Ursula Schmidt-Erfurth

Intravitreal aflibercept (VEGF trap-eye) in wet age-related macular degeneration.

OBJECTIVE Two similarly designed, phase-3 studies (VEGF Trap-Eye: Investigation of Efficacy and Safety in Wet AMD [VIEW 1, VIEW 2]) of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) compared monthly and every-2-month dosing of intravitreal aflibercept injection (VEGF Trap-Eye; Regeneron, Tarrytown, NY, and Bayer HealthCare, Berlin, Germany) with monthly ranibizumab. DESIGN Double-masked, multicenter, parallel-group, active-controlled, randomized trials. PARTICIPANTS Patients (n = 2419) with active, subfoveal, choroidal neovascularization (CNV) lesions (or juxtafoveal lesions with leakage affecting the fovea) secondary to AMD. INTERVENTION Patients were randomized to intravitreal aflibercept 0.5 mg monthly (0.5q4), 2 mg monthly (2q4), 2 mg every 2 months after 3 initial monthly doses (2q8), or ranibizumab 0.5 mg monthly (Rq4). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary end point was noninferiority (margin of 10%) of the aflibercept regimens to ranibizumab in the proportion of patients maintaining vision at week 52 (losing <15 letters on Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] chart). Other key end points included change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and anatomic measures. RESULTS All aflibercept groups were noninferior and clinically equivalent to monthly ranibizumab for the primary end point (the 2q4, 0.5q4, and 2q8 regimens were 95.1%, 95.9%, and 95.1%, respectively, for VIEW 1, and 95.6%, 96.3%, and 95.6%, respectively, for VIEW 2, whereas monthly ranibizumab was 94.4% in both studies). In a prespecified integrated analysis of the 2 studies, all aflibercept regimens were within 0.5 letters of the reference ranibizumab for mean change in BCVA; all aflibercept regimens also produced similar improvements in anatomic measures. Ocular and systemic adverse events were similar across treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS Intravitreal aflibercept dosed monthly or every 2 months after 3 initial monthly doses produced similar efficacy and safety outcomes as monthly ranibizumab. These studies demonstrate that aflibercept is an effective treatment for AMD, with the every-2-month regimen offering the potential to reduce the risk from monthly intravitreal injections and the burden of monthly monitoring. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S) Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

The RESTORE study: ranibizumab monotherapy or combined with laser versus laser monotherapy for diabetic macular edema.

OBJECTIVE To demonstrate superiority of ranibizumab 0.5 mg monotherapy or combined with laser over laser alone based on mean average change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) over 12 months in diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN A 12-month, randomized, double-masked, multicenter, laser-controlled phase III study. PARTICIPANTS We included 345 patients aged ≥18 years, with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus and visual impairment due to DME. METHODS Patients were randomized to ranibizumab + sham laser (n = 116), ranibizumab + laser (n = 118), or sham injections + laser (n = 111). Ranibizumab/sham was given for 3 months then pro re nata (PRN); laser/sham laser was given at baseline then PRN (patients had scheduled monthly visits). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Mean average change in BCVA from baseline to month 1 through 12 and safety. RESULTS Ranibizumab alone and combined with laser were superior to laser monotherapy in improving mean average change in BCVA letter score from baseline to month 1 through 12 (+6.1 and +5.9 vs +0.8; both P<0.0001). At month 12, a significantly greater proportion of patients had a BCVA letter score ≥15 and BCVA letter score level >73 (20/40 Snellen equivalent) with ranibizumab (22.6% and 53%, respectively) and ranibizumab + laser (22.9% and 44.9%) versus laser (8.2% and 23.6%). The mean central retinal thickness was significantly reduced from baseline with ranibizumab (-118.7 μm) and ranibizumab + laser (-128.3 μm) versus laser (-61.3 μm; both P<0.001). Health-related quality of life, assessed through National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25), improved significantly from baseline with ranibizumab alone and combined with laser (P<0.05 for composite score and vision-related subscales) versus laser. Patients received ∼7 (mean) ranibizumab/sham injections over 12 months. No endophthalmitis cases occurred. Increased intraocular pressure was reported for 1 patient each in the ranibizumab arms. Ranibizumab monotherapy or combined with laser was not associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events in this study. CONCLUSIONS Ranibizumab monotherapy and combined with laser provided superior visual acuity gain over standard laser in patients with visual impairment due to DME. Visual acuity gains were associated with significant gains in VFQ-25 scores. At 1 year, no differences were detected between the ranibizumab and ranibizumab + laser arms. Ranibizumab monotherapy and combined with laser had a safety profile in DME similar to that in age-related macular degeneration.

Mechanisms of Action of Photodynamic Therapy with Verteporfin for the Treatment of Age-Related Macular Degeneration ☆ ☆☆

Age-related macular degeneration, especially the neovascular form of the disease, is the leading cause of blindness in elderly people in developed countries. Thermal photocoagulation is still the preferred treatment for choroidal neovascularization that does not involve the fovea, but it is suitable for only a small number of patients and it can lead to immediate loss of visual acuity. Photodynamic therapy with use of photochemical light activation of verteporfin as a photosensitizer (verteporfin therapy) has been shown to be effective in treating vascularized tumors, and its potential to treat other conditions involving neovascularization has also been suggested. Preclinical and clinical studies have indicated that verteporfin therapy can be used to treat choroidal neovascularization secondary to age-related macular degeneration effectively and safely. Selective occlusion of choroidal neovasculature by this therapy causes minimal damage to the neurosensory retina and, therefore, does not induce loss of visual acuity. This benefit allows verteporfin therapy to be used in the large proportion of patients who are not eligible for treatment by laser photocoagulation. The mechanistic aspects of the mode of action of light-activated verteporfin are described in this review.

Photodynamic Therapy With Verteporfin for Choroidal Neovascularization Caused by Age-related Macular Degeneration: Results of a Single Treatment in a Phase 1 and 2 Study

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the safety and short-term visual and fluorescein angiographic effects of a single photodynamic therapy treatment with verteporfin with the use of different dosage regimens in patients with choroidal neovascularization (CNV) from age-related macular degeneration. DESIGN Nonrandomized, multicenter, open-label, clinical trial using 5 dosage regimens. SETTING Four ophthalmic centers in North America and Europe providing retinal care. PARTICIPANTS Patients with subfoveal CNV caused by age-related macular degeneration. METHODS Standardized protocol refraction, visual acuity testing, ophthalmic examination, color photographs, and fluorescein angiograms were used to evaluate the effects of a single treatment of photodynamic therapy with verteporfin. Follow-up was planned through 3 months in 97 patients and for less than 3 months in 31 other patients. RESULTS The mean visual acuity change (and range of change) from baseline at the follow-up examination at week 12 after a single treatment with regimens 1 through 5 was -0.2 (-3 to +2), -0.9 (-9 to +5), -1.6 (-9 to +2), +0.4 (-8 to +7), and +0.1 (-8 to +9) lines, respectively. Only the highest light dose (150 J/cm2) in regimens 2 and 3, which produced angiographic nonperfusion of neurosensory retinal vessels, caused marked vision loss. Some cessation of fluorescein leakage from CNV was achieved without loss of vision when the light dose used was less than 150 J/cm2. Systemic adverse events were rare. Cessation of fluorescein leakage from CNV was noted in all regimens by 1 week after photodynamic therapy. Fluorescein leakage from at least a portion of the CNV reappeared by 4 to 12 weeks after treatment in almost all cases. Progression of classic CNV beyond the area of CNV identified before treatment was noted in 42 (51%) of the 83 eyes with classic CNV followed up for 3 months after a single treatment. Eyes in which the area of any CNV leakage at 12 weeks was less than at baseline had a significantly better visual acuity outcome (+0.8 line) than eyes in which CNV leakage progressed (-0.8 line). CONCLUSIONS Photodynamic therapy with verteporfin achieved short-term cessation of fluorescein leakage from CNV without loss of vision or growth of classic CNV in some patients with age-related macular degeneration. Except for nonperfusion of neurosensory retinal vessels at a light dose of 150 J/cm2, no other adverse events were of concern. Randomized clinical trials to investigate whether this new modality can preserve vision in patients with CNV secondary to age-related macular degeneration are justified.

Verteporfin therapy of subfoveal choroidal neovascularization in pathologic myopia: 2-Year results of a randomized clinical trial - VIP report no. 3

PURPOSE To report 24-month vision and fluorescein angiographic outcomes from trials evaluating photodynamic therapy with verteporfin in patients with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV) caused by pathologic myopia. DESIGN AND SETTING Multicenter, double-masked, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial at 28 ophthalmology practices in Europe and North America. PARTICIPANTS Patients with subfoveal choroidal neovascular lesions caused by pathologic myopia measuring no more than 5400 micro m and best-corrected visual acuity (approximate Snellen equivalent) of 20/100 or better. METHODS Similar to methods described for 1-year results with follow-up examinations beyond 1 year, continuing every 3 months (except Photograph Reading Center evaluations only at the month 24 examination). During the second year, the same regimen (with verteporfin or placebo as applied at baseline) was used if angiography showed fluorescein leakage from CNV. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was the proportion of eyes with fewer than 8 letters (approximately 1.5 lines) of visual acuity loss at the month 24 examination, adhering to an intent-to-treat analysis and using the last observation carried forward method to impute for any missing data. RESULTS Seventy-seven of 81 patients (95%) in the verteporfin group, compared with 36 of 39 patients (92%) in the placebo group, completed the month 24 examination. At this time point, 29 of 81 verteporfin-treated patients (36%) compared with 20 of 39 placebo-treated patients (51%) lost at least 8 letters (P = 0.11). The distribution of change in visual acuity at the month 24 examination was in favor of a benefit for the cases assigned to verteporfin (P = 0.05). This included improvement by at least 5 letters (equivalent to at least 1 line) in 32 verteporfin-treated cases [40%] vs. five placebo-treated cases (13%) and improvement by at least 15 letters (equivalent to at least 3 lines) in 10 verteporfin-treated cases (12%) vs. zero placebo-treated cases. No additional photosensitivity adverse reactions or injection site adverse events were associated with verteporfin therapy in the second year of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS Verteporfin therapy for subfoveal CNV caused by pathologic myopia safely maintained a visual benefit compared with a placebo therapy through 2 years of follow-up. Although the primary outcome was not statistically significantly in favor of verteporfin therapy at 2 years as it had been at 1 year of follow-up, the distribution of change in visual acuity at the month 24 examination was in favor of the verteporfin-treated group and showed that this group was more likely to have improved visual acuity through the month 24 examination. The VIP Study Group recommends verteporfin therapy for subfoveal CNV resulting from pathologic myopia based on both the 1- and 2-year results of this randomized clinical trial.

Efficacy and Safety of Monthly versus Quarterly Ranibizumab Treatment in Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration: The EXCITE Study

OBJECTIVE To demonstrate noninferiority of a quarterly treatment regimen to a monthly regimen of ranibizumab in patients with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV) secondary to age-related macular degeneration (AMD). DESIGN A 12-month, multicenter, randomized, double-masked, active-controlled, phase IIIb study. PARTICIPANTS Patients with primary or recurrent subfoveal CNV secondary to AMD (353 patients), with predominantly classic, minimally classic, or occult (no classic component) lesions. INTERVENTION Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to 0.3 mg quarterly, 0.5 mg quarterly, or 0.3 mg monthly doses of ranibizumab. Treatment comprised of a loading phase (3 consecutive monthly injections) followed by a 9-month maintenance phase (either monthly or quarterly injection). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) from baseline to month 12 and the incidence of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS In the per-protocol population (293 patients), BCVA, measured by Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study-like charts, increased from baseline to month 12 by 4.9, 3.8, and 8.3 letters in the 0.3 mg quarterly (104 patients), 0.5 mg quarterly (88 patients), and 0.3 mg monthly (101 patients) dosing groups, respectively. Similar results were observed in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (353 patients). The mean decrease in CRT from baseline to month 12 in the ITT population was -96.0 μm in 0.3 mg quarterly, -105.6 μm in 0.5 mg quarterly, and -105.3 μm in 0.3 mg monthly group. The most frequent ocular AEs were conjunctival hemorrhage (17.6%, pooled quarterly groups; 10.4%, monthly group) and eye pain (15.1%, pooled quarterly groups; 20.9%, monthly group). There were 9 ocular serious AEs and 3 deaths; 1 death was suspected to be study related (cerebral hemorrhage; 0.5 mg quarterly group). The incidences of key arteriothromboembolic events were low. CONCLUSIONS After 3 initial monthly ranibizumab injections, both monthly (0.3 mg) and quarterly (0.3 mg/0.5 mg) ranibizumab treatments maintained BCVA in patients with CNV secondary to AMD. At month 12, BCVA gain in the monthly regimen was higher than that of the quarterly regimens. The noninferiority of a quarterly regimen was not achieved with reference to 5.0 letters. The safety profile was similar to that reported in prior ranibizumab studies.

Ranibizumab (Lucentis) in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: evidence from clinical trials

Background: Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) has a poor prognosis if left untreated, frequently resulting in legal blindness. Ranibizumab is approved for treating neovascular AMD. However, further guidance is needed to assist ophthalmologists in clinical practice to optimise treatment outcomes. Methods: An international retina expert panel assessed evidence available from prospective, multicentre studies evaluating different ranibizumab treatment schedules (ANCHOR, MARINA, PIER, SAILOR, SUSTAIN and EXCITE) and a literature search to generate evidence-based and consensus recommendations for treatment indication and assessment, retreatment and monitoring. Results: Ranibizumab is indicated for choroidal neovascular lesions with active disease, the clinical parameters of which are outlined. Treatment initiation with three consecutive monthly injections, followed by continued monthly injections, has provided the best visual-acuity outcomes in pivotal clinical trials. If continued monthly injections are not feasible after initiation, a flexible strategy appears viable, with monthly monitoring of lesion activity recommended. Initiation regimens of fewer than three injections have not been assessed. Continuous careful monitoring with flexible retreatment may help avoid vision loss recurring. Standardised biomarkers need to be determined. Conclusion: Evidence-based guidelines will help to optimise treatment outcomes with ranibizumab in neovascular AMD.

One-year outcomes of the da VINCI study of VEGF trap-eye in eyes with diabetic macular edema

PURPOSE To compare different doses and dosing regimens of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) Trap-Eye with laser photocoagulation in eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN Randomized, double-masked, multicenter, phase 2 clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS Diabetic patients (n = 221) with center-involved DME. METHODS Participants were assigned randomly to 1 of 5 treatment regimens: VEGF Trap-Eye 0.5 mg every 4 weeks (0.5q4); 2 mg every 4 weeks (2q4); 2 mg every 8 weeks after 3 initial monthly doses (2q8); or 2 mg dosing as needed after 3 initial monthly doses (2PRN), or macular laser photocoagulation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 24 weeks (the primary end point) and at 52 weeks, proportion of eyes that gained 15 letters or more in Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) BCVA, and mean changes in central retinal thickness (CRT) from baseline. RESULTS As previously reported, mean improvements in BCVA in the VEGF Trap-Eye groups at week 24 were 8.6, 11.4, 8.5, and 10.3 letters for 0.5q4, 2q4, 2q8, and 2PRN regimens, respectively, versus 2.5 letters for the laser group (P ≤ 0.0085 versus laser). Mean improvements in BCVA in the VEGF Trap-Eye groups at week 52 were 11.0, 13.1, 9.7, and 12.0 letters for 0.5q4, 2q4, 2q8, and 2PRN regimens, respectively, versus -1.3 letters for the laser group (P ≤ 0.0001 versus laser). Proportions of eyes with gains in BCVA of 15 or more ETDRS letters at week 52 in the VEGF Trap-Eye groups were 40.9%, 45.5%, 23.8%, and 42.2% versus 11.4% for laser (P = 0.0031, P = 0.0007, P = 0.1608, and P = 0.0016, respectively, versus laser). Mean reductions in CRT in the VEGF Trap-Eye groups at week 52 were -165.4 μm, -227.4 μm, -187.8 μm, and -180.3 μm versus -58.4 μm for laser (P < 0.0001 versus laser). Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Trap-Eye generally was well tolerated. The most frequent ocular adverse events with VEGF Trap-Eye were conjunctival hemorrhage, eye pain, ocular hyperemia, and increased intraocular pressure, whereas common systemic adverse events included hypertension, nausea, and congestive heart failure. CONCLUSIONS Significant gains in BCVA from baseline achieved at week 24 were maintained or improved at week 52 in all VEGF Trap-Eye groups. Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Trap-Eye warrants further investigation for the treatment of DME.

INTRAVITREAL BEVACIZUMAB (AVASTIN) FOR MACULAR OEDEMA SECONDARY TO RETINAL VEIN OCCLUSION: 12-MONTH RESULTS OF A PROSPECTIVE CLINICAL TRIAL

Aims: The aim of the study was to evaluate functional and anatomical changes after intravitreal bevacizumab (Avastin®) in eyes with persistent macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) or central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO). Methods: Twenty-nine consecutive eyes with macular oedema secondary to BRVO (21 eyes) or CRVO (eight eyes) were included in a prospective clinical trial. Eyes were treated with three initial intravitreal bevacizumab injections of 1 mg at a monthly interval. Retreatment was based on central retinal thickness (CRT) based on optical coherence tomography. If continuous injections were indicated up to month 6, the dose was increased to 2.5 mg. Results: After 12 months of follow-up, mean visual acuity increased from 50 letters (20/100) at baseline to 66 letters (20/50+1; +16 letters; p<0.001) at month 12 and CRT decreased from 558 μm at baseline to 309 μm at month 12 (−249 μm; p<0.001). Patients received a mean of eight out of 13 possible injections. No drug-related systemic or ocular side effects following intravitreal bevacizumab treatment were observed. Fluorescein angiography revealed no progression of avascular areas. Conclusions: Intravitreal therapy using bevacizumab appears to be a safe and effective treatment in patients with macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion. However, the main limitations of this treatment modality are its short-term effectiveness and high recurrence rate.

The DA VINCI Study: Phase 2 Primary Results of VEGF Trap-Eye in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema

PURPOSE To determine whether different doses and dosing regimens of intravitreal vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) Trap-Eye are superior to focal/grid photocoagulation in eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN Multicenter, randomized, double-masked, phase 2 clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS A total of 221 diabetic patients with clinically significant macular edema involving the central macula. METHODS Patients were assigned to 1 of 5 treatment regimens: 0.5 mg VEGF Trap-Eye every 4 weeks; 2 mg VEGF Trap-Eye every 4 weeks; 2 mg VEGF Trap-Eye for 3 initial monthly doses and then every 8 weeks; 2 mg VEGF Trap-Eye for 3 initial monthly doses and then on an as-needed (PRN) basis; or macular laser photocoagulation. Assessments were completed at baseline and every 4 weeks thereafter. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Mean change in visual acuity and central retinal thickness (CRT) at 24 weeks. RESULTS Patients in the 4 VEGF Trap-Eye groups experienced mean visual acuity benefits ranging from +8.5 to +11.4 Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters versus only +2.5 letters in the laser group (P ≤ 0.0085 for each VEGF Trap-Eye group vs. laser). Gains from baseline of 0+, 10+, and 15+ letters were seen in up to 93%, 64%, and 34% of VEGF Trap-Eye groups versus up to 68%, 32%, and 21% in the laser group, respectively. Mean reductions in CRT in the 4 VEGF Trap-Eye groups ranged from -127.3 to -194.5 μm compared with only -67.9 μm in the laser group (P = 0.0066 for each VEGF Trap-Eye group vs. laser). VEGF Trap-Eye was generally well tolerated. Ocular adverse events in patients treated with VEGF Trap-Eye were generally consistent with those seen with other intravitreal anti-VEGF agents. CONCLUSIONS Intravitreal VEGF Trap-Eye produced a statistically significant and clinically relevant improvement in visual acuity when compared with macular laser photocoagulation in patients with DME.