Intravitreal Aflibercept for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration Beyond One Year of Treatment: AZURE, a Randomized Trial of Treat-and-Extend vs. Fixed Dosing.

INTRODUCTION: AZURE was a 76-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, phase IIIb noninferiority study comparing the efficacy and safety of intravitreal aflibercept (IVT-AFL) in a treat-and-extend (T&E) regimen with fixed dosing in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) previously receiving IVT-AFL for ≥ 1 year. METHODS: Patients were aged ≥ 51 years and had completed ≥ 1 year of IVT-AFL treatment prior to enrollment (IVT-AFL once per month [- 1 or + 2 weeks] for 3 months followed by IVT-AFL every 2 months [6-12 weeks]). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive IVT-AFL 2 mg in either a T&E (minimum treatment interval of 8 weeks with no upper limit, adjusted according to functional and anatomic outcomes, as assessed by the investigator; n = 168), or a fixed dosing regimen (treatment every 8 weeks [± 3 days]; n = 168). The primary endpoint was best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) change from baseline to week (W) 52. The key secondary endpoint was the proportion of patients maintaining vision (< 15-letter loss) at W52. RESULTS: The full analysis set comprised 332 patients (T&E: n = 165; fixed dosing: n = 167). Mean BCVA change (baseline to W52) was - 0.3 ± 7.5 vs. - 0.5 ± 8.4 letters (T&E vs. fixed dosing; least-squares mean difference [95% CI]: 0.22 [- 1.51 to 1.96] letters; P < 0.0001 for noninferiority test [5-letter margin]). From baseline to W52, 95.2% (T&E) and 94.0% (fixed dosing) of patients maintained vision. Mean central subfield thickness change from baseline to W52 was - 24 ± 55 (T&E) and - 33 ± 47 (fixed dosing) µm. Last treatment interval to W76 was ≥ 12 weeks for 37.0% of T&E patients. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSION: IVT-AFL T&E can achieve similar functional and anatomic outcomes to fixed dosing every 8 weeks over 52 weeks in patients with nAMD who have completed ≥ 1 year of treatment, while reducing treatment burden. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02540954.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of SCD411 and reference aflibercept in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration.

To compare the efficacy and safety of the proposed aflibercept biosimilar SCD411 and reference aflibercept in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration, this randomized, double-masked, parallel-group, multicenter study was conducted in 14 countries from 13 August 2020 to 8 September 2022. Patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration. With subfoveal, juxtafoveal, or extrafoveal choroidal neovascularization were aged 50 years or older. Intravitreal injection of SCD411 or aflibercept (2.0 mg) were administered every 4 weeks for the first three injections and every 8 weeks until week 48. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in best-corrected visual acuity from baseline to week 8 with an adjusted equivalence margin of ± 3.0 letters. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either SCD411 (n = 288) or reference aflibercept (n = 288). A total of 566 participants (98.3%) completed week 8 of the study. The least-squares mean difference of change in best-corrected visual acuity from baseline to week 8 (SCD411-aflibercept) was - 0.4 letters (90% confidence interval = - 1.6 to 0.9). The incidence of ocular (69 of 287 [24.0%] vs. 71 of 286 [24.8%]) and serious ocular (5 of 287 [1.7%] vs. 3 of 286 [1.0%]) treatment-emergent adverse effects were similar between the SCD411 and aflibercept groups. Immunogenicity analysis revealed a low incidence of neutralizing antibody formation in both groups. In conclusion, SCD411 has equivalent efficacy compared with reference aflibercept in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration and has a comparable safety profile. The results support the potential use of SCD411 for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration.

Intraoperative pyloric drainage is unnecessary during esophagectomies: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Objective: The topic of this meta-analysis is the comparison of gastric conduit esophageal reconstructions with or without pyloroplasty. Background: Surgical procedures, especially minimal invasive esophagectomy (MIE) can be a curative treatment in the early stages of esophageal cancer. Previously, intraoperative pyloroplasty was routinely performed, but nowadays it became debated again in the light of minimally invasive esophagectomy. Methods: A comprehensive search was performed in multiple databases to identify randomized controlled trials investigating the topic. Two independent authors performed the selection based on predefined criteria. Statistical analysis was performed to assess any significant difference, then the bias and quality of the data were estimated. Results: Nine relevant RCTs consisting of 529 patients with esophageal cancer were identified. No significance was found in mortality [odds ratio (OR): 0.85; p = 0.642], anastomosis leakage (OR: 0.57; p = 0.254), respiratory morbidity (OR: 0.51; p = 0.214) and vomiting (OR: 0.74; p = 0.520), however the results about gastric emptying time (GET) were controversial (weighted mean difference (WMD): -67.71; p = 0.009, OR: 2.75; p = 0.072). Significant heterogeneity was not detected except for GET. Trial sequential analyses (TSA) show that a certain conclusion would require more data except in the binary variables of GET. Conclusion: We conclude that the pyloric drainage procedure is not routinely necessary, but further well-designed studies would be needed, especially in Europe.

Effects of neoadjuvant chemotherapy vs chemoradiotherapy in the treatment of esophageal adenocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant therapy is an essential modality for reducing the clinical stage of esophageal cancer; however, the superiority of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) is unclear. Therefore, a discussion of these two modalities is necessary. AIM: To investigate the benefits and complications of neoadjuvant modalities. METHODS: To address this concern, predefined criteria were established using the PICO protocol. Two independent authors performed comprehensive searches using predetermined keywords. Statistical analyses were performed to identify significant differences between groups. Potential publication bias was visualized using funnel plots. The quality of the data was evaluated using the Risk of Bias Tool 2 (RoB2) and the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Ten articles, including 1928 patients, were included for the analysis. Significant difference was detected in pathological complete response (pCR) [P < 0.001; odds ratio (OR): 0.27; 95%CI: 0.16-0.46], 30-d mortality (P = 0.015; OR: 0.4; 95%CI: 0.22-0.71) favoring the nCRT, and renal failure (P = 0.039; OR: 1.04; 95%CI: 0.66-1.64) favoring the nCT. No significant differences were observed in terms of survival, local or distal recurrence, or other clinical or surgical complications. The result of RoB2 was moderate, and that of the GRADE approach was low or very low in almost all cases. CONCLUSION: Although nCRT may have a higher pCR rate, it does not translate to greater long-term survival. Moreover, nCRT is associated with higher 30-d mortality, although the specific cause for postoperative complications could not be identified. In the case of nCT, toxic side effects are suspected, which can reduce the quality of life. Given the quality of available studies, further randomized trials are required.

Biosimilar candidate CT-P42 in diabetic macular edema: 24-week results from a randomized, active-controlled, Phase III study.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the therapeutic similarity of CT-P42 compared to reference aflibercept (Eylea®) in adult patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN: Randomized, active-controlled, double-masked, Phase III clinical trial PARTICIPANTS: Patients with a diagnosis of either type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) with DME involving the center of the macula. METHODS: Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive either CT-P42 or reference aflibercept (2 mg/0.05 mL) by intravitreal injection every 4 weeks (5 doses) then every 8 weeks (4 doses) in the main study period. Results up to Week 24 are reported herein. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was mean change from baseline at Week 8 in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) using the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart. Equivalence between CT-P42 and reference aflibercept was to be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) (global assumptions) and two-sided 90% CI (US Food and Drug Administration [FDA] assumptions) for the treatment difference fell entirely within the equivalence margin of ±3 letters, as assessed in the full analysis set. RESULTS: Overall, 348 patients were randomized (CT-P42: 173; reference aflibercept: 175). BCVA improved from baseline to Week 8 in both groups, with a least squares mean (standard error) improvement of 9.43 (0.798) and 8.85 (0.775) letters in the CT-P42 and reference aflibercept groups, respectively. The estimated between-group treatment difference was 0.58 letters, with the CIs within the pre-defined equivalence margin of ±3 letters (95% CI -0.73, 1.88 [global]; 90% CI -0.52, 1.67 [FDA]). Through Week 24, other efficacy results for the two groups, in terms of change in BCVA and retinal central subfield thickness, as well as ETDRS Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale score, supported therapeutic similarity. Pharmacokinetics, usability, safety (including the proportions of patients experiencing at least one treatment-emergent adverse event [CT-P42: 50.3%; reference aflibercept: 53.7%]), and immunogenicity were also comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study in patients with DME demonstrated equivalence between CT-P42 and reference aflibercept (2 mg/0.05 mL) in terms of efficacy, with similar pharmacokinetic, usability, safety, and immunogenicity profiles.