Bispecific VEGF-A and Angiopoietin-2 Antagonist RO-101 Preclinical Efficacy in Model of Neovascular Eye Disease.

Objective: To investigate preclinical data regarding the efficacy and biocompatibility of a bispecific protein, RO-101, with effects on VEGF-A and angiopoietin-2 (Ang-2) for use in retinal diseases. Design: Experimental study. Subjects: Brown Norway rats and New Zealand White Cross rabbits. Methods: Preclinical study data of RO-101 in terms of target-specific enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay binding affinity to VEGF-A and Ang-2, vitreous half-life, inhibition of target-receptor interaction, laser choroidal neovascular membrane animal model, human umbilical vein endothelial cell migration, and biocompatibility was obtained. Where applicable, study data were compared with other anti-VEGF agents. Main Outcome Measures: Binding affinity, half-life, biocompatibility, and efficacy of RO-101. Neovascularization prevention by RO-101. Results: RO-101 demonstrated a strong binding affinity for VEGF-A and Ang-2 and in vitro was able to inhibit binding to the receptor with higher affinity than faricimab. The half-life of RO-101 is comparable to or longer than current VEGF inhibitors used in retinal disease. RO-101 was found to be biocompatible with retinal tissue in Brown Norway rats. RO-101 was as effective or more effective than current anti-VEGF therapeutics in causing regression of neovascular growth in vivo. Conclusions: RO-101 is a promising candidate for use in retinal diseases. In preclinical models, RO-101 demonstrated similar or higher regression of neovascular growth to current anti-VEGF therapeutics with comparable or longer half-life. It also demonstrates a strong binding affinity for VEGF-A and Ang-2. It also was shown to be biocompatible with retinal tissue in animal studies, indicating potential compatibility for use in humans. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Congenital Eyelid Imbrication and Floppy Eyelid Syndromes Complicated by Eversion due to Prostaglandin E Infusion in a Patient With Trisomy 21 and Tetralogy of Fallot.

Congenital eyelid imbrication syndrome is a rare eyelid finding where a long upper lid overlaps the lower lid when the eyes are closed. To date, congenital eyelid imbrication syndrome has been described in the literature less than 10 times. We present a case of congenital eyelid imbrication syndrome in a patient with trisomy 21 and tetralogy of Fallot on a prostaglandin E infusion to maintain a patent ductus arteriosus prior to definitive heart surgery. While on the infusion, the patient developed peripheral edema and flushing due to vasodilation. This coincided with eyelid swelling, conjunctival chemosis, and eversion of the eyelids. Upon cessation of the prostaglandin E1 infusion, his eyelid eversion resolved.

A multicenter phase Ib trial of the histone deacetylase inhibitor entinostat in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms or acute myeloid leukemia refractory to hypomethylating agents.

Patients with myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS) or acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with hypomethylating agent failure have a poor prognosis. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) can contribute to MDS progression and mediate resistance to anti-PD1 therapy. As histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi) decrease MDSCs in preclinical models, we conducted an investigator-initiated, NCI-Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program-sponsored, multicenter, dose escalation, and expansion phase Ib trial (NCT02936752) of the HDACi entinostat and the anti-PD1 antibody pembrolizumab. Twenty-eight patients (25 MDS and 3 AML) were enrolled. During dose escalation (n=13 patients), there was one dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) on dose level (DL) 1 (G5 pneumonia/bronchoalveolar hemorrhage) and two DLTs at DL 2 (G3 pharyngeal mucositis and G3 anorexia). Per the 3 + 3 dose escalation design, DL 1 (entinostat 8 mg PO days 1 and 15 + pembrolizumab 200 mg IV day 1 every 21 days) was expanded and another 15 patients were enrolled. Hematologic adverse events (AEs) were common. The most common non-hematologic ≥G3 AEs were infection (32%), hypoxia/respiratory failure (11%), and dyspnea (11%). There were no protocol-defined responses among the 28 patients enrolled. Two patients achieved a marrow complete remission (mCR). Using a systems immunology approach with mass cytometry and machine learning analysis, mCR patients had increased classical monocytes and macrophages but there was no significant change of MDSCs. In conclusion, combining entinostat with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced MDS and AML was associated with limited clinical efficacy and substantial toxicity. Absence of an effect on MDSCs could be a potential explanation for the limited efficacy of this combination. ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: NCT02936752.

Limited English Proficiency Is Associated With Diabetic Retinopathy in Patients Presenting for Cataract Surgery.

Purpose: To investigate the relationship between limited English proficiency (LEP) and diabetic retinopathy (DR) in patients presenting for cataract surgery. Methods: This is a retrospective observational study of patients who underwent cataract surgery between January 2014 and February 2020. Patients who self-identified as needing or preferring an interpreter were defined as having LEP. Differences in demographics, characteristics, and outcomes including history of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), DR, preoperative best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), macular edema, and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections were analyzed. Statistical comparisons were assessed using logistic regression with generalized estimating equations. Results: We included 13,590 eyes. Of these, 868 (6.4%) were from LEP patients. Patients with LEP were more likely to be Hispanic (P < 0.001), female sex (P = 0.008), or older age (P = 0.003) and have worse mean BCVA at presentation (P < 0.001). Patients with LEP had a significantly higher rate of T2DM (P < 0.001), macular edema (P = 0.033), and DR (18.1% vs. 5.8%, P < 0.001). Findings remained significant when controlling for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and type of health insurance. Patients with LEP and DR were more likely to have had later stages of DR (P = 0.023). Conclusions: Patients with LEP presenting for cataract surgery had a higher rate of DR and associated complications compared to patients with English proficiency. Further studies are needed to understand how language disparities influence health and what measures could be taken to improve healthcare in this vulnerable population. Translational Relevance: Our study highlights healthcare disparities within ophthalmology and emphasizes the importance of advocating for improved healthcare delivery for patients with LEP.

Comparison of cataract surgery outcomes in English proficient and limited English proficiency patients.

PURPOSE: To determine differences in cataract surgery outcomes between English proficient (EP) and limited English proficiency (LEP) patients. SETTING: Sue Anschutz-Rodgers Eye Center, Aurora, Colorado. DESIGN: Retrospective. METHODS: Patients who underwent phacoemulsification at the Sue Anschutz-Rogers Eye Center between January 2014 and February 2020 were included. Patients who self-identified as needing or preferring an interpreter in medical encounters were defined as LEP. Differences in surgical characteristics and outcomes including cataract maturity, surgical complexity, and surgical complications were analyzed. RESULTS: 868 eyes (6.4%) were identified from LEP patients. LEP patients were more likely to have mature cataracts (5.1% vs 2.3%, P < .0001). LEP patients' surgeries were more likely to be considered complex (27.8% vs 15.3%, P < .0001) and use higher cumulative dissipated energy (mean of 9.5 [SD = 9.5] vs 7.2 [SD = 7.1], P < .0001). Preoperative visual acuity was worse in LEP patients (logMAR 0.566 [SD = 0.64] vs 0.366 [SD = 0.51], P < .0001) but showed greater improvement after surgery (logMAR 0.366 [SD = 0.54] vs 0.254 [SD = 0.41], P < .0001). There were no significant differences in operative time, intraoperative or postoperative complications. More LEP patients were on steroids 4 weeks postoperatively when compared with EP patients (14.6% vs 10.1%, P < .0002). LEP patients were less likely to undergo subsequent YAG capsulotomy (7.3% vs 12.8%, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Disparities in cataract outcomes between EP and LEP patients was demonstrated. Further research into ophthalmic health disparities for LEP patients is needed to understand the root causes and how they can be addressed.

Non-biologic, steroid-sparing therapies for non-infectious intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis in adults.

BACKGROUND: Non-infectious intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis (NIIPPU) represent a heterogenous collection of autoimmune and inflammatory disorders isolated to or concentrated in the posterior structures of the eye. Because NIIPPU is typically a chronic condition, people with NIIPPU frequently require treatment with steroid-sparing immunosuppressive therapy. Methotrexate, mycophenolate, cyclosporine, azathioprine, and tacrolimus are non-biologic, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) which have been used to treat people with NIIPPU. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of selected DMARDs (methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, and azathioprine) in the treatment of NIIPPU in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register), MEDLINE, Embase, the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, most recently on 16 April 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing selected DMARDs (methotrexate, mycophenolate, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, and azathioprine) with placebo, standard of care (topical steroids, with or without oral steroids), or with each other. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 RCTs with a total of 601 participants in this review. DMARDs versus control Two studies compared an experimental DMARD (cyclosporine A or enteric-coated mycophenolate [EC-MPS]) plus oral steroid with steroid monotherapy. We did not pool these results into a meta-analysis because the dose of cyclosporine used was much higher than that used in current clinical practice. The evidence is very uncertain about whether EC-MPS plus low-dose oral steroid results in a higher proportion of participants achieving control of inflammation over steroid monotherapy (risk ratio [RR] 2.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10 to 7.17; 1 study, 41 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was reported separately for right and left eyes. The evidence for improvement (lower logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) indicates better vision) between the groups is very uncertain (mean difference [MD] -0.03 and -0.10, 95% CI -0.96 to 0.90 and -0.27 to 0.07 for right and left, respectively; 1 study, 82 eyes; very low-certainty evidence). No data were available for the following outcomes: proportion of participants achieving a 2-line improvement in visual acuity, with confirmed macular edema, or achieving steroid-sparing control. The evidence for the proportion of participants requiring cessation of medication in the DMARD versus control group is very uncertain (RR 2.61, 95% CI 0.11 to 60.51; 1 study, 41 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Methotrexate versus mycophenolate We were able to combine two studies into a meta-analysis comparing methotrexate versus mycophenolate mofetil. Methotrexate probably results in a slight increase in the proportion of participants achieving control of inflammation, including steroid-sparing control, compared to mycophenolate at six months (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.50; 2 studies, 261 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Change in BCVA was reported per eye and the treatments likely result in little to no difference in change in vision (MD 0.01 logMAR higher [worse] for methotrexate versus mycophenolate; 2 studies, 490 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). No data were available for the proportion of participants achieving a 2-line improvement in visual acuity. The evidence is very uncertain regarding the proportion of participants with confirmed macular edema between methotrexate versus mycophenolate (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.30; 2 studies, 35 eyes; very low-certainty). Methotrexate versus mycophenolate may result in little to no difference in the proportion of participants requiring cessation of medication (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.27; 2 studies, 296 participants; low-certainty evidence). Steroids with or without azathioprine versus cyclosporine A Four studies compared steroids with or without azathioprine (oral steroids, intravenous [IV] steroids, or azathioprine) to cyclosporine A. We excluded two studies from the meta-analysis because the participants were treated with 8 mg to 15 mg/kg/day of cyclosporine A, a significantly higher dose than is utilized today because of concerns for nephrotoxicity. The remaining two studies were conducted in all Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada disease (VKH) populations and compared cyclosporine A to azathioprine or IV pulse-dose steroids. The evidence is very uncertain for whether the steroids with or without azathioprine or cyclosporine A influenced the proportion of participants achieving control of inflammation (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.02; 2 studies, 112 participants; very low-certainty evidence), achieving steroid-sparing control (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.25; 1 study, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or requiring cessation of medication (RR 0.85, 95% 0.21 to 3.45; 2 studies, 91 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain for improvement in BCVA (MD 0.04 logMAR lower [better] with the steroids with or without azathioprine versus cyclosporine A; 2 studies, 91 eyes; very low-certainty evidence). There were no data available (with current cyclosporine A dosing) for the proportion of participants achieving a 2-line improvement in visual acuity or with confirmed macular edema. Studies not included in synthesis We were unable to include three studies in any of the comparisons (in addition to the aforementioned studies excluded based on historic doses of cyclosporine A). One was a dose-response study comparing cyclosporine A to cyclosporine G, a formulation which was never licensed and is not clinically available. We excluded another study from meta-analysis because it compared cyclosporine A and tacrolimus, considered to be of the same class (calcineurin inhibitors). We were unable to combine the third study, which examined tacrolimus monotherapy versus tacrolimus plus oral steroid, with any group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of data regarding which DMARD is most effective or safe in NIIPPU. Studies in general were small, heterogenous in terms of their design and outcome measures, and often did not compare different classes of DMARD with each other. Methotrexate is probably slightly more efficacious than mycophenolate in achieving control of inflammation, including steroid-sparing control (moderate-certainty evidence), although there was insufficient evidence to prefer one medication over the other in the VKH subgroup (very low-certainty evidence). Methotrexate may result in little to no difference in safety outcomes compared to mycophenolate.

Risk of Refractive Prediction Error After Cataract Surgery in Patients with Thyroid Eye Disease.

PURPOSE: To investigate the risk of unexpected refractive prediction error after cataract surgery in patients with thyroid eye disease (TED) at the University of Colorado. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective observational study was performed using records of patients who underwent cataract surgery (2014 to 2018) who were included in a Cataract Surgery Outcomes database. Any patient with documentation of thyroid eye disease (TED) in the medical record was classified as TED. Post-operative refraction error greater than or equal to ±1.0 diopter from the target refraction was the main outcome of this study. Eyes with history of refractive surgery, ocular trauma, retinal detachment, non-Graves' disease thyroid conditions or Graves' disease without TED, and eyes without refractive error at follow-up were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 5716 eyes from 3692 patients who underwent cataract surgery were analyzed. Sixty-five eyes of thirty-nine patients (1.1%) had TED. Former and/or current cigarette use was associated with having TED (p = 0.0504). Patients with TED had a statistically significant shorter axial length as compared to eyes without TED (p = 0.0257). Three hundred and forty-nine eyes (6.1%), including 9 eyes (13.8%) in patients with TED, had refractive prediction error greater than ±1.0 diopter following surgery (univariate OR = 2.5, 95% CI: 1.1-5.7, p = 0.0274). After multivariate analysis controlling for race, tobacco use, combined surgery, and axial length, TED was associated with an increased risk of our primary outcome, refractive prediction error greater than ±1.0 diopter (OR = 2.4, 95% CI: 1.0-5.7, p = 0.0506). CONCLUSION: Patients with TED are at increased risk for refractive prediction error following cataract surgery. Discussion with patients regarding their risk and possible need for glasses following surgery is important for setting realistic patient expectations.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma.

BACKGROUND: In patients with melanoma, ipilimumab (an antibody against cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 [CTLA-4]) prolongs overall survival, and nivolumab (an antibody against the programmed death 1 [PD-1] receptor) produced durable tumor regression in a phase 1 trial. On the basis of their distinct immunologic mechanisms of action and supportive preclinical data, we conducted a phase 1 trial of nivolumab combined with ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. METHODS: We administered intravenous doses of nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients every 3 weeks for 4 doses, followed by nivolumab alone every 3 weeks for 4 doses (concurrent regimen). The combined treatment was subsequently administered every 12 weeks for up to 8 doses. In a sequenced regimen, patients previously treated with ipilimumab received nivolumab every 2 weeks for up to 48 doses. RESULTS: A total of 53 patients received concurrent therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab, and 33 received sequenced treatment. The objective-response rate (according to modified World Health Organization criteria) for all patients in the concurrent-regimen group was 40%. Evidence of clinical activity (conventional, unconfirmed, or immune-related response or stable disease for ≥24 weeks) was observed in 65% of patients. At the maximum doses that were associated with an acceptable level of adverse events (nivolumab at a dose of 1 mg per kilogram of body weight and ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram), 53% of patients had an objective response, all with tumor reduction of 80% or more. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to therapy occurred in 53% of patients in the concurrent-regimen group but were qualitatively similar to previous experience with monotherapy and were generally reversible. Among patients in the sequenced-regimen group, 18% had grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to therapy and the objective-response rate was 20%. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab had a manageable safety profile and provided clinical activity that appears to be distinct from that in published data on monotherapy, with rapid and deep tumor regression in a substantial proportion of patients. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01024231.).