Antiangiogenic therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor modalities for neovascular age-related macular degeneration.
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a common cause of severe vision loss in people 55 years and older. OBJECTIVES:The objective of this review was to investigate the effects of anti-VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor) modalities for treating neovascular AMD. SEARCH STRATEGY:We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS. We handsearched ARVO abstracts for 2006, 2007 for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA:We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Two review authors independently extracted data. We contacted trial authors for additional data. We summarized outcomes as relative risks (RR), number needed to treat (NNT) and weighted mean differences. MAIN RESULTS:We included five RCTs of good methodological quality. All five trials were conducted by pharmaceutical companies. An intention-to-treat analysis using the last observation carried forward method was done in most trials. Two trials compared pegaptanib versus sham. One trial compared ranibizumab versus sham, another compared ranibizumab/sham verteporfin PDT versus verteporfin PDT/sham ranibizumab, and the final trial compared ranibizumab plus verteporfin PDT versus verteporfin PDT alone. Fewer patients treated with pegaptanib lost 15 or more letters of visual acuity at one year follow-up compared to sham (pooled relative risk (RR) 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 0.84). The NNT was 6.67 (95% CI 4.35 to 14.28) for 0.3 mg pegaptanib, 6.25 (95% CI 4.17 to 12.5) for 1 mg pegaptanib and 14.28 (95% CI 6.67 to 100) for 3 mg pegaptanib. In a trial of ranibizumab versus sham, RR for loss of 15 or more letters visual acuity at one year was 0.14 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.22) in favour of ranibizumab. The NNT was 3.13 (95% CI 2.56 to 3.84) for 0.3 mg ranibizumab and 3.13 (95% CI 2.56 to 3.84) for 0.5 mg ranibizumab. In a trial of ranibizumab versus verteporfin PDT, RR for loss of 15 or more letters at one year was 0.13 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.23) favouring ranibizumab. The NNT was 3.33 (95% CI 2.56 to 4.76) for 0.3 mg ranibizumab and 3.12 (95% CI 2.43 to 4.17) for 0.5 mg ranibizumab. In another trial of combined ranibizumab plus verteporfin PDT versus verteporfin PDT, RR for loss of 15 or more letters at one year favoured combined therapy (RR 0.3 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.60). The NNT was 4.35 (95% CI 2.78 to 11.11). Pooled RR for gain of 15 or more letters visual acuity at one year was 5.81 (95% CI 3.29 to 10.26) for ranibizumab versus sham, 6.79 (95% CI 3.41 to 13.54) for ranibizumab/sham verteporfin PDT versus verteporfin PDT/sham ranibizumab, and 4.44 (95% CI 1.40 to 14.08) for ranibizumab plus verteporfin PDT versus verteporfin PDT. Frequency of endophthalmitis in included studies was between 0.7% to 4.7% with ranibizumab and 1.3% with pegaptanib. Improvement in vision-specific quality of life was reported for both treatments. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:Pegaptanib and ranibizumab reduce the risk of visual acuity loss in patients with neovascular AMD. Ranibizumab causes gains in visual acuity in many eyes. Quality of life and cost will be important for treatment decisions. Other agents blocking VEGF are being tested in ongoing trials.
Project description:Purpose:To compare the efficacy and safety of ranibizumab 0.5 mg with or without verteporfin photodynamic therapy in Japanese patients with polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy over 12 months. Study design:EVEREST II was a 24-month, Phase IV, multicenter, randomized, double-masked study in Asian patients with symptomatic macular polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy. Methods:Of the 322 enrolled patients, 84 patients, including 46 patients who received ranibizumab + verteporfin photodynamic therapy (combination therapy arm) and 38 patients who received ranibizumab/sham PDT (monotherapy arm), were Japanese who were evaluated in this subanalysis. Mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and complete polyp regression at Month 12, ranibizumab treatment exposure, and safety over 12 months were assessed. Results:Baseline demographics were well balanced between the arms. At Month 12, mean change in BCVA letter score was +8.5 with combination therapy versus +6.4 with monotherapy. Complete polyp regression was higher with combination therapy than with monotherapy at Month 12 (70.5% vs 27.3%). Over 12 months, patients in the combination arm received a median of 4.0 ranibizumab injections vs 7.0 in the monotherapy arm. Serious adverse events were generally low in both arms, and retinal hemorrhage, an adverse event, was reported in one patient (2.2%). Conclusion:The results from the Japanese cohort were in agreement with the EVEREST II study. Combination therapy was effective in improving BCVA and achieving a higher rate of complete polyp regression with a lower number of ranibizumab injections than monotherapy. No new safety signals were reported, and safety events were comparable between both arms over 12 months.
Project description:Importance:The 2-year efficacy and safety of combination therapy of ranibizumab administered together with verteporfin photodynamic therapy (vPDT) compared with ranibizumab monotherapy in participants with polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV) are unclear. Objective:To compare treatment outcomes of ranibizumab, 0.5 mg, plus prompt vPDT combination therapy with ranibizumab, 0.5 mg, monotherapy in participants with PCV for 24 months. Design, Setting, and Participants:This 24-month, phase IV, double-masked, multicenter, randomized clinical trial (EVEREST II) was conducted among Asian participants from August 7, 2013, to March 2, 2017, with symptomatic macular PCV confirmed using indocyanine green angiography. Interventions:Participants (N?=?322) were randomized 1:1 to ranibizumab, 0.5 mg, plus vPDT (combination therapy group; n?=?168) or ranibizumab, 0.5 mg, plus sham PDT (monotherapy group; n?=?154). All participants received 3 consecutive monthly ranibizumab injections, followed by a pro re nata regimen. Participants also received vPDT (combination group) or sham PDT (monotherapy group) on day 1, followed by a pro re nata regimen based on the presence of active polypoidal lesions. Main Outcomes and Measures:Evaluation of combination therapy vs monotherapy at 24 months in key clinical outcomes, treatment exposure, and safety. Polypoidal lesion regression was defined as the absence of indocyanine green hyperfluorescence of polypoidal lesions. Results:Among 322 participants (mean [SD] age, 68.1 [8.8] years; 225 [69.9%] male), the adjusted mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) gains at month 24 were 9.6 letters in the combination therapy group and 5.5 letters in the monotherapy group (mean difference, 4.1 letters; 95% CI, 1.0-7.2 letters; P?=?.005), demonstrating that combination therapy was superior to monotherapy by the BCVA change from baseline to month 24. Combination therapy was superior to monotherapy in terms of complete polypoidal lesion regression at month 24 (81 of 143 [56.6%] vs 23 of 86 [26.7%] participants; P?<?.001). Participants in the combination group received fewer ranibizumab injections (median, 6.0 [interquartile range (IQR), 4.0-11.0]) than the monotherapy group (median, 12.0 [IQR, 7.0-17.0]) up to month 24. The combination group required a median of 2.0 (IQR, 1.0-3.0) vPDT treatments for 24 months, with 75 of 168 participants (44.6%) requiring only 1 vPDT treatment. Conclusions and Relevance:The 24-month data findings confirm that ranibizumab therapy, given as monotherapy or in combination with vPDT, is efficacious and safe for treatment of PCV. Combination therapy with vPDT added to ranibizumab achieved superior BCVA gain, increased odds of complete polypoidal lesion regression, and fewer treatment episodes compared with ranibizumab monotherapy. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01846273.
Project description:Importance:Polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV) is a common subtype of exudative age-related macular degeneration among Asian individuals. To our knowledge, there are no large randomized clinical trials to evaluate intravitreal ranibizumab, with and without verteporfin photodynamic therapy (vPDT), for the treatment of PCV. Objective:To compare the efficacy and safety of combination therapy of ranibizumab and vPDT with ranibizumab monotherapy in PCV. Design, Setting, and Participants:A double-masked, multicenter randomized clinical trial of 322 Asian participants with symptomatic macular PCV confirmed by the Central Reading Center using indocyanine green angiography was conducted between August 7, 2013, and March 2, 2017. Interventions:Participants were randomized 1:1 to ranibizumab, 0.5 mg, and vPDT (n?=?168; combination therapy group) or ranibizumab, 0.5 mg, and sham PDT (n?=?154; monotherapy group). All participants received 3 consecutive monthly ranibizumab injections, followed by a pro re nata regimen. Participants also received vPDT/sham PDT on day 1, followed by a pro re nata regimen based on the presence of active polypoidal lesions. Main Outcomes and Measures:Step 1 assessed whether combination therapy was noninferior (5-letter margin) to monotherapy for change in best-corrected visual acuity from baseline and superior in complete polyp regression. If noninferiority was established, step 2 assessed whether combination therapy was superior to monotherapy measured by best-corrected visual acuity change at month 12. Results:Baseline demographics of the 322 participants were comparable between the treatment groups. Mean (SD) age of the patients was 68.1 (8.8) years, and overall, 69.9% of the patients were men. At baseline, the overall mean best-corrected visual acuity and mean central subfield thickness were 61.1 letters and 413.3 ?m, respectively. At 12 months, mean improvement from baseline was 8.3 letters with combination therapy vs 5.1 letters with monotherapy (mean difference, 3.2 letters; 95% CI, 0.4-6.1), indicating that combination therapy met the predefined criterion for noninferiority as well as being superior to monotherapy (P?=?.01). Combination therapy was also superior to monotherapy in achieving complete polyp regression at month 12 (69.3% vs 34.7%; P?<?.001). Over 12 months, the combination therapy group received a median of 4.0 ranibizumab injections compared with 7.0 in the monotherapy group. Vitreous hemorrhage was the only ocular serious adverse event (combination therapy group, 1 [0.6%]; monotherapy group, 3 [2.0%]). Conclusions and Relevance:After 12 months, combination therapy of ranibizumab plus vPDT was not only noninferior but also superior to ranibizumab monotherapy in best-corrected visual acuity and superior in complete polyp regression while requiring fewer injections. Combination therapy should be considered for eyes with PCV. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01846273.
Project description:Objective: To evaluate the pharmacotherapy role of ranibizumab, a vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor, for the treatment of diabetic retinopathy (DR) in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). Data Sources: PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov searches (January 2000-May 2015) were conducted for articles published in English, and limited to clinical trials using the key words ranibizumab, DR, DME, anti-VEGF, and DR treatment. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Following PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov searches, 4 clinical trials were identified and included in this review. Phase III/IV studies evaluating the clinical efficacy of ranibizumab versus placebo, ranibizumab versus laser, and ranibizumab versus other anti-VEGF agents were selected and evaluated. Data Synthesis: Ranibizumab administered to patients with DME for 12 to 36 months improved and prevented worsening of visual acuity. At month 36 the ranibizumab-treated eyes had a >2 or >3 step DR improvement compared with the sham crossover eyes. Ranibizumab was also found to be superior to laser treatment. Patients receiving ranibizumab gained 6.0 letters, improved tritan and protan color contrast thresholds, and demonstrated improved retinal sensitivity versus the subjects receiving laser treatment who lost 0.9 letters. When ranibizumab was compared with other anti-VEGF agents (aflibercept, pegaptanib, and bevacizumab), it was not always demonstrated to be significantly superior. Conclusion: Ranibizumab has been shown to be safe and efficacious for use in the treatment of DR in patients with DME. Thus, it is an alternative treatment approach to laser photocoagulation therapy.
Project description:PURPOSE:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of 2 dosing regimens of ranibizumab 0.5 mg versus verteporfin photodynamic therapy in Asian patients with visual impairment due to myopic choroidal neovascularization. METHODS:Eligible patients (aged ?18 years) were randomized 2:2:1 to Group I (n = 182; ranibizumab treatment guided by visual acuity stabilization criteria); Group II (n = 184; ranibizumab treatment guided by disease activity); or Group III (n = 91; verteporfin photodynamic therapy on Day 1; from Month 3, ranibizumab/verteporfin photodynamic therapy/both treatment guided by disease activity). RESULTS:The mean average best-corrected visual acuity change from baseline to Month 1 through Month 3 was significantly higher in Groups I/II versus Group III (Group I/II: +9.5/+9.8 letters vs. Group III: +4.5 letters; both P < 0.001). Group II was statistically noninferior to Group I for the mean average best-corrected visual acuity change from baseline to Month 1 through Month 6 (10.7 vs. 10.4 letters; P < 0.001). Over 12 months, the mean number of ranibizumab injections received by Groups I/II/III was 4.6/3.9/3.2. CONCLUSION:In Asian patients, ranibizumab treatments demonstrated superior efficacy versus verteporfin photodynamic therapy at Month 3, and the beneficial treatment effects persisted at Month 12. Ranibizumab was well-tolerated and demonstrated a good safety profile.
Project description: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.
Project description:Patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) are at high risk of vascular complications, including stroke and myocardial infarction (MI). Concerns have been raised that intravitreal dosing of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors in DME could be associated with an increase in cardiovascular and cerebrovascular adverse events.To evaluate the cardiovascular and cerebrovascular safety of ranibizumab, 0.5 mg and 0.3 mg, compared with sham with and without laser in DME.Patient-level data from 6 randomized, double-masked, sham- and laser-controlled clinical trials.Company-sponsored (Genentech or Novartis) studies in DME completed as of December 31, 2013.Pairwise comparisons (ranibizumab, 0.5 mg, vs sham and laser; ranibizumab, 0.3 mg, vs sham) were performed using Cox proportional hazard regression (hazard ratios, 95% CIs) and rates per 100 person-years. Data analysis was conducted from June 1 to July 15, 2015.Standardized Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities queries and extended searches were prospectively defined to identify relevant safety end points, including arterial thromboembolic events, MI, stroke or transient ischemic attack, vascular deaths, and major vascular events as defined by the Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration (APTC).Overall, 936 patients were treated with ranibizumab, 0.5 mg; 250 patients with ranibizumab, 0.3 mg; and 581 patients with sham/laser. The hazard ratios associated with all pairwise comparisons included 1 for all key cardiovascular and cerebrovascular safety end points. For ranibizumab, 0.5 mg, vs sham/laser and ranibizumab, 0.3 mg, vs sham, the hazard ratios were, respectively, arterial thromboembolic events, 1.05 (95% CI, 0.66-1.68) and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.43-1.40); MI, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.41-1.72) and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.43-2.06); stroke or transient ischemic attack, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.44-1.99) and 0.53 (95% CI, 0.19-1.42); stroke (excluding transient ischemic attack), 1.63 (95% CI, 0.65-4.07) and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.14-2.46); vascular death, 2.17 (95% CI, 0.57-8.29) and 2.51 (95% CI, 0.49-12.94); and APTC-defined events, 1.09 (95% CI, 0.63-1.88) and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.51-1.96).This pooled analysis includes 1 of the largest patient-level data sets on treatment of DME with ranibizumab. Although still underpowered to detect small differences for infrequent events, such as stroke, the findings suggest that intravitreous ranibizumab does not increase the risk of systemic vascular events. However, uncertainty remains for patients with DME who are at high risk for vascular disease and were not included in these trials.
Project description:To review systematically the randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence for treatment of macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO).MEDLINE, EMBASE, CDSR, DARE, HTA, NHSEED, CENTRAL and meeting abstracts (January 2005 to March 2013).RCTs with at least 12 months of follow-up assessing pharmacological treatments for CRVO were included with no language restrictions.2 authors screened titles and abstracts and conducted data extracted and Cochrane risk of bias assessment. Meta-analysis was not possible due to lack of comparable studies.8 studies (35 articles, 1714 eyes) were included, assessing aflibercept (n=2), triamcinolone (n=2), bevacizumab (n=1), pegaptanib (n=1), dexamethasone (n=1) and ranibizumab (n=1). In general, bevacizumab, ranibizumab, aflibercept and triamcinolone resulted in clinically significant increases in the proportion of participants with an improvement in visual acuity of ?15 letters, with 40-60% gaining ?15 letters on active drugs, compared to 12-28% with sham. Results for pegaptanib and dexamethasone were mixed. Steroids were associated with cataract formation and increased intraocular pressure. No overall increase in adverse events was found with bevacizumab, ranibizumab, aflibercept or pegaptanib compared with control. Quality of life was poorly reported. All studies had a low or unclear risk of bias.All studies evaluated a relatively short primary follow-up (1 year or less). Most had an unmasked extension phase. There was no head-to-head evidence. The majority of participants included had non-ischaemic CRVO.Bevacizumab, ranibizumab, aflibercept and triamcinolone appear to be effective in treating macular oedema secondary to CRVO. Long-term data on effectiveness and safety are needed. Head-to-head trials and research to identify 'responders' is needed to help clinicians make the right choices for their patients. Research aimed to improve sight in people with ischaemic CRVO is required.
Project description:Background:As a debilitating neurodegenerative disease, neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) accounts for more than 90% of severe visual loss or legal blindness among AMD patients. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) had been applied widely in nAMD treatment. To date, debate regarding efficacy and safety still exists among different anti-VEGF regimens as management of nAMD. To provide substantial evidence for clinical nAMD treatment, this study ranks the priority of anti-VEGF regimens via Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA), comparing data collected from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods:We searched PubMed Central, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, ISRCTN, ICTRP and ClinicalTrials. gov from a database established until 1 April 2019 systematically for anti-VEGF regimens. Bayesian NMA with random-effect was conducted to compare efficacy and safety and rank priority of anti-VEGF regimens. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were the proportion of patients gaining 15 or more letters, and the incidence of arterial thromboembolic (ATC) events. The effect measure is the standard mean difference (SMD), or the odds ratio (OR) with their 95% confidence interval (CI). The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42019132243. Results:We obtained 6467 citations and identified 29 RCTs including 13,596 participants; 86% of these trials were low risk or of uncertain risk bias. In NMA, ORs compared with sham injection for the proportion of patients gaining 15 or more letters (12,699 participants from 23 trials) ranged from 4.05 [95% Bayesian credible interval (CrI) 1.62-10.11] for ranibizumab quarterly regimen to 8.57 (95% CrI 4.66-15.73) for a ranibizumab treat-and-extend regimen. No difference was found between sham injection and anti-VEGF regimens for ATC events (11,500 participants from 18 trials). Results for the primary outcome did not substantially change in sensitivity analyses after removing studies at high risk of bias and small sample size (n?<?100), respectively. Conclusion:The treat-and-extend regimen of ranibizumab and aflibercept are the preferred anti-VEGF regimens for nAMD. Bevacizumab treat-and-extend regimens need more head-to-head comparisons with other regimens or sham injection for advanced application. The treat-and-extend regimen proved to be the most effective regimen for each anti-VEGF drug in the NMA. Pegaptanib every 6?weeks and Conbercept quarterly are unable to satisfy the best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improvement requirement of nAMD patients.
Project description:BACKGROUND: There have been conflicting results across the trials that evaluated prophylactic efficacy of short-term high-dose statin pre-treatment for prevention of contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CIAKI) in patients undergoing coronary angiography (CAG). The aim of the study was to perform an up-to-date meta-analysis regarding the efficacy of high-dose statin pre-treatment in preventing CIAKI. METHODS AND RESULTS: Randomized-controlled trials comparing high-dose statin versus low-dose statin or placebo pre-treatment for prevention of CIAKI in patients undergoing CAG were included. The primary endpoint was the incidence of CIAKI within 2-5 days after CAG. The relative risk (RR) with 95% CI was the effect measure. This analysis included 13 RCTs with 5,825 total patients; about half of them (n = 2,889) were pre-treated with high-dose statin (at least 40 mg of atorvastatin) before CAG, and the remainders (n = 2,936) pretreated with low-dose statin or placebo. In random-effects model, high-dose statin pre-treatment significantly reduced the incidence of CIAKI (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.35-0.57, p<0.001, I(2)= 8.2%, NNT 16), compared with low-dose statin or placebo. The benefit of high-dose statin was consistent in both comparisons with low-dose statin (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.34-0.65, p<0.001, I(2) = 28.4%, NNT 19) or placebo (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.21-0.58, p<0.001, I(2)= 0.0%, NNT 16). In addition, high-dose statin showed significant reduction of CIAKI across various subgroups of chronic kidney disease, acute coronary syndrome, and old age (? 60 years), regardless of osmolality of contrast or administration of N-acetylcystein. CONCLUSIONS: High-dose statin pre-treatment significantly reduced overall incidence of CIAKI in patients undergoing CAG, and emerges as an effective prophylactic measure to prevent CIAKI.