Two-Year Results of the Phase 3 Randomized Controlled Study of Abicipar in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration.

PURPOSE: To report the 2-year efficacy and safety of abicipar every 8 weeks and quarterly (after initial doses) compared with monthly ranibizumab in patients with treatment-naïve neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). DESIGN: Two multicenter, randomized, phase 3 clinical trials with identical protocols (CEDAR and SEQUOIA). Analyses used pooled trial data. PARTICIPANTS: The trials enrolled 1888 patients (1 eye/patient) with active choroidal neovascularization secondary to age-related macular degeneration and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 24 to 73 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters. METHODS: At enrollment, patients were assigned to study eye treatment with abicipar 2 mg every 8 weeks after initial doses at baseline and weeks 4 and 8 (abicipar Q8, n = 630), abicipar 2 mg every 12 weeks after initial doses at baseline and weeks 4 and 12 (abicipar Q12, n = 628), or ranibizumab 0.5 mg every 4 weeks (ranibizumab Q4, n = 630). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Efficacy measures included stable vision (<15-letter loss in BCVA from baseline) and change from baseline in BCVA and central retinal thickness (CRT). Safety measures included adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: For patients who completed the study, efficacy of abicipar after initial doses was maintained through week 104. At week 104, the proportion of patients with stable vision was 93.0% (396/426), 89.8% (379/422), and 94.4% (470/498); mean change in BCVA from baseline was +7.8 letters, +6.1 letters, and +8.5 letters, and mean change in CRT from baseline was -147 µm, -146 µm, and -142 µm in the abicipar Q8 (14 injections), abicipar Q12 (10 injections), and ranibizumab Q4 (25 injections) groups, respectively. The overall incidence of intraocular inflammation (IOI) AEs was 15.4%, 15.3%, and 0.3% from baseline through week 52 and 16.2%, 17.6%, and 1.3% from baseline through week 104 in the abicipar Q8, abicipar Q12, and ranibizumab Q4 groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Two-year results show efficacy of abicipar Q8 and Q12 in nAMD. First onset of IOI events with abicipar was much reduced in the second year and comparable with ranibizumab (0.8% and 2.3% vs. 1.0%). The extended duration of effect of abicipar allows for quarterly dosing and reduced treatment burden.

Efficacy and Safety of Abicipar in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: 52-Week Results of Phase 3 Randomized Controlled Study.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of abicipar every 8 weeks and quarterly (after initial doses) versus ranibizumab every 4 weeks in treatment-naïve patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD). DESIGN: Two randomized, multicenter, double-masked, parallel-group, active-controlled, phase 3 clinical trials (CEDAR, SEQUOIA) with identical protocols were conducted. Data from both trials were pooled for analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with active choroidal neovascularization secondary to AMD and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 24-73 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters in the study eye were enrolled. METHODS: Patients (n = 1888) were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to study eye treatment with abicipar 2 mg every 8 weeks after 3 initial doses at baseline and weeks 4 and 8 (Q8), abicipar 2 mg every 12 weeks after 3 initial doses at baseline and weeks 4 and 12 (Q12), or ranibizumab 0.5 mg every 4 weeks (Q4). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy end point was proportion of patients with stable vision (defined as <15-letter loss in BCVA from baseline) in the study eye at week 52. Secondary end points included change from baseline in BCVA and central retinal thickness (CRT) at week 52. Safety measures included adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: The proportion of patients with stable vision at week 52 was 93.2%, 91.3%, and 95.8% in the abicipar Q8, abicipar Q12, and ranibizumab Q4 groups, respectively, with both abicipar Q8 and Q12 noninferior to ranibizumab Q4. Week 52 mean change from baseline in BCVA was 7.5, 6.4, and 8.4 letters and in CRT was -144, -145, and -144 µm in the abicipar Q8, abicipar Q12, and ranibizumab Q4 groups, respectively. Incidence of intraocular inflammation (IOI) AEs was 15.4%, 15.3%, and 0.3%, respectively. The IOI AEs were typically mild or moderate in severity and treated with topical corticosteroids; 62 of 192 patients (32.3%) received oral and/or injectable corticosteroids. CONCLUSIONS: Abicipar Q8 and Q12 were both noninferior to ranibizumab Q4 in the primary end point of stable vision at week 52. Intraocular inflammation was more frequent with abicipar. Quarterly and Q8 abicipar reduce nAMD disease and treatment burden compared with monthly treatment.

Natural history of diabetic macular edema and factors predicting outcomes in sham-treated patients (MEAD study).

PURPOSE: To describe the natural history of diabetic macular edema (DME) with respect to best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) outcomes and to identify baseline patient characteristics and systemic factors associated with improvement or worsening of outcomes in sham-treated patients. METHODS: The study population was sham-treated patients (n = 350) in the 3-year MEAD registration study of dexamethasone intravitreal implant for treatment of DME. Patients had center-involved DME and received sham intravitreal injections in the study eye at ≥ 6-month intervals. Potential prognostic factors for outcomes were evaluated using multiple linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Visual and anatomic outcomes were poorer in patients who left the study early (n = 198) than in study completers (n = 152). Mean change in BCVA from baseline at the last visit with available data was + 0.9 letters; 37.5% of patients had no change in BCVA, 23.2% had gained > 10 letters, and 16.0% had lost > 10 letters. Older age and baseline diabetic retinopathy score > 6 were associated with worse BCVA outcomes; thicker baseline CRT and larger number of hypertension medications used were associated with larger reductions in CRT during the study. CONCLUSIONS: BCVA and CRT outcomes were variable in this population of DME patients with generally good glycemic control. In DME patients without active treatment, older age and baseline diabetic retinopathy score > 6 were associated with less improvement in BCVA; thicker baseline CRT and a larger number of antihypertensive medications used predicted better improvement in CRT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The MEAD study trials are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifiers NCT00168337 and NCT00168389.

Safety and efficacy of dexamethasone intravitreal implant for treatment of macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion in Chinese patients: randomized, sham-controlled, multicenter study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.7 mg (DEX) for treatment of macular edema associated with retinal vein occlusion (RVO). METHODS: This study was a six-month, randomized, double-masked, sham-controlled, multicenter, phase 3 clinical trial with a 2-month open-label study extension. Patients with branch or central RVO received DEX (n = 129) or sham procedure (n = 130) in the study eye at baseline; all patients who met re-treatment criteria received DEX at month 6. Efficacy measures included Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS), best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and central retinal thickness (CRT) on optical coherence tomography. RESULTS: Time to ≥15-letter BCVA improvement from baseline during the first 6 months (primary endpoint) was earlier with DEX than sham (p < 0.001). At month 2 (peak effect), the percentage of patients with ≥15-letter BCVA improvement from baseline was DEX: 35%, sham: 12%; mean BCVA change from baseline was DEX: +10.6 letters, sham: +1.7 letters; and mean CRT change from baseline was DEX: -407 µm, sham: -62 µm (all p < 0.001). Outcomes were better with DEX than sham in both branch and central RVO. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event was increased intraocular pressure (IOP). Increases in IOP generally were controlled with topical medication. Mean IOP normalized by month 4, and no patient required incisional glaucoma surgery. CONCLUSIONS: DEX had a favorable safety profile and provided clinically significant benefit in a Chinese patient population with RVO. Visual and anatomic outcomes were improved with DEX relative to sham for 3-4 months after a single implant.

A multicenter, 12-month randomized study comparing dexamethasone intravitreal implant with ranibizumab in patients with diabetic macular edema.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether treatment with dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX implant) 0.7 mg every 5 months provides a similar average change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline as ranibizumab 0.5 mg administered as per its European Summary of Product Characteristics in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). METHODS: This was a multicenter, open-label, 12-month, randomized, parallel-group, noninferiority study in patients with DME (one eye/patient). The primary efficacy measure was BCVA using the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) method. Secondary efficacy measures included area of leakage on fluorescein angiography and central retinal thickness (CRT) on optical coherence tomography. RESULTS: Baseline patient characteristics were similar in the two treatment groups (DEX implant, n = 181; ranibizumab, n = 182); mean DME duration was ∼33 months. The mean average BCVA change from baseline over 12 months was 4.34 letters with DEX implant and 7.60 letters with ranibizumab. The lower limit of the 95 % confidence interval of the between-group difference was -4.74 letters, and therefore, DEX was demonstrated to be noninferior to ranibizumab based on the prespecified noninferiority margin of 5 letters. At monthly follow-up visits, the percentage of patients with ≥15-letter BCVA gain from baseline ranged from 7.2 to 17.7 % with DEX implant and 4.4 to 26.9 % with ranibizumab. Both DEX implant and ranibizumab effectively reduced CRT and reduced the area of fluorescein leakage. Between-group differences in change from baseline CRT favored DEX implant at 1, 2, 6, and 7 months (p ≤ 0.007) and ranibizumab at 4, 5, 9, and 10 months (p < 0.001); the decrease in fluorescein leakage area was greater with DEX implant than ranibizumab at month 12 (p < 0.001). Ocular adverse events in the study eye were more frequent in the DEX implant group because of the occurrence of intraocular pressure (IOP) increases and cataract. IOP increases were transient and generally managed with topical medication. CONCLUSIONS: Both DEX implant and ranibizumab were well tolerated and improved BCVA and anatomic outcomes in patients with DME. DEX implant met the a priori criterion for noninferiority to ranibizumab in average change from baseline BCVA over 12 months. Noninferiority was achieved with an average of 2.85 DEX implant injections and 8.70 ranibizumab injections per patient.

INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE IN PATIENTS WITH DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA TREATED WITH DEXAMETHASONE INTRAVITREAL IMPLANT IN THE 3-YEAR MEAD STUDY.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the occurrence, management, and clinical significance of increases in intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients with diabetic macular edema treated with dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX implant). METHODS: Randomized, multicenter, 3-year, Phase III study. Patients (N = 1,048) with diabetic macular edema were randomized to DEX implant 0.7-mg, DEX implant 0.35-mg, or sham procedure with retreatment allowed at ≥6-month intervals (seven injections maximum). RESULTS: In the DEX implant 0.7-mg, DEX implant 0.35-mg, and sham groups, respectively, ≥10-mmHg IOP increases from baseline occurred in 27.7%, 24.8%, and 3.7% of patients, and their frequency did not increase with repeat injections. IOP-lowering medication was used by 41.5%, 37.6%, and 9.1% of patients. Only one patient (0.3%) in each DEX implant group had filtering surgery to manage a steroid-induced IOP increase. Among DEX implant 0.7-mg-treated patients with and without a ≥10-mmHg IOP increase, 21.9% (21 of 96) and 22.4% (57 of 255), respectively, achieved ≥15-letter best-corrected visual acuity gain at the end of the study, and mean average change in central retinal thickness from baseline was -127 µm and -106 µm, respectively. CONCLUSION: DEX implant demonstrated clear benefit of treatment despite increases in IOP. Sequential implants had no cumulative effect on IOP.

Dexamethasone intravitreal implant in previously treated patients with diabetic macular edema: subgroup analysis of the MEAD study.

BACKGROUND: Dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.7 mg (DEX 0.7) was approved for treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) after demonstration of its efficacy and safety in the MEAD registration trials. We performed subgroup analysis of MEAD study results to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DEX 0.7 treatment in patients with previously treated DME. METHODS: Three-year, randomized, sham-controlled phase 3 study in patients with DME, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 34-68 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters (20/200-20/50 Snellen equivalent), and central retinal thickness (CRT) ≥ 300 µm measured by time-domain optical coherence tomography. Patients were randomized to 1 of 2 doses of DEX (0.7 mg or 0.35 mg), or to sham procedure, with retreatment no more than every 6 months. The primary endpoint was ≥ 15-letter gain in BCVA at study end. Average change in BCVA and CRT from baseline during the study (area-under-the-curve approach) and adverse events were also evaluated. The present subgroup analysis evaluated outcomes in patients randomized to DEX 0.7 (marketed dose) or sham based on prior treatment for DME at study entry. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of previously treated DEX 0.7 (n = 247) and sham (n = 261) patients were similar. In the previously treated subgroup, mean number of treatments over 3 years was 4.1 for DEX 0.7 and 3.2 for sham, 21.5% of DEX 0.7 patients versus 11.1 % of sham had ≥ 15-letter BCVA gain from baseline at study end (P = 0.002), mean average BCVA change from baseline was +3.2 letters with DEX 0.7 versus +1.5 letters with sham (P = 0.024), and mean average CRT change from baseline was -126.1 µm with DEX 0.7 versus -39.0 µm with sham (P < .001). Cataract-related adverse events were reported in 70.3% of baseline phakic patients in the previously treated DEX 0.7 subgroup; vision gains were restored following cataract surgery. CONCLUSIONS: DEX 0.7 significantly improved visual and anatomic outcomes in patients with DME previously treated with laser, intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor, intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide, or a combination of these therapies. The safety profile of DEX 0.7 in previously treated patients was similar to its safety profile in the total study population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00168337 and NCT00168389, registered 12 September 2005.

Three-year, randomized, sham-controlled trial of dexamethasone intravitreal implant in patients with diabetic macular edema.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex, DEX implant) 0.7 and 0.35 mg in the treatment of patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN: Two randomized, multicenter, masked, sham-controlled, phase III clinical trials with identical protocols were conducted. Data were pooled for analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (n = 1048) with DME, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 20/50 to 20/200 Snellen equivalent, and central retinal thickness (CRT) of ≥300 µm by optical coherence tomography. METHODS: Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to study treatment with DEX implant 0.7 mg, DEX implant 0.35 mg, or sham procedure and followed for 3 years (or 39 months for patients treated at month 36) at ≤40 scheduled visits. Patients who met retreatment eligibility criteria could be retreated no more often than every 6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The predefined primary efficacy endpoint for the United States Food and Drug Administration was achievement of ≥15-letter improvement in BCVA from baseline at study end. Safety measures included adverse events and intraocular pressure (IOP). RESULTS: Mean number of treatments received over 3 years was 4.1, 4.4, and 3.3 with DEX implant 0.7 mg, DEX implant 0.35 mg, and sham, respectively. The percentage of patients with ≥15-letter improvement in BCVA from baseline at study end was greater with DEX implant 0.7 mg (22.2%) and DEX implant 0.35 mg (18.4%) than sham (12.0%; P ≤ 0.018). Mean average reduction in CRT from baseline was greater with DEX implant 0.7 mg (-111.6 µm) and DEX implant 0.35 mg (-107.9 µm) than sham (-41.9 µm; P < 0.001). Rates of cataract-related adverse events in phakic eyes were 67.9%, 64.1%, and 20.4% in the DEX implant 0.7 mg, DEX implant 0.35 mg, and sham groups, respectively. Increases in IOP were usually controlled with medication or no therapy; only 2 patients (0.6%) in the DEX implant 0.7 mg group and 1 (0.3%) in the DEX implant 0.35 mg group required trabeculectomy. CONCLUSIONS: The DEX implant 0.7 mg and 0.35 mg met the primary efficacy endpoint for improvement in BCVA. The safety profile was acceptable and consistent with previous reports.

EVEREST study: efficacy and safety of verteporfin photodynamic therapy in combination with ranibizumab or alone versus ranibizumab monotherapy in patients with symptomatic macular polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy.

PURPOSE: To assess the effects of verteporfin photodynamic therapy (PDT) combined with ranibizumab or alone versus ranibizumab monotherapy in patients with symptomatic macular polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-masked, primarily indocyanine green angiography-guided trial, 61 Asian patients were randomized to verteporfin PDT (standard fluence), ranibizumab 0.5 mg, or the combination. Patients were administered with verteporfin PDT/placebo and initiated with three consecutive monthly ranibizumab/sham injections starting Day 1, and re-treated (Months 3-5) as per predefined criteria. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with indocyanine green angiography-assessed complete regression of polyps at Month 6. Secondary endpoints included mean change in best-corrected visual acuity at Month 6 and safety. RESULTS: At Month 6, verteporfin combined with ranibizumab or alone was superior to ranibizumab monotherapy in achieving complete polyp regression (77.8% and 71.4% vs. 28.6%; P < 0.01); mean change ± standard deviation in best-corrected visual acuity (letters) was 10.9 ± 10.9 (verteporfin PDT + ranibizumab), 7.5 ± 10.6 (verteporfin PDT), and 9.2 ± 12.4 (ranibizumab). There were no new safety findings with either drug used alone or in combination. CONCLUSION: Verteporfin PDT combined with ranibizumab 0.5 mg or alone was superior to ranibizumab monotherapy in achieving complete regression of polyps in this 6-month study in patients with symptomatic macular polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy. All treatments were well tolerated over 6 months.

Post-marketing surveillance study of the safety of dexamethasone intravitreal implant in patients with retinal vein occlusion or noninfectious posterior segment uveitis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the long-term safety of dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX) in patients treated for macular edema associated with retinal vein occlusion (RVO) or noninfectious posterior segment uveitis (NIPSU) in clinical practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Multicenter (102 sites in France, Germany, Spain, UK), prospective, observational, post-authorization safety study in adult patients treated with DEX. Data collected up to 2 years after enrollment included serious adverse events (SAEs) and adverse events of special interest (AESIs; adverse drug reactions that are considered important risks associated with DEX and listed in the European Union Ozurdex Risk Management Plan). RESULTS: Overall, 803 patients (652 RVO, 151 NIPSU) received on-study DEX treatment, and 73.1% completed 24 months of follow-up; 72.6% were DEX-naïve. Median number of on-study injections per treated eye was 2 (range, 1-7); median reinjection interval was 27.1 weeks. Nonocular SAEs affected 9.5% of patients; none were considered DEX-related. Ocular SAEs (most common: cataract progression) occurred in 3.2% of treated eyes. SAEs were similar in eyes stratified by previous DEX use and number of on-study DEX injections (≤2 or >2), in both RVO and NIPSU. The most common AESIs were cataract formation and progression (20.0% and 19.2% of treated phakic eyes, n=551), increased intraocular pressure (19.0% of treated eyes), and vitreous hemorrhage (3.3% of treated eyes). Cataract progression was more frequent in baseline phakic eyes that were previously treated with DEX or received >2 on-study DEX injections. CONCLUSION: The long-term safety profile of DEX was acceptable. No new safety concerns were identified.

Anatomical effects of dexamethasone intravitreal implant in diabetic macular oedema: a pooled analysis of 3-year phase III trials.

BACKGROUND/AIM: To assess long-term effects of dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX implant) monotherapy on retinal morphology in diabetic macular oedema (DME). METHODS: Two multicentre, masked, phase III studies with identical protocols randomised patients with DME, best-corrected visual acuity of 34-68 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters and central subfield retinal thickness (CSRT) ≥300 µm to DEX implant 0.7, 0.35 mg or sham procedure. Patients were followed up for 3 years (39 months if treated at month 36), with retreatment allowed at ≥6-month intervals. Patients needing other macular oedema (ME) therapy exited the study. Changes from baseline in CSRT, macular volume and ME grade, area of retinal thickening, macular leakage, macular capillary loss and diabetic retinopathy severity were assessed. RESULTS: After 3 years, more eyes treated with DEX implant 0.7 and 0.35 mg than sham showed improvement (although small) in ME grade (p<0.05 vs sham). DEX implant 0.7 mg delayed time to onset of two-step progression in diabetic retinopathy severity by ∼12 months. DEX implant 0.7 and 0.35 mg produced small, non-sustained reductions in macular leakage but had no significant effect on macular capillary loss. CONCLUSIONS: DEX implant 0.7 or 0.35 mg, administered at ≥6-month intervals over 3 years, produced sustained retinal structural improvement in DME. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00168337 and NCT00168389.

Outcomes following three-line vision loss during treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: subgroup analyses from MARINA and ANCHOR.

AIM: This study aims to assess the impact of continued ranibizumab treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration on patients from the MARINA and ANCHOR randomised clinical studies who lost ≥ 3 lines of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at any time during the first year of treatment. METHODS: Baseline characteristics, mean BCVA over time and ocular adverse events (AEs) were evaluated both for patients whose BCVA loss occurred at any post-baseline visit and for patients whose BCVA loss was acute. The visit when the ≥ 3-line BCVA loss was detected was defined as the new baseline. RESULTS: Continued monthly ranibizumab treatment led to an improvement in mean BCVA from the new baseline. On average, patients with acute BCVA loss gained 11.9 letters at 3 months after the new baseline, compared with 0.3 letters gained with sham. No strong signals were detected in patient demographics and baseline characteristics for prognostic markers of BCVA loss. Furthermore, there was no pattern in the AE profile of patients with acute BCVA loss to suggest that BCVA recovery could be attributed to spontaneously resolving AEs. CONCLUSION: Continued ranibizumab treatment appears to be beneficial for patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration who experience a ≥ 3-line BCVA loss during the first year of treatment.