also randomized 381 eyes with severe proliferative diabetic retinopathy and visual acuity >10/200 to early vitrectomy or conventional management. Treatment increased the probability of visual acuity ≥20/40.

The indications of vitrectomy have expanded in the last few years because of advances in vitrectomy, including wide-field viewing, endolaser treatment, heavy liquids, and bimanual instrumentation to manipulate the retina [112].

Laser and Surgical interventions for Diabetic Macular Edema

Focal Laser Photocoagulation. There is high quality evidence that focal laser photocoagulation preserves vision in eyes with diabetic macular edema. The ETDRS [91] randomized 1490 eyes with diabetic macular edema to receive focal laser treatment or observation. At 3 years, treatment significantly reduced moderate visual loss as compared with observation [91], with the greatest benefits in eyes with clinically significant diabetic macular edema [113]. However, there remains limited evidence that the type (argon, diode, dye, krypton) or method of laser used influences outcomes [92,114–116].

Adverse effects of focal laser treatment are well documented, and include inadvertent foveal burn, central visual field defect, color vision abnormalities, subretinal fibrosis, and spread of laser scars.

Table 14.5. Randomized Controlled Trials of Surgical Interventions in Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy and Diabetic Macular Edema

Author

Diagnosis

Intervention

N

Outcome

Comment

Follow up

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy

 

 

 

Diabetic Retinopathy

Recent severe diabetic

Early vitrectomy vs.

616 eyes

Early surgery ↑ recovery

Vitrectomy Study

vitreous hemorrhage

deferral of vitrectomy

 

of VA ≥10/20 (25% vs 15%

[102,105]

reducing VA ≤ 5/200 at

for 1 year

 

deferred group)

 

least 1 month

 

 

Trend for more frequent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

loss of LP with early

 

 

 

 

surgery (25% vs 19%)

 

 

 

 

Greatest benefit ↑ VA

 

 

 

 

≥10/20 in type 1 DM with

 

 

 

 

more severe PDR (36% vs

 

 

 

 

12% deferred group) and

 

 

 

 

proportion losing LP was

 

 

 

 

similar (28% vs 26%)

Diabetic Retinopathy

Advanced PDR

Early vitrectomy

370 eyes

Early surgery ↑ proportion

Vitrectomy Study

with fibrovascular

vs. conventional

 

of eyes with VA≥10/20

[102,105]

proliferation, and VA

management

 

(44% vs 28% conventional

 

≥10/200

 

 

treatment)

 

 

 

 

No difference in

 

 

 

 

proportion with loss of

 

 

 

 

vision to light perception

 

 

 

 

or less

4 yrs

Most benefit in

4 yrs

patients with very

 

advanced PDR. No

 

benefit in group with

 

less severe NV

 

(Continued)