Randomized trial of bilateral gene therapy injection for m.11778G>A MT-ND4 Leber optic neuropathy.

Leber hereditary optic neuropathy (LHON) is an important example of mitochondrial blindness with the m.11778G>A mutation in the MT-ND4 gene being the most common disease-causing mtDNA variant worldwide. The REFLECT phase 3 pivotal study is a randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trial investigating the efficacy and safety of bilateral intravitreal injection of lenadogene nolparvovec in patients with a confirmed m.11778G>A mutation, using a recombinant adeno-associated virus vector 2, serotype 2 (rAAV2/2-ND4). The first-affected eye received gene therapy; the fellow (affected/not-yet-affected) eye was randomly injected with gene therapy or placebo. The primary end point was the difference in change from baseline of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in second-affected/not-yet-affected eyes treated with lenadogene nolparvovec versus placebo at 1.5 years post-treatment, expressed in logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution (LogMAR). Forty-eight patients were treated bilaterally and 50 unilaterally. At 1.5 years, the change from baseline in BCVA was not statistically different between second-affected/not-yet-affected eyes receiving lenadogene nolparvovec and placebo (primary end point). A statistically significant improvement in BCVA was reported from baseline to 1.5 years in lenadogene nolparvovec-treated eyes: -0.23 LogMAR for the first-affected eyes of bilaterally treated patients (P < 0.01); and -0.15 LogMAR for second-affected/not-yet-affected eyes of bilaterally treated patients and the first-affected eyes of unilaterally treated patients (P < 0.05). The mean improvement in BCVA from nadir to 1.5 years was -0.38 (0.052) LogMAR and -0.33 (0.052) LogMAR in first-affected and second-affected/not-yet-affected eyes treated with lenadogene nolparvovec, respectively (bilateral treatment group). A mean improvement of -0.33 (0.051) LogMAR and -0.26 (0.051) LogMAR was observed in first-affected lenadogene nolparvovec-treated eyes and second-affected/not-yet-affected placebo-treated eyes, respectively (unilateral treatment group). The proportion of patients with one or both eyes on-chart at 1.5 years was 85.4% and 72.0% for bilaterally and unilaterally treated patients, respectively. The gene therapy was well tolerated, with no systemic issues. Intraocular inflammation, which was mostly mild and well controlled with topical corticosteroids, occurred in 70.7% of lenadogene nolparvovec-treated eyes versus 10.2% of placebo-treated eyes. Among eyes treated with lenadogene nolparvovec, there was no difference in the incidence of intraocular inflammation between bilaterally and unilaterally treated patients. Overall, the REFLECT trial demonstrated an improvement of BCVA in LHON eyes carrying the m.11778G>A mtDNA mutation treated with lenadogene nolparvovec or placebo to a degree not reported in natural history studies and supports an improved benefit/risk profile for bilateral injections of lenadogene nolparvovec relative to unilateral injections.

Safety of Lenadogene Nolparvovec Gene Therapy Over 5 Years in 189 Patients With Leber Hereditary Optic Neuropathy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety profile of lenadogene nolparvovec (Lumevoq) in patients with Leber hereditary optic neuropathy. DESIGN: Pooled analysis of safety data from 5 clinical studies. METHODS: A total of 189 patients received single unilateral or bilateral intravitreal injections of a recombinant adeno-associated virus 2 (rAAV2/2) vector encoding the human wild-type ND4 gene. Adverse events (AEs) were collected throughout the studies, up to 5 years. Intraocular inflammation and increased intraocular pressure (IOP) were ocular AEs of special interest. Other assessments included ocular examinations, vector bio-dissemination, and systemic immune responses against rAAV2/2. RESULTS: Almost all patients (95.2%) received 9 × 1010 viral genomes and 87.8% had at least 2 years of follow-up. Most patients (75.1%) experienced at least one systemic AE, but systemic treatment-related AEs occurred in 3 patients; none were serious. Intraocular inflammation was reported in 75.6% of lenadogene nolparvovec-treated eyes. Almost all intraocular inflammations occurred in the anterior chamber (58.8%) or in the vitreous (40.3%), and were of mild (90.3%) or moderate (8.8%) intensity; most resolved with topical corticosteroids alone. All IOP increases were mild to moderate in intensity. No AE led to study discontinuation. Bio-dissemination of lenadogene nolparvovec and systemic immune response were limited. The safety profile was comparable for patients treated bilaterally and unilaterally. CONCLUSIONS: Lenadogene nolparvovec had a good overall safety profile with excellent systemic tolerability, consistent with limited bio-dissemination. The product was well tolerated, with mostly mild ocular side effects responsive to conventional ophthalmologic treatments.

Indirect Comparison of Lenadogene Nolparvovec Gene Therapy Versus Natural History in Patients with Leber Hereditary Optic Neuropathy Carrying the m.11778G>A MT-ND4 Mutation.

INTRODUCTION: Lenadogene nolparvovec is a promising novel gene therapy for patients with Leber hereditary optic neuropathy (LHON) carrying the m.11778G>A ND4 mutation (MT-ND4). A previous pooled analysis of phase 3 studies showed an improvement in visual acuity of patients injected with lenadogene nolparvovec compared to natural history. Here, we report updated results by incorporating data from the latest phase 3 trial REFLECT in the pool, increasing the number of treated patients from 76 to 174. METHODS: The visual acuity of 174 MT-ND4-carrying patients with LHON injected in one or both eyes with lenadogene nolparvovec from four pooled phase 3 studies (REVERSE, RESCUE and their long-term extension trial RESTORE; and REFLECT trial) was compared to the spontaneous evolution of an external control group of 208 matched patients from 11 natural history studies. RESULTS: Treated patients showed a clinically relevant and sustained improvement in their visual acuity when compared to natural history. Mean improvement versus natural history was - 0.30 logMAR (+ 15 ETDRS letters equivalent) at last observation (P < 0.01) with a maximal follow-up of 3.9 years after injection. Most treated eyes were on-chart as compared to less than half of natural history eyes at 48 months after vision loss (89.6% versus 48.1%; P < 0.01) and at last observation (76.1% versus 44.4%; P < 0.01). When we adjusted for covariates of interest (gender, age of onset, ethnicity, and duration of follow-up), the estimated mean gain was - 0.43 logMAR (+ 21.5 ETDRS letters equivalent) versus natural history at last observation (P < 0.0001). Treatment effect was consistent across all phase 3 clinical trials. Analyses from REFLECT suggest a larger treatment effect in patients receiving bilateral injection compared to unilateral injection. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of lenadogene nolparvovec in improving visual acuity in MT-ND4 LHON was confirmed in a large cohort of patients, compared to the spontaneous natural history decline. Bilateral injection of gene therapy may offer added benefits over unilateral injection. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT02652780 (REVERSE); NCT02652767 (RESCUE); NCT03406104 (RESTORE); NCT03293524 (REFLECT); NCT03295071 (REALITY).

Topical cyclosporine for atopic keratoconjunctivitis.

BACKGROUND: Atopic keratoconjunctivitis (AKC) is a chronic ocular surface non-infectious inflammatory condition that atopic dermatitis patients may suffer at any time point in the course of their dermatologic disease and is independent of its degree of severity. AKC is usually not self resolving and it poses a higher risk of corneal injuries and severe sequelae. Management of AKC should prevent or treat corneal damage. Although topical corticosteroids remain the standard treatment for patients with AKC, prolonged use may lead to complications. Topical cyclosporine A (CsA) may improve AKC signs and symptoms, and be used as a corticosteroid sparing agent. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and gather evidence on safety from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of topical CsA in patients with AKC. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 6), MEDLINE (January 1946 to July 2012), EMBASE (January 1980 to July 2012), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to July 2012), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (January 1937 to July 2012), OpenGrey (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe) (www.opengrey.eu/), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en), the IFPMA Clinical Trials Portal (http://clinicaltrials.ifpma.org/no_cache/en/myportal/index.htm) and Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Science (CPCI-S). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 9 July 2012. We also handsearched the following conference proceedings: American Academy of Ophthalmology, Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, International Council of Opthalmology and Societas Ophthalmologica Europaea from 2005 to July 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials only. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data. Due to the small number of studies and the diversity of outcome measures, interventions and participants, we presented results narratively. MAIN RESULTS: We found three RCTs with a total of 58 participants that were eligible for inclusion. There was significant variability between the trials in interventions, methodology and outcome measures and therefore we did not perform meta-analysis.One study reported on the use of 2% CsA in maize oil and two on the use of a commercial emulsion of 0.05% CsA. Of these three studies, one showed a beneficial effect of topical CsA in controlling signs and symptoms of AKC, one in controlling signs of AKC and one did not show evidence of an improvement. Only two studies analysed the effect of topical CsA in reducing topical steroid use; one showed a significant reduction in topical steroid use with CsA, but the other did not show evidence of this improvement. No serious adverse events were reported in the trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review highlights the relative scarcity of controlled clinical trials assessing the efficacy of topical CsA therapy in AKC and suggests that evidence on the efficacy and safety of topical CsA treatment in patients with CsA remains limited. However, the data suggest that topical CsA may provide clinical and symptomatic relief in AKC and may help to reduce topical steroid use in patients with steroid-dependent or steroid-resistant AKC. No serious adverse events were reported. Reported adverse events in patients treated with topical CsA include intense stinging and eyelid skin maceration. One patient in the placebo group developed a severe allergic response to maize antigens. However, the total number of patients in the trials was too small to assess the safety of this treatment.Additional well-designed and powered RCTs of topical CsA in AKC are needed. Ideal study designs should include adequate randomisation and concealment of allocation; masking of participants, personnel and outcome assessors; adequate follow-up periods and minimisation of attrition bias; and comparison groups with similar clinical and epidemiologic characteristics. Samples should be large enough to provide sufficient statistical power to assess the safety of CsA and to detect clinically relevant treatment effect sizes of the primary outcomes. Analyses should be appropriate to the study's design and outcome measures. Moreover, standardisation of outcome measures and follow-up periods across studies would be beneficial to maximise study comparability.