Early initiation of second-line therapy in primary immune thrombocytopenia: insights from real-world evidence.

To compare patients with primary immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) prescribed early (within 3 months of initial ITP treatment) second-line treatment (eltrombopag, romiplostim, rituximab, immunosuppressive agents, splenectomy) with or without concomitant first-line therapy to those who received only first-line therapy. This real-world retrospective cohort study of 8268 patients with primary ITP from a large US-based database (Optum® de-identified Electronic Health Record [EHR] dataset) combined electronic claims and EHR data. Outcomes included platelet count, bleeding events, and corticosteroid exposure 3 to 6 months after initial treatment. Baseline platelet counts were lower in patients receiving early second-line therapy (10‒28 × 109/L) versus those who did not (67 × 109/L). Counts improved and bleeding events decreased from baseline in all treatment groups 3 to 6 months after the start of therapy. Among the very few patients for whom follow-up treatment data were available (n = 94), corticosteroid use was reduced during the 3- to 6-month follow-up period in patients who received early second-line therapy versus those who did not (39% vs 87%, p < 0.001). Early second-line treatment was prescribed for more severe cases of ITP and appeared to be associated with improved platelet counts and bleeding outcomes 3 to 6 months after initial therapy. Early second-line therapy also appeared to reduce corticosteroid use after 3 months, although the small number of patients with follow-up data on treatment precludes any substantive conclusions. Further research is needed to determine whether early second-line therapy has an effect on the long-term course of ITP.

Vascular Safety of Ranibizumab in Patients With Diabetic Macular Edema: A Pooled Analysis of Patient-Level Data From Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) are at high risk of vascular complications, including stroke and myocardial infarction (MI). Concerns have been raised that intravitreal dosing of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors in DME could be associated with an increase in cardiovascular and cerebrovascular adverse events. Objective: To evaluate the cardiovascular and cerebrovascular safety of ranibizumab, 0.5 mg and 0.3 mg, compared with sham with and without laser in DME. Data Sources: Patient-level data from 6 randomized, double-masked, sham- and laser-controlled clinical trials. Study Selection: Company-sponsored (Genentech or Novartis) studies in DME completed as of December 31, 2013. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Pairwise comparisons (ranibizumab, 0.5 mg, vs sham and laser; ranibizumab, 0.3 mg, vs sham) were performed using Cox proportional hazard regression (hazard ratios, 95% CIs) and rates per 100 person-years. Data analysis was conducted from June 1 to July 15, 2015. Main Outcomes and Measures: Standardized Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities queries and extended searches were prospectively defined to identify relevant safety end points, including arterial thromboembolic events, MI, stroke or transient ischemic attack, vascular deaths, and major vascular events as defined by the Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration (APTC). Results: Overall, 936 patients were treated with ranibizumab, 0.5 mg; 250 patients with ranibizumab, 0.3 mg; and 581 patients with sham/laser. The hazard ratios associated with all pairwise comparisons included 1 for all key cardiovascular and cerebrovascular safety end points. For ranibizumab, 0.5 mg, vs sham/laser and ranibizumab, 0.3 mg, vs sham, the hazard ratios were, respectively, arterial thromboembolic events, 1.05 (95% CI, 0.66-1.68) and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.43-1.40); MI, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.41-1.72) and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.43-2.06); stroke or transient ischemic attack, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.44-1.99) and 0.53 (95% CI, 0.19-1.42); stroke (excluding transient ischemic attack), 1.63 (95% CI, 0.65-4.07) and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.14-2.46); vascular death, 2.17 (95% CI, 0.57-8.29) and 2.51 (95% CI, 0.49-12.94); and APTC-defined events, 1.09 (95% CI, 0.63-1.88) and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.51-1.96). Conclusions and Relevance: This pooled analysis includes 1 of the largest patient-level data sets on treatment of DME with ranibizumab. Although still underpowered to detect small differences for infrequent events, such as stroke, the findings suggest that intravitreous ranibizumab does not increase the risk of systemic vascular events. However, uncertainty remains for patients with DME who are at high risk for vascular disease and were not included in these trials.

Baseline visual acuity strongly predicts visual acuity gain in patients with diabetic macular edema following anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment across trials.

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to evaluate the correlation of baseline visual acuity (VA) with VA outcome in response to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in diabetic macular edema using a retrospective analysis of nine clinical trials. The result will help assess the relevance of VA gain comparisons across trials. METHODS: A correlation analysis was performed between mean baseline VA and VA gain at month 12 for 1,616 diabetic macular edema patients across nine randomized clinical trials (RESOLVE, RISE, RIDE, RESTORE, RETAIN, DRCR.net Protocol I, DA VINCI, VIVID, VISTA) with anti-VEGF treatment regimens ranibizumab 0.5 mg and aflibercept 2 mg. RESULTS: The mean baseline VA ranged from 56.9 to 64.8 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters. The mean VA gain at month 12 ranged from 6.8 to 13.1 ETDRS letters across trials. There was a strong inverse correlation between mean baseline VA and VA gain at month 12 (r=-0.85). The mean VA at 12 months plateaued at ~70 (68.5-73.0) ETDRS letters (20/40 Snellen VA equivalent) for the anti-VEGF treatment groups from all trials, regardless of dosing regimens and agents. CONCLUSION: Cross-trial comparisons based on changes in best-corrected visual acuity should be done cautiously and only after adjusting for best-corrected visual acuity at baseline. Furthermore, the total VA afforded by treatment appears to be subject to a plateau effect, which warrants further exploration.