Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2026 May;30(41):1–70. doi: 10.3310/AAPH5610

Fenofibrate and progression of retinopathy in adults with diabetes: the randomised placebo-controlled LENS trial.

David Preiss, Jennifer Logue, Emily Sammons, Mohammed Zayed, Graham Scotland, Mekazin Tsehaye, Jonathan Emberson, Rachel Wade, Karl Wallendszus, Will Stevens, Rosanna Cretney, Simon Harding, Graham Leese, Gemma Currie, Caroline Styles, And Jane Armitage; LENS Collaborative Group
PMCID: PMC13200031  PMID: 42117585

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Diabetic retinopathy is a leading cause of visual loss. Hypothesis-generating data from cardiovascular outcome trials suggest that fenofibrate therapy may reduce the progression of diabetic retinopathy.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether treatment with fenofibrate reduces the progression of diabetic retinopathy.

DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a parallel-group, double-masked, placebo-controlled clinical trial of fenofibrate. A web-based algorithm allocated participants to treatment arms by minimisation.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

The trial was positioned within NHS Scotland's Diabetic Eye Screening Programme. Adults with diabetes and non-referable retinopathy or maculopathy (based on Diabetic Eye Screening retinal image grading) were eligible.

INTERVENTIONS

Study treatment was mailed to participants' homes. Participants who were eligible at the screening assessment entered an active pre-randomisation run-in during which they took 145 mg fenofibrate. After randomisation, participants received 145 mg fenofibrate tablets or placebo. Study treatment was taken daily in those with normal renal function, or on alternate days in those with impaired renal function.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was a composite of developing referable diabetic retinopathy or maculopathy, or requiring treatment for diabetic retinopathy or maculopathy. Incremental cost-effectiveness was assessed in terms of the primary outcome and per modelled quality-adjusted life-year gained.

DATA SOURCES

Data were obtained from 6-monthly interviews by research nurses and linkage to national healthcare data sets. Selected adverse events were adjudicated by study clinicians masked to treatment allocation.

RESULTS

One thousand four hundred and eighty-four participants entered the pre-randomisation run-in, of whom 1151 were randomised. The primary outcome occurred in 131 (22.7%) of 576 participants assigned fenofibrate and 168 (29.2%) of 575 participants assigned placebo (hazard ratio 0.73; 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 0.91; p = 0.006) over a median of 4.0 years. Any progression of retinopathy or maculopathy, and development of macular oedema were also reduced. There was no effect on visual function, quality of life, or visual acuity. Fenofibrate use resulted in a non-significant reduction in 6-monthly health service costs (mean difference -£101, 95% confidence interval -£243 to £42), leading to dominance over standard care and a high probability of cost-effectiveness. Based on modelling (assuming no difference in background healthcare costs by treatment allocation), fenofibrate led to a small increase (£6) in cost for a small gain (0.02) in quality-adjusted life-years; incremental cost-effectiveness ratio £406 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. The probability of cost-effectiveness was 79-86% at thresholds of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

LIMITATIONS

Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study retinopathy grading is considered the gold standard, but it is not used in large-scale retinal screening programmes; Diabetic Eye Screening grading is based on Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study but is less granular.

CONCLUSIONS

Fenofibrate was clinically effective and cost-effective for reducing the progression of diabetic retinopathy compared with placebo among participants with early retinal changes.

FUTURE WORK

LENS participants will be followed for 10 years to assess the long-term effects of fenofibrate therapy.

FUNDING

This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number 14/49/84.

Plain language summary

Diabetes can affect the inner layer at the back of the eye, a condition called diabetic retinopathy. Many people need to see a National Health Service eye specialist or need treatment for diabetic eye disease. Each year, diabetic retinopathy leads to 1500 people being certified as blind in the United Kingdom. This makes it a leading cause of blindness in working age adults. Fenofibrate is a drug that is sometimes used to lower cholesterol. Two studies from the 2000s suggested that fenofibrate may lower the risk of diabetic eye disease getting worse. However, those results were not convincing enough to change how doctors treat their patients. We ran the Lowering Events in Non-proliferative retinopathy in Scotland study to find out if fenofibrate may be useful for treating people with diabetic eye disease. Lowering Events in Non-proliferative retinopathy in Scotland was a large clinical trial. We studied 1151 adults with early diabetic eye disease from across Scotland. Participants came to a research clinic at the start to check if they were eligible. Study treatment was sent to peoples’ homes by post. Half the people in the study took fenofibrate tablets. The other half took placebo (i.e. dummy) tablets. Nobody knew which treatment they were getting. Research nurses phoned them every 6 months over the next 4 years. The study team used information from these calls and from National Health Service records to find out what happened to participants. We found that the people taking fenofibrate had a lower chance of their diabetic eye disease getting worse compared to those taking placebo. Fewer people taking fenofibrate needed to see a National Health Service specialist, have treatment for eye disease or developed swelling at the back of the eyes (called macular oedema) compared to placebo. We now have better evidence about the positive effect fenofibrate in patients with early diabetic eye disease, and the potential for savings to the National Health Service.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. Global Burden of Disease 2019 Blindness and Vision Impairment Collaborators and Vision Loss Expert Group of the Global Burden of Disease Study. Causes of blindness and vision impairment in 2020 and trends over 30 years, and prevalence of avoidable blindness in relation to VISION 2020: the Right to Sight: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet Glob Health 2021;9:e144–e60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30489-7
  2. Looker HC, Nyangoma SO, Cromie DT, Olson JA, Leese GP, Black MW, et al.; Scottish Diabetes Research Network Epidemiology Group. Rates of referable eye disease in the Scottish National Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Programme. Br J Ophthalmol 2014;98:790–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-303948 doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-303948. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  3. Emdin CA, Rahimi K, Neal B, Callender T, Perkovic V, Patel A. Blood pressure lowering in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2015;313:603–15. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.18574 doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.18574. [DOI] [PubMed]
  4. Nathan DM, Genuth S, Lachin J, Cleary P, Crofford O, Davis M, et al.; Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1993;329:977–86. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199309303291401 doi: 10.1056/NEJM199309303291401. [DOI] [PubMed]
  5. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet 1998;352:837–53. [PubMed]
  6. Zoungas S, Arima H, Gerstein HC, Holman RR, Woodward M, Reaven P, et al.; Collaborators on Trials of Lowering Glucose (CONTROL) group. Effects of intensive glucose control on microvascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised controlled trials. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2017;5:431–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(17)30104-3 doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(17)30104-3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  7. Wells JA, Glassman AR, Ayala AR, Jampol LM, Bressler NM, Bressler SB, et al.; Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network. Aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema: two-year results from a comparative effectiveness randomized clinical trial. Ophthalmology 2016;123:1351–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.02.022 doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.02.022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  8. WHO Regional Office for Europe. Diabetic Retinopathy Screening: A Short Guide. Increase Effectiveness, Maximize Benefits and Minimize Harm. 2020. URL: www.who.int/europe/publications/i/item/9789289055321 (accessed 28 October 2024).
  9. Staels B, Dallongeville J, Auwerx J, Schoonjans K, Leitersdorf E, Fruchart JC. Mechanism of action of fibrates on lipid and lipoprotein metabolism. Circulation 1998;98:2088–93. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.98.19.2088. [DOI] [PubMed]
  10. Keech A, Simes RJ, Barter P, Best J, Scott R, Taskinen MR, et al.; FIELD Study Investigators. Effects of long-term fenofibrate therapy on cardiovascular events in 9795 people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (the FIELD study): randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2005;366:1849–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67667-2 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67667-2. [DOI] [PubMed]
  11. Keech AC, Mitchell P, Summanen PA, O’Day J, Davis TM, Moffitt MS, et al.; FIELD Study Investigators. Effect of fenofibrate on the need for laser treatment for diabetic retinopathy (FIELD study): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007;370:1687–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61607-9 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61607-9. [DOI] [PubMed]
  12. Chew EY, Ambrosius WT, Davis MD, Danis RP, Gangaputra S, Greven CM, et al.; ACCORD Study Group. Effects of medical therapies on retinopathy progression in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2010;363:233–44. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1001288 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1001288. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  13. Preiss D, Spata E, Holman RR, Coleman RL, Lovato L, Ginsberg HN, Armitage J. Effect of fenofibrate therapy on laser treatment for diabetic retinopathy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Care 2022;45:e1–2. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-1439 doi: 10.2337/dc21-1439. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  14. Clarke PM, Simon J, Cull CA, Holman RR. Assessing the impact of visual acuity on quality of life in individuals with type 2 diabetes using the short form-36. Diabetes Care 2006;29:1506–11. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc05-2150 doi: 10.2337/dc05-2150. [DOI] [PubMed]
  15. Ginsberg HN, Elam MB, Lovato LC, Crouse JR 3rd, Leiter LA, Linz P, et al.; ACCORD Study Group. Effects of combination lipid therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1563–74. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1001282 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1001282. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  16. Preiss D, Logue J, Sammons E, Zayed M, Emberson J, Wade R, et al. Effect of fenofibrate on progression of diabetic retinopathy. NEJM Evid 2024;3:EVIDoa2400179. https://doi.org/10.1056/EVIDoa2400179 doi: 10.1056/EVIDoa2400179. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  17. LENS Collaborative Group. Design, recruitment and baseline characteristics of the LENS trial. Diabet Med 2024;41:e15310. https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.15310 doi: 10.1111/dme.15310. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  18. Public Health Scotland. NHS Scotland Diabetic Eye Screening Programme. 2024. URL: www.healthscotland.scot/health-topics/screening/diabetic-eye-screening/diabetic-eye-screening-overview (accessed 28 October 2024).
  19. Leese GP, Morris AD, Swaminathan K, Petrie JR, Sinharay R, Ellingford A, et al. Implementation of national diabetes retinal screening programme is associated with a lower proportion of patients referred to ophthalmology. Diabet Med 2005;22:1112–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2005.01603.x doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2005.01603.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  20. Olson JA, Strachan FM, Hipwell JH, Goatman KA, McHardy KC, Forrester JV, Sharp PF. A comparative evaluation of digital imaging, retinal photography and optometrist examination in screening for diabetic retinopathy. Diabet Med 2003;20:528–34. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-5491.2003.00969.x doi: 10.1046/j.1464-5491.2003.00969.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  21. Murgatroyd H, Ellingford A, Cox A, Binnie M, Ellis JD, MacEwen CJ, Leese GP. Effect of mydriasis and different field strategies on digital image screening of diabetic eye disease. Br J Ophthalmol 2004;88:920–4. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2003.026385 doi: 10.1136/bjo.2003.026385. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  22. NHS Scotland. Scottish Care Information: Diabetes Collaboration. 2024. URL: www.sci-diabetes.scot.nhs.uk/ (accessed 28 October 2024).
  23. Davis TM, Ting R, Best JD, Donoghoe MW, Drury PL, Sullivan DR, et al.; Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes Study Investigators. Effects of fenofibrate on renal function in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) Study. Diabetologia 2011;54:280–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-010-1951-1 doi: 10.1007/s00125-010-1951-1. [DOI] [PubMed]
  24. Mychaleckyj JC, Craven T, Nayak U, Buse J, Crouse JR, Elam M, et al. Reversibility of fenofibrate therapy-induced renal function impairment in ACCORD type 2 diabetic participants. Diabetes Care 2012;35:1008–14. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc11-1811 doi: 10.2337/dc11-1811. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  25. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. British National Formulary. 2023. URL: https://bnf.nice.org.uk/ (accessed 28 October 2024).
  26. Public Health Scotland. Scottish Drug Tariff. 2023. URL: https://publichealthscotland.scot/services/scottish-drug-tariff/ (accessed 28 October 2024).
  27. Public Health Scotland. Scottish Health Service Costs: Summary for Financial Year 2022/23. 2024. URL: https://publichealthscotland.scot/publications/scottish-health-service-costs/scottish-health-service-costs-summary-for-financial-year-2022-to-2023/ (accessed 28 October 2024).
  28. Jones KC, Weatherly H, Birch S, Castelli A, Chalkley M, Dargan A, et al. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2022 Manual. 2023. URL: https://kar.kent.ac.uk/100519/ (accessed 28 October 2024).
  29. Scotland G, McKeigue P, Philip S, Leese GP, Olson JA, Looker HC, et al. Modelling the cost-effectiveness of adopting risk-stratified approaches to extended screening intervals in the national diabetic retinopathy screening programme in Scotland. Diabet Med 2016;33:886–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.13129 doi: 10.1111/dme.13129. [DOI] [PubMed]
  30. Olson J, Sharp P, Goatman K, Prescott G, Scotland G, Fleming A, et al. Improving the economic value of photographic screening for optical coherence tomography-detectable macular oedema: a prospective, multicentre, UK study. Health Technol Assess 2013;17:1–142. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta17510 doi: 10.3310/hta17510. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  31. NHS England. 2021/22 National Cost Collection Data Publication. 2023. URL: www.england.nhs.uk/publication/2021-22-national-cost-collection-data-publication/ (accessed 28 October 2024).
  32. Sivaprasad S, Ghanchi F, Kelly SP, Kotagiri A, Talks J, Scanlon P, et al. Evaluation of care with intravitreal aflibercept treatment for UK patients with diabetic macular oedema: DRAKO study 24-month real-world outcomes. Eye (Lond) 2023;37:2753–60. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-023-02409-y doi: 10.1038/s41433-023-02409-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  33. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Nice Health Technology Evaluations: The Manual. 2022. URL: www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg36/resources/nice-health-technology-evaluations-the-manual-pdf-72286779244741 (accessed 28 October 2024).
  34. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997;35:1095–108. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002 doi: 10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  35. Hernandez Alava M, Pudney S, Wailoo A. Estimating the relationship between EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L: results from a UK population study. PharmacoEconomics 2023;41:199–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-022-01218-7 doi: 10.1007/s40273-022-01218-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  36. Glick HA, Doshi JA, Sonnad SS, Polsky D. Economic Evaluation in Clinical Trials. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014.
  37. Latimer NR. Survival analysis for economic evaluations alongside clinical trials – extrapolation with patient-level data: inconsistencies, limitations, and a practical guide. Med Decis Making 2013;33:743–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X12472398 doi: 10.1177/0272989X12472398. [DOI] [PubMed]
  38. Putter H, Fiocco M, Geskus RB. Tutorial in biostatistics: competing risks and multi-state models. Stat Med 2007;26:2389–430. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2712 doi: 10.1002/sim.2712. [DOI] [PubMed]
  39. Briggs AS, Sculpher M, Claxton K. Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
  40. Glassman AR, Wells JA 3rd, Josic K, Maguire MG, Antoszyk AN, Baker C, et al. Five-year outcomes after initial aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab treatment for diabetic macular edema (Protocol T Extension Study). Ophthalmology 2020;127:1201–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.03.021 doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.03.021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  41. Fu DJ, Thottarath S, Faes L, Balaskas K, Keane PA, Sim D, Sivaprasad S. Visual acuity outcome of stable proliferative diabetic retinopathy following initial complete panretinal photocoagulation. BMJ Open Ophthalmol 2022;7:e001068. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjophth-2022-001068
  42. O’Reilly JE, Blackbourn LAK, Caparrotta TM, Jeyam A, Kennon B, Leese GP, et al.; Scottish Diabetes Research Network Epidemiology Group. Time trends in deaths before age 50 years in people with type 1 diabetes: a nationwide analysis from Scotland 2004–2017. Diabetologia 2020;63:1626–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-020-05173-w doi: 10.1007/s00125-020-05173-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  43. Collier A, Meney C, Hair M, Cameron L, Boyle JG. Cancer has overtaken cardiovascular disease as the commonest cause of death in Scottish type 2 diabetes patients: a population-based study (The Ayrshire Diabetes Follow-up Cohort study). J Diabetes Investig 2020;11:55–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdi.13067 doi: 10.1111/jdi.13067. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  44. Brazier J, Muston D, Konwea H, Power GS, Barzey V, Lloyd A, et al. Evaluating the relationship between visual acuity and utilities in patients with diabetic macular edema enrolled in intravitreal aflibercept studies. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2017;58:4818–25. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.17-21945 doi: 10.1167/iovs.17-21945. [DOI] [PubMed]
  45. Sivaprasad S, Hykin P, Prevost AT, Vasconcelos J, Riddell A, Ramu J, et al. Intravitreal Aflibercept Compared with Panretinal Photocoagulation for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: The CLARITY Non-inferiority RCT. Efficacy Mech Eval 2018;5. https://doi.org/10.3310/eme05050 [PubMed]
  46. Briggs AH, Weinstein MC, Fenwick EA, Karnon J, Sculpher MJ, Paltiel AD; ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty analysis: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force working group-6. Med Decis Making 2012;32:722–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X12458348 doi: 10.1177/0272989X12458348. [DOI] [PubMed]
  47. Scotland G, Tsahye M, Styles C, Logue J, Sammons E, Zayed M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of fenofibrate versus standard care for reducing the progression of diabetic retinopathy: an economic evaluation based on data from the LENS trial. Diabet Med 2025;42:e70098. https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.70098 doi: 10.1111/dme.70098. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  48. Chen Y, Hu Y, Lin M, Jenkins AJ, Keech AC, Mott R, et al. Therapeutic effects of PPARalpha agonists on diabetic retinopathy in type 1 diabetes models. Diabetes 2013;62:261–72. https://doi.org/10.2337/db11-0413 doi: 10.2337/db11-0413. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  49. Fu D, Yu JY, Connell AR, Hookham MB, McLeese RH, Lyons TJ. Effects of modified low-density lipoproteins and fenofibrate on an outer blood-retina barrier model: implications for diabetic retinopathy. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 2020;36:754–64. https://doi.org/10.1089/jop.2020.0068 doi: 10.1089/jop.2020.0068. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  50. Valentine WJ, Pollock RF, Carr E, Aubonnet P, Mitchell P, Keech A. Evaluating the cost-utility of fenofibrate treatment of diabetic retinopathy in Australia. Value Health 2013;16:A442.
  51. Liew G, Michaelides M, Bunce C. A comparison of the causes of blindness certifications in England and Wales in working age adults (16–64 years), 1999–2000 with 2009–2010. BMJ Open 2014;4:e004015. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004015 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  52. Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research Group. Grading diabetic retinopathy from stereoscopic color fundus photographs: an extension of the modified Airlie House classification. ETDRS report number 10. Ophthalmology 1991;98:786–806. [PubMed]
  53. Looker HC, Nyangoma SO, Cromie DT, Olson JA, Leese GP, Philip S, et al.; Scottish Diabetes Research Network (SDRN) Epidemiology Group and the Scottish Diabetic Retinopathy Collaborative. Predicted impact of extending the screening interval for diabetic retinopathy: the Scottish Diabetic Retinopathy Screening programme. Diabetologia 2013;56:1716–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-013-2928-7 doi: 10.1007/s00125-013-2928-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  54. Office for National Statistics. UK Life Table. 2024. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/datasets/nationallifetablesunitedkingdomreferencetables/current (accessed 17 June 2025).

RESOURCES