Risk Factors for Meeting Criteria for Switching from Bevacizumab to Aflibercept When Treating Eyes with Diabetic Macular Edema and Visual Acuity of < 20/40.

PURPOSE: To identify factors for meeting prespecified criteria for switching from bevacizumab to aflibercept in eyes with center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME) and moderate vision loss initially treated with bevacizumab in DRCR Retina Network protocol AC. DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred seventy participants with one or both eyes harboring CI-DME with visual acuity (VA) letter score of 69 to 24 (Snellen equivalent, 20/50-20/320). METHODS: Eligible eyes were assigned to receive intravitreal aflibercept monotherapy (n = 158) or bevacizumab followed by aflibercept if prespecified criteria for switching were met between 12 weeks and 2 years (n = 154). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Meeting switching criteria: (1) at any time, (2) at 12 weeks, and (3) after 12 weeks. Associations between meeting the criteria for switching and factors measured at baseline and 12 weeks were evaluated in univariable analyses. Stepwise procedures were used to select variables for multivariable models. RESULTS: In the group receiving bevacizumab first, older participants showed a higher risk of meeting the switching criteria at any time, with a hazard ratio (HR) for a 10-year increase in age of 1.32 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.58). Male participants or eyes with worse baseline VA were more likely to switch at 12 weeks (for male vs. female: odds ratio [OR], 4.84 [95% CI, 1.32-17.81]; 5-letter lower baseline VA: OR, 1.30 [95% CI, 1.03-1.63]). Worse 12-week central subfield thickness (CST; 10-µm greater: HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.04-1.07]) was associated with increased risk of switching after 12 weeks. The mean ± standard deviation improvement in visual acuity after completing the switch to aflibercept was 3.7 ± 4.9 letters compared with the day of switching. CONCLUSIONS: The identified factors can be used to refine expectations regarding the likelihood that an eye will meet protocol criteria to switch to aflibercept when treatment is initiated with bevacizumab. Older patients are more likely to be switched. At 12 weeks, thicker CST was predictive of eyes most likely to be switched in the future. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

DEFINING "STRONG" VERSUS "WEAK" RESPONSE TO ANTIVASCULAR ENDOTHELIAL GROWTH FACTOR TREATMENT FOR CENTER-INVOLVED DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: To define "strong" versus "weak" antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment response in eyes with center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME). METHODS: Exploratory analyses of three DRCR Retina Network randomized trials of eyes with CI-DME treated with aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab. Thresholds of 5-, 10-, and 15-letter gain defined strong visual acuity (VA) response when baseline VA was 20/25-20/32, 20/40-20/63, or 20/80-20/320, respectively. Thresholds of 50, 100, or 200- µ m reduction defined strong anatomical response when baseline central subfield thickness (CST) was <75, ≥75 to <175, or ≥175- µ m above standard thresholds. Additional thresholds from regression equations were calculated. RESULTS: At 24 weeks, outcomes for strong response were achieved by 476 of 958 eyes (50%) for VA and 505 eyes (53%) for CST. At 104 weeks among the 32% of eyes with strong VA and CST response at 24 weeks, 195 of 281 (69%) maintained strong VA and CST response, whereas 20 (7%) had neither strong VA nor strong CST response. Outcomes rates were similar across protocols and when defined using regression equations. CONCLUSION: These phenotypes are suitable for efforts to identify predictive biomarkers for response to anti-VEGF therapy for DME and might facilitate comparison of treatment response among diverse cohorts with DME.

Four-Year Visual Outcomes in the Protocol W Randomized Trial of Intravitreous Aflibercept for Prevention of Vision-Threatening Complications of Diabetic Retinopathy.

Importance: Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections in eyes with nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) without center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME) reduce development of vision-threatening complications from diabetes over at least 2 years, but whether this treatment has a longer-term benefit on visual acuity is unknown. Objective: To compare the primary 4-year outcomes of visual acuity and rates of vision-threatening complications in eyes with moderate to severe NPDR treated with intravitreal aflibercept compared with sham. The primary 2-year analysis of this study has been reported. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted at 64 clinical sites in the US and Canada from January 2016 to March 2018, enrolling 328 adults (399 eyes) with moderate to severe NPDR (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] severity level 43-53; range, 0 [worst] to 100 [best]) without CI-DME. Interventions: Eyes were randomly assigned to 2.0 mg aflibercept (n = 200) or sham (n = 199). Eight injections were administered at defined intervals through 2 years, continuing quarterly through 4 years unless the eye improved to mild NPDR or better. Aflibercept was given in both groups to treat development of high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) or CI-DME with vision loss. Main Outcomes and Measures: Development of PDR or CI-DME with vision loss (≥10 letters at 1 visit or ≥5 letters at 2 consecutive visits) and change in visual acuity (best corrected ETDRS letter score) from baseline to 4 years. Results: Among participants (mean age 56 years; 42.4% female; 5% Asian, 15% Black, 32% Hispanic, 45% White), the 4-year cumulative probability of developing PDR or CI-DME with vision loss was 33.9% with aflibercept vs 56.9% with sham (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.40 [97.5% CI, 0.28 to 0.57]; P < .001). The mean (SD) change in visual acuity from baseline to 4 years was -2.7 (6.5) letters with aflibercept and -2.4 (5.8) letters with sham (adjusted mean difference, -0.5 letters [97.5% CI, -2.3 to 1.3]; P = .52). Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration cardiovascular/cerebrovascular event rates were 9.9% (7 of 71) in bilateral participants, 10.9% (14 of 129) in unilateral aflibercept participants, and 7.8% (10 of 128) in unilateral sham participants. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with NPDR but without CI-DME at 4 years treatment with aflibercept vs sham, initiating aflibercept treatment only if vision-threatening complications developed, resulted in statistically significant anatomic improvement but no improvement in visual acuity. Aflibercept as a preventive strategy, as used in this trial, may not be generally warranted for patients with NPDR without CI-DME. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02634333.

Pneumatic Vitreolysis with Perfluoropropane for Vitreomacular Traction with and without Macular Hole: DRCR Retina Network Protocols AG and AH.

PURPOSE: To evaluate pneumatic vitreolysis (PVL) in eyes with vitreomacular traction (VMT) with and without full-thickness macular hole (FTMH). DESIGN: Two multicenter (28 sites) studies: a randomized clinical trial comparing PVL with observation (sham injection) for VMT without FTMH (Protocol AG) and a single-arm study assessing PVL for FTMH (Protocol AH). PARTICIPANTS: Participants were adults with central VMT (vitreomacular adhesion was ≤3000 µm). In Protocol AG, visual acuity (VA) was 20/32 to 20/400. In Protocol AH, eyes had a FTMH (≤250 µm at the narrowest point) and VA of 20/25 to 20/400. METHODS: Pneumatic vitreolysis using perfluoropropane (C3F8) gas. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Central VMT release at 24 weeks (Protocol AG) and FTMH closure at 8 weeks (Protocol AH). RESULTS: From October 2018 through February 2020, 46 participants were enrolled in Protocol AG, and 35 were enrolled in Protocol AH. Higher than expected rates of retinal detachment and tear resulted in early termination of both protocols. Combining studies, 7 of 59 eyes (12% [95% CI, 6%-23%]; 2 eyes in Protocol AG, 5 eyes in Protocol AH) that received PVL developed rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (n = 6) or retinal tear (n = 1). At 24 weeks in Protocol AG, 18 of 23 eyes in the PVL group (78%) versus 2 of 22 eyes in the sham group (9%) achieved central VMT release without rescue vitrectomy (adjusted risk difference, 66% [95% CI, 44%-88%]; P< 0.001). The mean change in VA from baseline at 24 weeks was 6.7 letters in the PVL group and 6.1 letters in the sham group (adjusted difference, -0.8 [95% CI, -6.1 to 4.5]; P = 0.77). In Protocol AH, 10 of 35 eyes (29% [95% CI, 16%-45%]) achieved FTMH closure without rescue vitrectomy at 8 weeks. The mean change in VA from baseline at 8 weeks was -1.5 letters (95% CI, -10.3 to 7.3 letters). CONCLUSIONS: In most eyes with VMT, PVL induced hyaloid release. In eyes with FTMH, PVL resulted in hole closure in approximately one third of eyes. These studies were terminated early because of safety concerns related to retinal detachments and retinal tears.

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.

PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED SUBJECT-MASKED STUDY OF INTRAVITREAL BEVACIZUMAB MONOTHERAPY VERSUS DEXAMETHASONE IMPLANT MONOTHERAPY IN THE TREATMENT OF PERSISTENT DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA.

PURPOSE: To compare intravitreal bevacizumab monotherapy with intravitreal dexamethasone delayed delivery system monotherapy for persistent diabetic macular edema. METHODS: Single-center, randomized, subject-masked study of eyes with persistent diabetic macular edema, defined as central subfield thickness (CST) >340 µm despite ≥3 anti-vascular endothelial growth factors injections within 5 months. The intravitreal bevacizumab monotherapy (n = 23 eyes) and delayed delivery system monotherapy (n = 27 eyes) groups received treatments q1month and q3months, respectively. RESULTS: Baseline best-corrected visual acuity and CST were similar in the two groups. At Month 7, the mean final best-corrected visual acuity (mean ± SD) was 65 ± 16 letters (mean Snellen visual acuity 20/50) and 64 ± 11 letters (20/50) (P = 0.619), the mean change in best-corrected visual acuity was +5.6 ± 6.1 and +5.8 ± 7.6 letters (P = 0.785), the mean final CST was 471 ± 157 and 336 ± 89 µm (P = 0.001), and the mean change in CST was -13 ± 105 and -122 ± 120 µm (P = 0.005) in the intravitreal bevacizumab monotherapy and delayed delivery system monotherapy groups, respectively. The number of injections was 7.0 ± 0.2 and 2.7 ± 0.5 (P < 0.001) in the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: The two groups had similar best-corrected visual acuity gains. The delayed delivery system monotherapy group achieved a significantly greater reduction of CST compared with the intravitreal bevacizumab monotherapy group, with a q3month interval of treatment, and had no recurrent edema at any visit.

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.

A 12-MONTH, SINGLE-MASKED, RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED STUDY OF EYES WITH PERSISTENT DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA AFTER MULTIPLE ANTI-VEGF INJECTIONS TO ASSESS THE EFFICACY OF THE DEXAMETHASONE-DELAYED DELIVERY SYSTEM AS AN ADJUNCT TO BEVACIZUMAB COMPARED WITH CONTINUED BEVACIZUMAB MONOTHERAPY.

PURPOSE: To determine whether a dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.7 mg (dexamethasone delivery system [DDS], Ozurdex) combined with bevacizumab 1.25 mg (Avastin) provides greater benefit than bevacizumab monotherapy in eyes with diabetic macular edema with incomplete response to multiple antivascular endothelial growth factor injections. METHODS: Eyes with diabetic macular edema were randomly assigned to receive combination therapy (bevacizumab plus DDS) or bevacizumab monotherapy. Combination therapy eyes received intravitreal bevacizumab at baseline, DDS at Month 1, and subsequent DDS (at Months 5 and 9), whereas monotherapy eyes received bevacizumab (monthly) if indicated. Eyes were eligible for retreatment if the central subfield thickness measured >250 µm, and Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study visual acuity was <80 letters (20/25). RESULTS: Forty eyes of 30 patients were enrolled. The mean visual acuity changes from baseline to 12 months were similar in the 2 groups (combined: +5.4 letters; bevacizumab: +4.9 letters; difference = 0.2 letters, 95% confidence interval = -5.9 to 6.3; P = 0.75). The mean reduction in central subfield thickness was greater in the combination group (-45 µm vs. -30 µm, difference = 69 µm, 95% confidence interval = 9-129; P = 0.03) and more patients in the combination group had central subfield thickness <250 µm. The combined treatment group received three fewer supplemental injections of bevacizumab, but this was counterbalanced by the need for an average of 2.1 DDS injections. CONCLUSIONS: The dexamethasone implant combined with bevacizumab significantly improves visual acuity and significantly improves macular morphology in eyes with refractory diabetic macular edema, although visual acuity changes are not superior to continued bevacizumab monotherapy.

Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant as Adjunctive Therapy to Ranibizumab in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.7 mg (DEX) as adjunctive therapy to ranibizumab in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nvAMD). PROCEDURES: This was a 6-month, single-masked, multicenter study. Patients were randomized to DEX implant (n = 123) or sham procedure (n = 120) and received 2 protocol-mandated intravitreal ranibizumab injections. The main outcome measure was injection-free interval to first as-needed ranibizumab injection. RESULTS: DEX increased the injection-free interval versus sham (50th percentile, 34 vs. 29 days; 75th percentile, 85 vs. 56 days; p = 0.016). 8.3% of DEX versus 2.5% of sham-treated patients did not require rescue ranibizumab (p = 0.048). Visual acuity and retinal thickness outcomes were similar in DEX and sham-treated patients. Only reports of conjunctival hemorrhage (18.2 vs. 8.5%) and intraocular pressure elevation (13.2 vs. 4.2%) were significantly different in the DEX versus the sham treatment groups. CONCLUSION: DEX reduced the need for adjunctive ranibizumab treatment and showed acceptable tolerability in nvAMD patients.

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.

Clinical proof of concept for anti-FGF2 therapy in exudative age-related macular degeneration (nAMD): phase 2 trials in treatment-naïve and anti-VEGF pretreated patients.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Intravitreal injections of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents are the first-line treatment for exudative age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). Due to the limitations of these standard therapies, targeting alternative mechanisms of action may be helpful for treatment of this very common disease. Here, we investigated an anti-fibroblast growth factor-2 (FGF2) aptamer, umedaptanib pegol, a next generation therapeutic for the treatment of nAMD. METHODS: Three phase 2 studies were designed. First, a multicentre, randomized, double-masked TOFU study assessed the efficacy of intravitreal injections of umedaptanib pegol monotherapy or in combination with aflibercept, compared to aflibercept monotherapy in 86 subjects with anti-VEGF pretreated nAMD. Second, 22 subjects who had exited the TOFU study received 4 monthly intravitreal injections of umedaptanib pegol (extension, RAMEN study). Third, as an investigator-sponsored trial (TEMPURA study), a single-center, open-label, 4-month study was designed to evaluate the safety and treatment efficacy of umedaptanib pegol in five naïve nAMD patients who had not received any prior anti-VEGF treatment. RESULTS: The TOFU study demonstrated that umedaptanib pegol alone or in combination with aflibercept did not improve best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central subfield thickness (CST) over aflibercept alone. However, the change in BCVA and CST at primary endpoint was marginal in all the three treatment groups, suggesting that umedaptanib pegol is effective to prevent the disease progression. The RAMEN study confirmed the cessation of disease progression. In the TEMPURA study, naïve nAMD patients showed improvement and no further macular degeneration, with striking improvement of visual acuity and central subfield thickness in some of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate, for the first time, clinical proof of concept for aptamer based anti-FGF2 therapy of nAMD.

Screening, prevention, and ambitious management of diabetic macular edema in patients with type 1 diabetes.

Diabetic macular edema results from progressive retinopathy related to chronic hyperglycemic and inflammatory vascular damage. Loss of vision secondary to diabetic macular edema is the most common cause of vision loss in patients with diabetes. Blood glucose control remains the main means of preventing progression of retinopathy and macular edema. Recent advancements allowing more efficient mechanisms for screening patients and emerging treatments for macular edema have led to improved visual outcomes in this group of patients.

Intravitreal sirolimus with adjunct aflibercept versus aflibercept monotherapy for persistent, exudative age-related macular degeneration: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: To determine the safety and efficacy of intravitreal sirolimus and adjunct aflibercept in subjects with persistent, exudative age-related macular degeneration despite previous intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment. METHODS: This institutional review board approved, registered (NCT02732899), prospective, subject-masked, single center, randomized controlled trial in subjects with persistent, exudative age-related macular degeneration compared alternating monthly intravitreal sirolimus and aflibercept (combination) versus aflibercept monotherapy (control) every 2 months over the course of 36 weeks. The primary measure of efficacy in the study was the mean change in central subfield thickness. RESULTS: 20 subjects were enrolled in the study, with 10 subjects assigned to each treatment group. Subjects had an average of 38 previous anti-VEGF injections. Mean central subfield thickness decreased in the combination group by 54.0 µm compared to 0.1 µm in the control group (p = 0.28). Mean visual acuity improved in the combination group by 2.5 ETDRS letters versus 0.8 ETDRS letters in the control group (p = 0.42). There were no serious ocular adverse events in either group; however, there were three serious systemic events in the combination group, including hospitalizations due to pancreatitis, pneumonia, and worsening hypertension. CONCLUSION: There was no statistically significant difference in the mean central subfield thickness change between the combination and control groups. However, intravitreal sirolimus with adjunct aflibercept did appear to have potential anatomical benefits as a treatment for persistent, exudative age-related macular degeneration and requires further investigation with a larger cohort to better understand the potential risks and benefits. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02732899. Registered 11 March 2016, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02732899 . This trial was approved by the institutional review board at Advarra. Funding was provided by an investigator-initiated grant from Santen. Santen played no role in the design or implementation of this study.

Impact of Modifying Abicipar Manufacturing Process in Patients with Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: MAPLE Study Results.

Purpose: To evaluate the impact of modifying the abicipar pegol (abicipar) manufacturing process on the safety and treatment effect of abicipar in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). Methods: A new process for manufacturing abicipar was developed to reduce host cell impurities. In a prospective, Phase 2, multicenter, open-label, 28-week clinical trial, patients (n=123) with active nAMD received intravitreal injections of abicipar 2 mg at baseline (day 1) and weeks 4, 8, 16, and 24. Outcome measures included proportion of patients with stable vision (<15-letter loss from baseline; primary endpoint), change from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT), and adverse events. Results: Overall, 8.9% (11/123) of patients experienced intraocular inflammation (IOI) and discontinued treatment. IOI cases were assessed as mild (2.4% [3/123]), moderate (4.9% [6/123]), or severe (1.6% [2/123]) and resolved with steroid treatment. Visual acuity in most patients with IOI (8 of 11) recovered to baseline BCVA or better by study end. No cases of endophthalmitis or retinal vasculitis were reported. Stable vision was maintained for ≥95.9% (≥118/123) of patients at all study visits. At week 28, treatment-naïve patients showed a greater mean improvement from baseline in BCVA compared with previously treated patients (4.4 vs 1.8 letters) and a larger mean CRT reduction from baseline (98.5 vs 45.5 µm). Conclusion: Abicipar produced using a modified manufacturing process showed a moderately lower incidence and severity of IOI compared with Phase 3 abicipar studies. Beneficial effects of treatment were demonstrated.

Intravitreal ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema with prompt versus deferred laser treatment: three-year randomized trial results.

OBJECTIVE: To report the 3-year follow-up results within a previously reported randomized trial evaluating prompt versus deferred (for ≥24 weeks) focal/grid laser treatment in eyes treated with intravitreal 0.5 mg ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred sixty-one participants with visual acuity of 20/32 to 20/320 (approximate Snellen equivalent) and DME involving the fovea. METHODS: Ranibizumab every 4 weeks until no longer improving (with resumption if worsening) and random assignment to prompt or deferred (≥24 weeks) focal/grid laser treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Best-corrected visual acuity and safety at the 156-week (3-year) visit. RESULTS: The estimated mean change in visual acuity letter score from baseline through the 3-year visit was 2.9 letters more (9.7 vs. 6.8 letters; mean difference, 2.9 letters; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-5.4 letters; P = 0.02) in the deferral group compared with the prompt laser treatment group. In the prompt laser treatment group and deferral group, respectively, the percentage of eyes with a ≥10-letter gain/loss was 42% and 56% (P = 0.02), whereas the respective percentage of eyes with a ≥10-letter gain/loss was 10% and 5% (P = 0.12). Up to the 3-year visit, the median numbers of injections were 12 and 15 in the prompt and deferral groups, respectively (P = 0.007), including 1 and 2 injections, respectively, from the 2-year up to the 3-year visit. At the 3-year visit, the percentages of eyes with central subfield thickness of 250 µm or more on time-domain optical coherence tomography were 36% in both groups (P = 0.90). In the deferral group, 54% did not receive laser treatment during the trial. Systemic adverse events seemed to be similar in the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: These 3-year results suggest that focal/grid laser treatment at the initiation of intravitreal ranibizumab is no better, and possibly worse, for vision outcomes than deferring laser treatment for 24 weeks or more in eyes with DME involving the fovea and with vision impairment. Some of the observed differences in visual acuity at 3 years may be related to fewer cumulative ranibizumab injections during follow-up in the prompt laser treatment group. Follow-up through 5 years continues.

A Phase I, Single Ascending Dose Study of GEM103 (Recombinant Human Complement Factor H) in Patients with Geographic Atrophy.

Purpose: To establish the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of an intravitreal injection of recombinant human complement factor H (CFH), GEM103, in individuals with genetically defined age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and geographic atrophy (GA). Design: Phase I single ascending-dose, open-label clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04246866). Participants: Twelve individuals 50 years of age or older with a confirmed diagnosis of foveal GA in the study eye. Methods: Participants were assigned to the increasing dose cohorts and received 1 50-µl intravitreal injection of GEM103 at doses of 50 µg/eye, 100 µg/eye, 250 µg/eye, or 500 µg/eye; dose escalation was dependent on the occurrence of dose-limiting toxicities. Main Outcome Measures: Safety assessments included ocular and systemic adverse events (AEs), ocular examinations, clinical laboratory and vital signs, and serum antidrug antibody levels. Biomarkers, measured in the aqueous humor (AH), included CFH and complement activation biomarkers factor Ba and complement component 3a. Results: No dose-limiting toxicities were reported, enabling escalation to the maximum study dose. No anti-GEM103 antidrug antibodies were detected during the study. Four participants experienced AEs; these were nonserious, mild or moderate in severity, and unrelated to GEM103. The AEs in 2 of these participants were related to the intravitreal injection procedure. No clinically significant ophthalmic changes and no ocular inflammation were observed. Visual acuity was maintained and stable throughout the 8-week follow-up period. No choroidal neovascularization occurred. CFH levels increased in a dose-dependent manner after GEM103 administration with supraphysiological levels observed at week 1; levels were more than baseline for 8 weeks or more in all participants receiving single doses of 100 µg or more. Complement activation biomarkers were reduced 7 days after dose administration. Conclusions: A single intravitreal administration of GEM103 (up to 500 µg/eye) was well tolerated in individuals with GA. Of the few mild or moderate AEs reported, none were determined to be related to GEM103. No intraocular inflammation or choroidal neovascularization developed. CFH levels in AH were increased and stable for 8 weeks, with pharmacodynamic data suggesting that GEM103 restored complement regulation. These results support further development in a repeat-dose trial in patients with GA with AMD.