KESTREL and KITE Phase 3 Studies: 100-Week Results With Brolucizumab in Patients With Diabetic Macular Edema.

PURPOSE: To report the 100-week outcomes from the KESTREL and KITE trials. DESIGN: Two phase 3, double-masked, active-controlled, randomized trials. METHODS: Patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) were randomized 1:1:1 to brolucizumab 3 mg/6 mg (BRO3/BRO6) or aflibercept 2 mg (AFL) in KESTREL (N = 566) or 1:1 to BRO6 or AFL in KITE (N = 360). BRO3/BRO6 arms received 5 loading doses every 6 weeks (q6w) followed by q12w dosing, with an option to adjust to q8w at predefined disease activity assessment visits. In KITE, at week 72, based on the disease stability assessment, treatment intervals could be extended by 4 weeks in the BRO6 arm. AFL arms received 5 monthly loading doses followed by fixed q8w dosing. RESULTS: At week 100, change from baseline in BCVA (letters) was +8.8 for BRO6 and +10.6 for AFL in KESTREL; and +10.9 for BRO6 and +8.4 for AFL in KITE. In both studies, fewer BRO6 subjects had intraretinal fluid and/or subretinal fluid than AFL subjects. Results were achieved with 32.9% (KESTREL) and 47.5% (KITE) of BRO6 subjects maintained on q12w and q12w/q16w dosing, respectively. Intraocular inflammation rates for BRO6 vs AFL were 4.2% vs 1.1% (KESTREL) and 2.2% vs 1.7% (KITE), of which retinal vasculitis rates were 0.5% vs 0% in KESTREL, with no cases in KITE. Retinal vascular occlusion rates were 1.6% vs 0.5% (KESTREL) and 0.6% in both treatment arms in KITE. CONCLUSIONS: Results show the long-term efficacy and durability of brolucizumab in improving visual and anatomical outcomes in DME; the overall safety profile of brolucizumab remained unchanged through year 2.

Characterisation of vascular changes in different stages of Stargardt disease using double swept-source optical coherence tomography angiography.

OBJECTIVE: To describe vascular changes in different stages of Stargardt disease (STGD) via double swept-source optical coherence tomography angiography. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Prospective, cross-sectional case-control study. Twenty-three patients (45 eyes) with ABCA4 mutations graded according to the Fishman STGD classification and 23 controls (23 eyes) were included. Two independent investigators quantified the foveal avascular zone (FAZ) in the superficial and deep capillary plexus (SCP/DCP) and the areas presenting rarefied flow and complete vascular atrophy in the outer retina to choriocapillaris (ORCC) and choriocapillaris (CC) slab. RESULTS: The mean age at first diagnosis of STGD was 24.0 years (range 9-50) and 37.9 years (range 18-74) at the time of examination. Eleven patients were assigned to the Fishman STGD classification stage (S) 1, three to S2, eight to S3 and one to S4. The FAZ in SCP and DCP was increased in all stages compared with controls (p<0.01). Areas with rarefied flow signal and vascular atrophy were detected in the ORCC and the CC layer and grew with increasing stage of disease (p<0.01). The duration of disease correlated with the extent of the enlarged FAZ in the SCP/DCP and with the area of reduced flow in the ORCC and CC layer (p<0.01). Best corrected visual acuity correlated negatively with the extent of the enlarged FAZ in the SCP/DCP (p<0.0001), as well as with enlarged atrophic area in the ORCC and CC layer (p=0.026 and p=0.074). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with STGD reveal vascular changes in the retina and CC in all disease stages. The avascular zone in the SCP/DCP and areas with rarefied flow signal in the ORCC/CC increase with the duration and stage of disease, indicating progressive vascular decay most likely secondary to retinal pigment epithelium and neuronal loss. Furthermore, increased vascular damage is associated with decreased vision.

A safety review and meta-analyses of bevacizumab and ranibizumab: off-label versus goldstandard.

BACKGROUND: We set out a systemic review to evaluate whether off-label bevacizumab is as safe as licensed ranibizumab, and whether bevacizumab can be justifiably offered to patients as a treatment for age-related macular degeneration with robust evidence of no differential risk. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched with no limitations of language and year of publication. We included RCTs with a minimum follow-up of one year which investigated bevacizumab or ranibizumab in direct comparison or against any other control group (indirect comparison). Direct comparison (3 trials, 1333 patients): The one year data show a significantly higher rate of ocular adverse effects (AE) with bevacizumab compared to ranibizumab (RR = 2.8; 95% CI 1.2-6.5). The proportion of patients with serious infections and gastrointestinal disorders was also higher with bevacizumab than with ranibizumab (RR = 1.3; 95% CI 1.0-1.7). Arterial thromboembolic events were equally distributed among the groups. Indirect comparison: Ranibizumab versus any control (5 trials, 4054 patients): The two year results of three landmark trials showed that while absolute rates of serious ocular AE were low (≤ 2.1%), relative harm was significantly raised (RR = 3.1; 95% CI 1.1-8.9). A significant increase in nonocular haemorrhage was also observed with ranibizumab (RR = 1.7; 95% CI 1.1-2.7). Bevacizumab versus any control (3 trials, 244 patients): We were unable to judge the safety profile of bevacizumab due to the poor quality of AE monitoring and reporting in the trials. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from head-to-head trials raises concern about an increased risk of ocular and multiple systemic AE with bevacizumab. Therefore, clinicians and patients should continue to carefully weight up the benefits and harms when choosing between the two treatment options. We also emphasize the need for studies that are powered not just for efficacy, but for defined safety outcomes based on the signals detected in this systematic review.

Intravitreal bevacizumab (Avastin) versus ranibizumab (Lucentis) for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration: a safety review.

AIM: To conduct a systematic review in order to compare adverse effects (AE) and the reporting of harm in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs evaluating intravitreal ranibizumab and bevacizumab in age-related macular degeneration. METHODS: Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched with no limitations of language and year of publication. Studies which compared bevacizumab or ranibizumab as monotherapy with any other control group were included. Case series were included if they met predefined quality standards. RESULTS: The 2 year results of phase III trials evaluating ranibizumab show that the rates of serious ocular AE were low (≤2.1%) but indicate major safety concerns (RR 3.13, 95% CI 1.10 to 8.92). A possible signal with regard to thromboembolic events (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.77) and a significant increase in non-ocular haemorrhage (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.55) were also noted. In contrast to ranibizumab trials, the RCTs evaluating bevacizumab are of limited value. The main shortcomings are small sample sizes and an apparent lack of rigorous monitoring for AE. A critical assessment of the large number of published case series evaluating bevacizumab also shows that no reliable conclusions on safety can be drawn using this study design. Therefore, any perception that intravitreal bevacizumab injections are not associated with major ocular or systemic AE are not supported by reliable data. CONCLUSION: The bevacizumab studies show too many methodological limitations to rule out any major safety concerns. Higher evidence from ranibizumab trials suggests signals for an increased ocular and systemic vascular and haemorrhagic risk which warrants further investigation.

Intravitreal bevacizumab (Avastin) vs. ranibizumab (Lucentis) for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We conducted a systematic review to evaluate whether the existing evidence justifies the intravitreal use of bevacizumab in comparison to ranibizumab in age-related macular degeneration. RECENT FINDINGS: Compared with photodynamic therapy, bevacizumab shows a relative improvement in visual acuity that is of similar size as in the comparison of ranibizumab with photodynamic therapy (relative improvement from 30 to 35%). However, this finding is based on one randomized controlled trial including less than 50 patients treated with bevacizumab. Also, nothing is known about long-term (>12 months) improvements in visual acuity and optimal treatment intervals for bevacizumab.Regarding safety, the published literature indicates that ocular and systemic adverse effects are less frequent under bevacizumab than ranibizumab treatment. But the validity of this finding is strongly limited by inadequate reporting, an unsystematic evaluation of adverse effects and short follow-up times in studies evaluating bevacizumab. SUMMARY: Given the lack of controlled data, the widespread off-label use of bevacizumab is not justified in clinical practice. On the other hand, a major challenge in the management of patients who require repeated antivascular endothelial growth factor injections is the high cost of ranibizumab. This dilemma underlines the need for head-to-head studies comparing both vascular endothelial growth factor antibodies, or, at least, well conducted randomized controlled trials evaluating intravitreal bevacizumab.