Faricimab Treat-and-Extend for Diabetic Macular Edema: Two-Year Results from the Randomized Phase 3 YOSEMITE and RHINE Trials.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the 2-year efficacy, durability, and safety of dual angiopoietin-2 and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) A pathway inhibition with intravitreal faricimab according to a personalized treat-and-extend (T&E)-based regimen with up to every-16-week dosing in the YOSEMITE and RHINE (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers, NCT03622580 and NCT03622593, respectively) phase 3 trials of diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN: Randomized, double-masked, noninferiority phase 3 trials. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with visual acuity loss (best-corrected visual acuity [BCVA] of 25-73 letters) due to center-involving DME. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to faricimab 6.0 mg every 8 weeks, faricimab 6.0 mg T&E (previously referred to as personalized treatment interval), or aflibercept 2.0 mg every 8 weeks. The T&E up to every-16-week dosing regimen was based on central subfield thickness (CST) and BCVA change. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Included changes from baseline in BCVA and CST, number of injections, durability, absence of fluid, and safety through week 100. RESULTS: In YOSEMITE and RHINE (n = 940 and 951, respectively), noninferior year 1 visual acuity gains were maintained through year 2; mean BCVA change from baseline at 2 years (weeks 92, 96, and 100 average) with faricimab every 8 weeks (YOSEMITE and RHINE, +10.7 letters and +10.9 letters, respectively) or T&E (+10.7 letters and +10.1 letters, respectively) were comparable with aflibercept every 8 weeks (+11.4 letters and +9.4 letters, respectively). The median number of study drug injections was lower with faricimab T&E (YOSEMITE and RHINE, 10 and 11 injections, respectively) versus faricimab every 8 weeks (15 injections) and aflibercept every 8 weeks (14 injections) across both trials during the entire study. In the faricimab T&E arms, durability was improved further during year 2, with > 60% of patients receiving every-16-week dosing and approximately 80% receiving every-12-week or longer dosing at week 96. Almost 80% of patients who achieved every-16-week dosing at week 52 maintained every-16-week dosing without an interval reduction through week 96. Mean CST reductions were greater (YOSEMITE/RHINE weeks 92/96/100 average: faricimab every 8 weeks -216.0/-202.6 µm, faricimab T&E -204.5/-197.1 µm, aflibercept every 8 weeks -196.3/-185.6 µm), and more patients achieved absence of DME (CST < 325 µm; YOSEMITE/RHINE weeks 92-100: faricimab every 8 weeks 87%-92%/88%-93%, faricimab T&E 78%-86%/85%-88%, aflibercept every 8 weeks 77%-81%/80%-84%) and absence of intraretinal fluid (YOSEMITE/RHINE weeks 92-100: faricimab every 8 weeks 59%-63%/56%-62%, faricimab T&E 43%-48%/45%-52%, aflibercept every 8 weeks 33%-38%/39%-45%) with faricimab every 8 weeks or T&E versus aflibercept every 8 weeks through year 2. Overall, faricimab was well tolerated, with a safety profile comparable with that of aflibercept. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically meaningful visual acuity gains from baseline, anatomic improvements, and extended durability with intravitreal faricimab up to every 16 weeks were maintained through year 2. Faricimab given as a personalized T&E-based dosing regimen supports the role of dual angiopoietin-2 and VEGF-A inhibition to promote vascular stability and to provide durable efficacy for patients with DME. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Efficacy, durability, and safety of intravitreal faricimab with extended dosing up to every 16 weeks in patients with diabetic macular oedema (YOSEMITE and RHINE): two randomised, double-masked, phase 3 trials.

BACKGROUND: To reduce treatment burden and optimise patient outcomes in diabetic macular oedema, we present 1-year results from two phase 3 trials of faricimab, a novel angiopoietin-2 and vascular endothelial growth factor-A bispecific antibody. METHODS: YOSEMITE and RHINE were randomised, double-masked, non-inferiority trials across 353 sites worldwide. Adults with vision loss due to centre-involving diabetic macular oedema were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to intravitreal faricimab 6·0 mg every 8 weeks, faricimab 6·0 mg per personalised treatment interval (PTI), or aflibercept 2·0 mg every 8 weeks up to week 100. PTI dosing intervals were extended, maintained, or reduced (every 4 weeks up to every 16 weeks) based on disease activity at active dosing visits. The primary endpoint was mean change in best-corrected visual acuity at 1 year, averaged over weeks 48, 52, and 56. Efficacy analyses included the intention-to-treat population (non-inferiority margin 4 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] letters); safety analyses included patients with at least one dose of study treatment. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (YOSEMITE NCT03622580 and RHINE NCT03622593). FINDINGS: 3247 patients were screened for eligibility in YOSEMITE (n=1532) and RHINE (n=1715). After exclusions, 940 patients were enrolled into YOSEMITE between Sept 5, 2018, and Sept 19, 2019, and 951 patients were enrolled into RHINE between Oct 9, 2018, and Sept 20, 2019. These 1891 patients were randomly assigned to faricimab every 8 weeks (YOSEMITE n=315, RHINE n=317), faricimab PTI (n=313, n=319), or aflibercept every 8 weeks (n=312, n=315). Non-inferiority for the primary endpoint was achieved with faricimab every 8 weeks (adjusted mean vs aflibercept every 8 weeks in YOSEMITE 10·7 ETDRS letters [97·52% CI 9·4 to 12·0] vs 10·9 ETDRS letters [9·6 to 12·2], difference -0·2 ETDRS letters [-2·0 to 1·6]; RHINE 11·8 ETDRS letters [10·6 to 13·0] vs 10·3 ETDRS letters [9·1 to 11·4] letters, difference 1·5 ETDRS letters [-0·1 to 3·2]) and faricimab PTI (YOSEMITE 11·6 ETDRS letters [10·3 to 12·9], difference 0·7 ETDRS letters [-1·1 to 2·5]; RHINE 10·8 ETDRS letters [9·6 to 11·9], difference 0·5 ETDRS letters [-1·1 to 2·1]). Incidence of ocular adverse events was comparable between faricimab every 8 weeks (YOSEMITE n=98 [31%], RHINE n=137 [43%]), faricimab PTI (n=106 [34%], n=119 [37%]), and aflibercept every 8 weeks (n=102 [33%], n=113 [36%]). INTERPRETATION: Robust vision gains and anatomical improvements with faricimab were achieved with adjustable dosing up to every 16 weeks, demonstrating the potential for faricimab to extend the durability of treatment for patients with diabetic macular oedema. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Five-Year Outcomes after Initial Aflibercept, Bevacizumab, or Ranibizumab Treatment for Diabetic Macular Edema (Protocol T Extension Study).

PURPOSE: Assess follow-up treatment and clinical outcomes at 5 years in eyes initially treated with anti-VEGF therapy for center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME) in a 2-year randomized clinical trial. DESIGN: Multicenter cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Participants with diabetic macular edema (DME) and visual acuity (VA) 20/32 to 20/320 enrolled in DRCR.net Protocol T with visits 5 years after randomization (3 years after Protocol T completion). METHODS: Participants were assigned randomly to aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab with protocol-defined follow-up and re-treatment for 2 years. Thereafter, participants were managed at clinician discretion and recalled for a 5-year visit. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment, VA letter score, and central subfield thickness (CST). RESULTS: Sixty-eight percent (317/463) of eligible participants completed the 5-year visit. Between years 2 and 5, 68% (217/317) of study eyes received at least 1 anti-VEGF treatment (median, 4; interquartile range [IQR], 0-12). At 5 years, mean VA improved from baseline by 7.4 letters (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.9-9.0) but decreased by 4.7 letters (95% CI, 3.3-6.0) between 2 and 5 years. When baseline VA was 20/50 to 20/320, mean 5-year VA was 11.9 letters (95% CI, 9.3-14.5) better than baseline but 4.8 letters (95% CI, 2.5-7.0) worse than 2 years. When baseline VA was 20/32 to 20/40, mean 5-year VA was 3.2 letters (95% CI, 1.4-5.0) better than baseline but 4.6 letters (95% CI, 3.1-6.1) worse than 2 years. Mean CST decreased from baseline to 5 years by 154 µm (95% CI, 142-166) and was stable between 2 and 5 years (-1 µm; 95% CI, -12 to 9). CONCLUSIONS: Among the two-thirds of eligible Protocol T participants who completed a 5-year visit, mean VA improved from baseline to 5 years without protocol-defined treatment after follow-up ended at 2 years. Although mean retinal thickness was similar at 2 and 5 years, mean VA worsened during this period. Additional investigation into strategies to improve long-term outcomes in eyes with DME seems warranted to determine if VA can be better maintained with different management approaches.

Effect of Intravitreous Aflibercept vs Vitrectomy With Panretinal Photocoagulation on Visual Acuity in Patients With Vitreous Hemorrhage From Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Vitreous hemorrhage from proliferative diabetic retinopathy can cause loss of vision. The best management approach is unknown. Objective: To compare initial treatment with intravitreous aflibercept vs vitrectomy with panretinal photocoagulation for vitreous hemorrhage from proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial at 39 DRCR Retina Network sites in the US and Canada including 205 adults with vison loss due to vitreous hemorrhage from proliferative diabetic retinopathy who were enrolled from November 2016 to December 2017. The final follow-up visit was completed in January 2020. Interventions: Random assignment of eyes (1 per participant) to aflibercept (100 participants) or vitrectomy with panretinal photocoagulation (105 participants). Participants whose eyes were assigned to aflibercept initially received 4 monthly injections. Both groups could receive aflibercept or vitrectomy during follow-up based on protocol criteria. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was mean visual acuity letter score (range, 0-100; higher scores indicate better vision) over 24 weeks (area under the curve); the study was powered to detect a difference of 8 letters. Secondary outcomes included mean visual acuity at 4 weeks and 2 years. Results: Among 205 participants (205 eyes) who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 57 [11] years; 115 [56%] men; mean visual acuity letter score, 34.5 [Snellen equivalent, 20/200]), 95% (195 of 205) completed the 24-week visit and 90% (177 of 196, excluding 9 deaths) completed the 2-year visit. The mean visual acuity letter score over 24 weeks was 59.3 (Snellen equivalent, 20/63) (95% CI, 54.9 to 63.7) in the aflibercept group vs 63.0 (Snellen equivalent, 20/63) (95% CI, 58.6 to 67.3) in the vitrectomy group (adjusted difference, -5.0 [95% CI, -10.2 to 0.3], P = .06). Among 23 secondary outcomes, 15 showed no significant difference. The mean visual acuity letter score was 52.6 (Snellen equivalent, 20/100) in the aflibercept group vs 62.3 (Snellen equivalent, 20/63) in the vitrectomy group at 4 weeks (adjusted difference, -11.2 [95% CI, -18.5 to -3.9], P = .003) and 73.7 (Snellen equivalent, 20/40) vs 71.0 (Snellen equivalent, 20/40) at 2 years (adjusted difference, 2.7 [95% CI, -3.1 to 8.4], P = .36). Over 2 years, 33 eyes (33%) assigned to aflibercept received vitrectomy and 34 eyes (32%) assigned to vitrectomy received subsequent aflibercept. Conclusions and Relevance: Among participants whose eyes had vitreous hemorrhage from proliferative diabetic retinopathy, there was no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome of mean visual acuity letter score over 24 weeks following initial treatment with intravitreous aflibercept vs vitrectomy with panretinal photocoagulation. However, the study may have been underpowered, considering the range of the 95% CI, to detect a clinically important benefit in favor of initial vitrectomy with panretinal photocoagulation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02858076.

Aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema.

BACKGROUND: The relative efficacy and safety of intravitreous aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab in the treatment of diabetic macular edema are unknown. METHODS: At 89 clinical sites, we randomly assigned 660 adults (mean age, 61±10 years) with diabetic macular edema involving the macular center to receive intravitreous aflibercept at a dose of 2.0 mg (224 participants), bevacizumab at a dose of 1.25 mg (218 participants), or ranibizumab at a dose of 0.3 mg (218 participants). The study drugs were administered as often as every 4 weeks, according to a protocol-specified algorithm. The primary outcome was the mean change in visual acuity at 1 year. RESULTS: From baseline to 1 year, the mean visual-acuity letter score (range, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better visual acuity; a score of 85 is approximately 20/20) improved by 13.3 with aflibercept, by 9.7 with bevacizumab, and by 11.2 with ranibizumab. Although the improvement was greater with aflibercept than with the other two drugs (P<0.001 for aflibercept vs. bevacizumab and P=0.03 for aflibercept vs. ranibizumab), it was not clinically meaningful, because the difference was driven by the eyes with worse visual acuity at baseline (P<0.001 for interaction). When the initial visual-acuity letter score was 78 to 69 (equivalent to approximately 20/32 to 20/40) (51% of participants), the mean improvement was 8.0 with aflibercept, 7.5 with bevacizumab, and 8.3 with ranibizumab (P>0.50 for each pairwise comparison). When the initial letter score was less than 69 (approximately 20/50 or worse), the mean improvement was 18.9 with aflibercept, 11.8 with bevacizumab, and 14.2 with ranibizumab (P<0.001 for aflibercept vs. bevacizumab, P=0.003 for aflibercept vs. ranibizumab, and P=0.21 for ranibizumab vs. bevacizumab). There were no significant differences among the study groups in the rates of serious adverse events (P=0.40), hospitalization (P=0.51), death (P=0.72), or major cardiovascular events (P=0.56). CONCLUSIONS: Intravitreous aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab improved vision in eyes with center-involved diabetic macular edema, but the relative effect depended on baseline visual acuity. When the initial visual-acuity loss was mild, there were no apparent differences, on average, among study groups. At worse levels of initial visual acuity, aflibercept was more effective at improving vision. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01627249.).

Plasma Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Concentrations after Intravitreous Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy for Diabetic Macular Edema.

PURPOSE: To assess systemic vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-A levels after treatment with intravitreous aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab. DESIGN: Comparative-effectiveness trial with participants randomly assigned to 2 mg aflibercept, 1.25 mg bevacizumab, or 0.3 mg ranibizumab after a re-treatment algorithm. PARTICIPANTS: Participants with available plasma samples (N = 436). METHODS: Plasma samples were collected before injections at baseline and 4-week, 52-week, and 104-week visits. In a preplanned secondary analysis, systemic-free VEGF levels from an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay were compared across anti-VEGF agents and correlated with systemic side effects. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in the natural log (ln) of plasma VEGF levels. RESULTS: Baseline free VEGF levels were similar across all 3 groups. At 4 weeks, mean ln(VEGF) changes were -0.30±0.61 pg/ml, -0.31±0.54 pg/ml, and -0.02±0.44 pg/ml for the aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab groups, respectively. The adjusted differences between treatment groups (adjusted confidence interval [CI]; P value) were -0.01 (-0.12 to +0.10; P = 0.89), -0.31 (-0.44 to -0.18; P < 0.001), and -0.30 (-0.43 to -0.18; P < 0.001) for aflibercept-bevacizumab, aflibercept-ranibizumab, and bevacizumab-ranibizumab, respectively. At 52 weeks, a difference in mean VEGF changes between bevacizumab and ranibizumab persisted (-0.23 [-0.38 to -0.09]; P < 0.001); the difference between aflibercept and ranibizumab was -0.12 (P = 0.07) and between aflibercept and bevacizumab was +0.11 (P = 0.07). Treatment group differences at 2 years were similar to 1 year. No apparent treatment differences were detected at 52 or 104 weeks in the cohort of participants not receiving injections within 1 or 2 months before plasma collection. Participants with (N = 9) and without (N = 251) a heart attack or stroke had VEGF levels that appeared similar. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that decreases in plasma free-VEGF levels are greater after treatment with aflibercept or bevacizumab compared with ranibizumab at 4 weeks. At 52 and 104 weeks, a greater decrease was observed in bevacizumab versus ranibizumab. Results from 2 subgroups of participants who did not receive injections within at least 1 month and 2 months before collection suggest similar changes in VEGF levels after stopping injections. It is unknown whether VEGF levels return to normal as the drug is cleared from the system or whether the presence of the drug affects the assay's ability to accurately measure free VEGF. No significant associations between VEGF concentration and systemic factors were noted.

A Phase 1 Study of Intravitreous E10030 in Combination with Ranibizumab in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration.

PURPOSE: To assess the safety and tolerability of E10030 (Fovista; Ophthotech, New York, NY), a platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) antagonist, when administered in combination with an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agent, ranibizumab (Lucentis; Genentech, South San Francisco, CA) 0.5 mg, by intravitreal injection in participants with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (NVAMD). DESIGN: Prospective phase 1 clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 23 participants diagnosed with NVAMD and aged 50 years or older were enrolled. METHODS: Part 1 included 15 participants. Three participants received a single intravitreal E10030 (0.03 mg) injection and were subsequently given intravitreal ranibizumab (0.5 mg) injections at weeks 2, 6, and 10. Twelve participants (3 per group) received E10030 (0.03, 0.3, 1.5, or 3.0 mg) in combination with ranibizumab (0.5 mg) at day 0, month 1, and month 2 in an ascending manner. In Part 2 (8 participants), E10030 (0.3, 1.5, or 3.0 mg) in combination with ranibizumab (0.5 mg) was injected at day 0, month 1, and month 2. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Safety at week 12 was the primary outcome and included assessment of vital signs, laboratory tests, and serial eye examinations. Other safety metrics included assessment through week 24 of Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) visual acuity (VA) and biomarker changes evaluated by optical coherence tomography (OCT) and fluorescein angiography (FA). RESULTS: All doses of intravitreal E10030 administered in combination with ranibizumab were well tolerated. No dose-limiting toxicities or relevant safety events were noted at any dose level during the study. Investigators did not report adverse events related to E10030 or ranibizumab. Mean VA change was a gain of 14 letters, and 59% of participants gained ≥15 letters from baseline at week 12. On FA at week 12, there was an 85.5% mean reduction from baseline in choroidal neovascularization (CNV) size. On OCT at the week 12 visit, there was a mean decrease in center point thickness and central subfield thickness of 38.9% and 33.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Intravitreal E10030 administered at doses up to 3 mg in combination with ranibizumab was well tolerated without evidence of systemic or ocular toxicity in participants with NVAMD. The changes in both mean VA and imaging biomarkers suggest a favorable short-term safety profile for the combination therapy of E10030 and ranibizumab.

Aflibercept, Bevacizumab, or Ranibizumab for Diabetic Macular Edema: Two-Year Results from a Comparative Effectiveness Randomized Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: To provide 2-year results comparing anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents for center-involved diabetic macular edema (DME) using a standardized follow-up and retreatment regimen. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Six hundred sixty participants with visual acuity (VA) impairment from DME. METHODS: Randomization to 2.0-mg aflibercept, 1.25-mg repackaged (compounded) bevacizumab, or 0.3-mg ranibizumab intravitreous injections performed up to monthly using a protocol-specific follow-up and retreatment regimen. Focal/grid laser photocoagulation was added after 6 months if DME persisted. Visits occurred every 4 weeks during year 1 and were extended up to every 4 months thereafter when VA and macular thickness were stable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in VA, adverse events, and retreatment frequency. RESULTS: Median numbers of injections were 5, 6, and 6 in year 2 and 15, 16, and 15 over 2 years in the aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab groups, respectively (global P = 0.08). Focal/grid laser photocoagulation was administered in 41%, 64%, and 52%, respectively (aflibercept vs. bevacizumab, P < 0.001; aflibercept vs. ranibizumab, P = 0.04; bevacizumab vs. ranibizumab, P = 0.01). At 2 years, mean VA improved by 12.8, 10.0, and 12.3 letters, respectively. Treatment group differences varied by baseline VA (P = 0.02 for interaction). With worse baseline VA (20/50 to 20/320), mean improvement was 18.1, 13.3, and 16.1 letters, respectively (aflibercept vs. bevacizumab, P = 0.02; aflibercept vs. ranibizumab, P = 0.18; ranibizumab vs. bevacizumab, P = 0.18). With better baseline VA (20/32 to 20/40), mean improvement was 7.8, 6.8, and 8.6 letters, respectively (P > 0.10, for pairwise comparisons). Anti-Platelet Trialists' Collaboration (APTC) events occurred in 5% with aflibercept, 8% with bevacizumab, and 12% with ranibizumab (global P = 0.047; aflibercept vs. bevacizumab, P = 0.34; aflibercept vs. ranibizumab, P = 0.047; ranibizumab vs. bevacizumab, P = 0.20; global P = 0.09 adjusted for potential confounders). CONCLUSIONS: All 3 anti-VEGF groups showed VA improvement from baseline to 2 years with a decreased number of injections in year 2. Visual acuity outcomes were similar for eyes with better baseline VA. Among eyes with worse baseline VA, aflibercept had superior 2-year VA outcomes compared with bevacizumab, but superiority of aflibercept over ranibizumab, noted at 1 year, was no longer identified. Higher APTC event rates with ranibizumab over 2 years warrants continued evaluation in future trials.

Poor Indoor Air Quality, Mold Exposure, and Upper Respiratory Tract Infections--Are We Placing Our Children at Risk?

Understanding how respiratory health risks are associated with poor housing is essential to designing effective strategies to improve children's quality of life. The objective of the study described in this article was to determine the relationship between respiratory health and housing conditions. A survey was completed by 3,424 parents of children in third and fourth grade in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. An engineering audit and air samples were also taken in the homes of a subset of 715 homes. Results showed that a child's respiratory health is significantly associated with self-reported visible mold in the home and that a significant association existed between occupant-reported visible mold and tested airborne mold. Findings highlight the need for clearer standards of acceptable CFU/m3 limits for mold genera that are applicable to homes. In the absence of such guidelines, problems associated with indoor mold will continue to impact the health of residents, despite growing evidence of the adverse effects from mold exposure.

Clonal hematopoiesis and vascular disease.

Somatic mutations in hematopoietic stem cells are common with aging and can result in expansion of clones harboring mutations, termed clonal hematopoiesis. This results in an increased risk of blood cancers but has also been linked with chronic inflammatory disease states. In recent years, clonal hematopoiesis has been established to have a causative role in atherogenesis and cardiovascular disease. Additionally, as the effector cells have been identified to be immune cells, there is ongoing interest in assessing whether dysregulated immune function plays a role in other chronic inflammatory conditions such as rheumatologic disease. Here, we summarize current understanding of clonal hematopoiesis with a focus on cardiovascular disease and inflammation while outlining the potential, yet unexplored, relationship between clonal hematopoiesis and autoimmune disease. Hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) continually regenerate blood cells. Acquisition of a somatic mutation that provides a selective advantage, a driver mutation, can result in clonal expansion. Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential, where somatic mutations in certain cancer-associated genes result in clonal expansion in the absence of overt malignancy, can result in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in multiple vascular beds, inflammation, and may also contribute to the pathogenesis of autoimmune disease. Many questions remain unanswered regarding the relationship between clonal hematopoiesis and inflammatory disorders.

Phase 1 Study of THR-687, a Novel, Highly Potent Integrin Antagonist for the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema.

Purpose: To evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of THR-687 in patients with center-involved diabetic macular edema (DME). Design: Phase 1, open-label, multicenter, 3 + 3 dose-escalation study with 3-month follow-up. Participants: Patients 18 years of age or older with visual impairment resulting from DME. Methods: Single intravitreal injection of THR-687 (0.4 mg, 1.0 mg, or 2.5 mg). Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). The secondary outcome measure was the incidence of adverse events (AEs), including the occurrence of laboratory abnormalities. Exploratory outcome measures included changes from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central subfield thickness (CST), assessments of ischemia and leakage on fluorescein angiography, and THR-687 levels in plasma. Results: Twelve patients were treated: 3 patients received 0.4 mg of THR-687, 3 patients received 1.0 mg of THR-687, and 6 patients received 2.5 mg of THR-687. Most patients were men (9/12 patients). Their mean age was 57.8 years. No DLTs or serious AEs were reported at any of the dose levels tested. Overall, 9 AEs in the study eye were reported for 5 of 12 patients. Of those, 4 AEs in 3 of 12 patients were deemed treatment related by the investigator, all of which were mild, started on the day of the injection, and had resolved within 28 days without treatment. Overall, mean gains from baseline in BCVA were observed at all study visits with a rapid onset (7.2 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] letters at day 7) and a durability up to the end of the study (8.3 ETDRS letters at month 3). A mean decrease in CST was observed up to month 1. Overall, the mean BCVA gains and CST decreases were highest at the highest THR-687 dose level tested. THR-687 was undetectable in plasma at 7 days after the injection. Conclusions: At all dose levels tested, a single intravitreal injection of THR-687 was safe and well tolerated. Preliminary efficacy was observed by a rapid gain in BCVA with 3 months' durability and a decrease in CST up to 1 month after the injection.

A Phase 1, Open-Label, Dose-Escalation Trial to Investigate Safety and Tolerability of Single Intravitreous Injections of ICON-1 Targeting Tissue Factor in Wet AMD.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This phase 1 study evaluated the safety and tolerability of single intravitreous injections (IVIs) of ICON-1 (Iconic Therapeutics, South San Francisco, CA) in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). ICON-1 is a modified factor VIIa protein linked with the Fc portion of a human immunoglobulin G1. The molecule binds tissue factor overexpressed on choroidal neovascularization (CNV) in AMD. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Open-label, interventional, dose-escalation trial in 18 patients with CNV due to AMD, with six patients per dose cohort. Patients received a single IVI of ICON-1 at baseline in one of three escalating doses: 60 µg, 150 µg, or 300 µg. Standard anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment was allowed at the investigator's discretion at least 2 weeks after the ICON-1 injection; patients were followed up to 24 weeks. Dose escalation was based on the absence of significant safety events. At each study visit, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), ophthalmic examination (intraocular pressure, slit-lamp, and dilated fundus examination), and ophthalmic imaging (color fundus photography, fluorescein angiography, and optical coherence tomography) assessments were performed. The systemic pharmacokinetics of ICON-1 and presence of anti-ICON-1 antibodies were also assessed. RESULTS: ICON-1 was safe and well-tolerated up to the highest dose administered, which was 300 µg. Commonly reported adverse events were considered related to the IVI procedure or to the underlying nAMD. No significant systemic levels of ICON-1 or anti-ICON-1 antibodies were detected. Preliminary evidence of biological activity (improved BCVA, reduced central retinal thickness, decreased CNV size, and leakage) was most evident with the 300 µg dose at 1 to 2 weeks after the single ICON-1 injection. CONCLUSION: Intravitreous administration of ICON-1 in single doses up to 300 µg in eyes with neovascular AMD was safe and well-tolerated. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2018;49:336-345.].

Persistent Macular Thickening Following Intravitreous Aflibercept, Bevacizumab, or Ranibizumab for Central-Involved Diabetic Macular Edema With Vision Impairment: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Prevalence of persistent central-involved diabetic macular edema (DME) through 24 weeks of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy and its longer-term outcomes may be relevant to treatment. Objective: To assess outcomes of DME persisting at least 24 weeks after randomization to treatment with 2.0-mg aflibercept, 1.25-mg bevacizumab, or 0.3-mg ranibizumab. Design, Setting, and Participants: Post hoc analyses of a clinical trial, the DRCR.net Protocol T among 546 of 660 participants (82.7%) meeting inclusion criteria for this investigation. Interventions: Six monthly intravitreous anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections (unless success after 3 to 5 injections); subsequent injections or focal/grid laser as needed per protocol to achieve stability. Main Outcomes and Measures: Persistent DME through 24 weeks, probability of chronic persistent DME through 2 years, and at least 10-letter (≥ 2-line) gain or loss of visual acuity. Results: The mean age of participants was 60 years, 363 (66.5%) were white, and 251 (46.0%) were women. Persistent DME through 24 weeks was more frequent with bevacizumab (118 of 180 [65.6%]) than aflibercept (60 of 190 [31.6%]) or ranibizumab (73 of 176 [41.5%]) (aflibercept vs bevacizumab, P < .001; ranibizumab vs bevacizumab, P < .001; and aflibercept vs ranibizumab, P = .05). Among eyes with persistent DME through 24 weeks (n = 251), rates of chronic persistent DME through 2 years were 44.2% with aflibercept, 68.2% with bevacizumab (aflibercept vs bevacizumab, P = .03), and 54.5% with ranibizumab (aflibercept vs ranibizumab, P = .41; bevacizumab vs ranibizumab, P = .16). Among eyes with persistent DME through 24 weeks, proportions with vs without chronic persistent DME through 2 years gaining at least 10 letters from baseline were 62% of 29 eyes vs 63% of 30 eyes (P = .88) with aflibercept, 51% of 70 vs 55% of 31 (P = .96) with bevacizumab, and 45% of 38 vs 66% of 29 (P = .10) with ranibizumab. Only 3 eyes with chronic persistent DME lost at least 10 letters. Conclusions and Relevance: Persistent DME was more likely with bevacizumab than with aflibercept or ranibizumab. Among eyes with persistent DME, eyes assigned to bevacizumab were more likely to have chronic persistent DME than eyes assigned to aflibercept. These results suggest meaningful gains in vision with little risk of vision loss, regardless of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agent given or persistence of DME through 2 years. Caution is warranted when considering switching therapies for persistent DME following 3 or more injections; improvements could be owing to continued treatment rather than switching therapies. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01627249.

Early Response to Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor and Two-Year Outcomes Among Eyes With Diabetic Macular Edema in Protocol T.

PURPOSE: Assess associations of 2-year visual acuity (VA) outcomes with VA and optical coherence tomography central subfield thickness (CST) after 12 weeks of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment for diabetic macular edema in DRCR.net Protocol T. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. METHODS: Setting: Multicenter (89 U.S. sites). PATIENT POPULATION: Eyes with VA and CST data from baseline and 12-week visits (616 of 660 eyes randomized [93.3%]). INTERVENTION: Six monthly injections of 2.0 mg aflibercept, 1.25 mg bevacizumab, or 0.3 mg ranibizumab; subsequent injections and focal/grid laser as needed for stability. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in VA from baseline and VA letter score at 2 years. RESULTS: Twelve-week VA response was associated with 2-year change in VA and 2-year VA letter score for each drug (P < .001) but with substantial individual variability (multivariable R2 = 0.38, 0.29, and 0.26 for 2-year change with aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab, respectively). Among eyes with less than 5-letter gain at 12 weeks, the percentages of eyes gaining 10 or more letters from baseline at 2 years were 42% (20 of 48), 31% (21 of 68), and 47% (28 of 59), and median 2-year VA was 20/32, 20/32, and 20/25, in the aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab groups, respectively. Twelve-week CST response was not strongly associated with 2-year outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: A suboptimal response at 12 weeks did not preclude meaningful vision improvement (ie, ≥ 10-letter gain) in many eyes at 2 years. Eyes with less than 5-letter gain at 12 weeks often had good VA at 2 years without switching therapies.

Comparison of Clinical and Echocardiographic Outcomes After Surgical Redo Mitral Valve Replacement and Transcatheter Mitral Valve-in-Valve Therapy.

OBJECTIVES: There are minimal data regarding clinical outcomes and echocardiographic findings after transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve replacement (TMVR) compared with redo surgical mitral valve replacement (SMVR). BACKGROUND: TMVR therapy has emerged as therapy for a degenerated bioprosthetic valve failure. METHODS: The authors retrospectively identified patients with degenerated mitral bioprostheses who underwent redo SMVR or TMVR at 3 U.S. institutions. The authors compared clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of patients who had TMVR with those of patients who underwent redo SMVR. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients underwent TMVR and 59 patients underwent SMVR during the study period. Mean age and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS PROM) scores were significantly higher in patients with TMVR than in those with SMVR (age 74.9 ± 9.4 years vs. 63.7 ± 14.9 years; p < 0.001; STS PROM 12.7 ± 8.0% vs. 8.7 ± 10.1%; p < 0.0001). Total procedure time, intensive care unit hours, and post-procedure length of stay were all significantly shorter in the TMVR group. There was no difference in mortality at 1 year between the 2 groups (TMVR 11.3% vs. SMVR 11.9%; p = 0.92). Mean mitral valve pressure gradient and the grade of mitral regurgitation (MR) were similar between the TMVR group and the SMVR group (mitral valve pressure gradient 7.1 ± 2.5 mm Hg vs. 6.5 ± 2.5 mm Hg; p = 0.42; MR [≥moderate] 3.8% vs. 5.6%; p = 1.00) at 30 days. At 1 year, the mitral valve pressure gradient was higher in the TMVR group (TMVR 7.2 ± 2.7 vs. SMVR 5.5 ± 1.8; p = 0.01), although there was no difference in the grade of MR. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the higher STS PROM in TMVR patients, there was no difference in 1-year mortality between the TMVR and SMVR groups. Echocardiographic findings after TMVR were similar to SMVR at 30 days. There was a statistically significant difference in mitral gradient at 1 year, though this is likely not clinically important. TMVR may be an alternative to SMVR in patients with previous mitral bioprosthetic valves.