Explore the vast range of titles available.

A high-dose formulation of intravitreal aflibercept (8 mg) could improve treatment outcomes in diabetic macular oedema (DMO) by requiring fewer injections than the standard comparator, aflibercept 2 mg. We report efficacy and safety results of aflibercept 8 mg versus 2 mg in patients with DMO. PHOTON was a randomised, double-masked, non-inferiority, phase 2/3 trial performed at 138 hospitals and specialty retina clinics in seven countries. Eligible patients were adults aged 18 years or older with type 1 or 2 diabetes and centre-involved DMO. Patients were randomly assigned (1:2:1) to intravitreal aflibercept 2 mg every 8 weeks (2q8), aflibercept 8 mg every 12 weeks (8q12), or aflibercept 8 mg every 16 weeks (8q16), following initial monthly dosing. From week 16, dosing intervals for the aflibercept 8 mg groups were shortened if patients met prespecified dose regimen modification criteria denoting disease activity. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at week 48 (non-inferiority margin of 4 letters). Efficacy and safety analyses included all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04429503). Between June 29, 2020, and June 28, 2021, 970 patients were screened for eligibility. After exclusions, 660 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive aflibercept 8q12 (n=329), 8q16 (n=164), or 2q8 (n=167); two patients were randomly assigned in error and did not receive treatment. 658 (99·7%) patients were treated and included in the full analysis set and safety analysis set (8q12 n=328, 8q16 n=163, and 2q8 n=167). Mean patient age was 62·3 years (SD 10·4). 401 (61%) patients were male. 471 (72%) patients were White. Aflibercept 8q12 and 8q16 demonstrated non-inferior BCVA gains to aflibercept 2q8 (BCVA mean change from baseline 8·8 letters [SD 9·0] in the 8q12 group, 7·9 letters [8·4] in the 8q16 group, and 9·2 letters [9·0] in the 2q8 group). The difference in least squares means was –0·57 letters (95% CI –2·26 to 1·13, p value for non-inferiority <0·0001) between 8q12 and 2q8 and –1·44 letters (–3·27 to 0·39, p value for non-inferiority 0·0031) between aflibercept 8q16 and 2q8. Proportions of patients with ocular adverse events in the study eye were similar across groups (8q12 n=104 [32%], 8q16 n=48 [29%], and 2q8 n=46 [28%]). Aflibercept 8 mg demonstrated efficacy and safety with extended dosing intervals and could decrease treatment burden in patients with DMO. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Bayer.

PurposeTo assess the extended efficacy and safety of suprachoroidal triamcinolone acetonide injectable suspension (CLS-TA) among patients with macular oedema (ME) secondary to non-infectious uveitis (NIU).MethodsPatients with uveitic ME were treated with suprachoroidal CLS-TA at baseline and week 12 of the Efficacy and Safety of Suprachoroidal CLS-TA for Macular Edema Secondary to Noninfectious Uveitis: Phase 3 Randomized Trial (PEACHTREE) study. Time to rescue was evaluated over 24 additional weeks for MAGNOLIA. Safety data, visual acuity and retinal central subfield thickness (CST) reduction were also evaluated. Of the 53 eligible patients (46 CLS-TA and 7 control), 33 patients were enrolled (28 CLS-TA and 5 control).ResultsOver the entire 48-week period for PEACHTREE and MAGNOLIA, the median time to rescue therapy was 257 days versus 55.5 days for the CLS-TA and sham-control arms, respectively. Of 28 CLS-TA treated patients who participated in MAGNOLIA, 14 (50%) did not require rescue therapy through approximately 9 months after the second treatment. Among CLS-TA patients not requiring rescue, there was a mean gain of 12.1 letters and mean CST reduction of 174.5 µm at week 48. No serious adverse events related to study treatment were observed.ConclusionApproximately 50% of patients did not require additional treatment for up to 9 months following the last CLS-TA administration.

Some insurance companies mandate a form of step therapy, which involves initial use of an inexpensive drug, bevacizumab, to treat diabetic macular edema. This trial compared two treatments: step therapy and use of a more expensive drug.

AimsTo demonstrate non-inferiority of ranibizumab treat-and-extend (T&E) with/without laser to ranibizumab pro re nata (PRN) for best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in patients with diabetic macular oedema (DMO).MethodsA 24-month single-masked study with patients randomised 1:1:1 to T&E+laser (n=121), T&E (n=128) or PRN (control; n=123). All patients received monthly injections until BCVA stabilisation. The investigator decided on re-treatment in the PRN and treatment-interval adaptations in the T&E groups based on loss of BCVA stability due to DMO activity. Likewise, laser treatment was at investigator's discretion. Collectively, these features reflect a real-life scenario. Endpoints included mean average change in BCVA from baseline to months 1–12 (primary), mean BCVA change from baseline to months 12 and 24, treatment exposure and safety profile.ResultsBoth T&E regimens were non-inferior to PRN based on mean average BCVA change from baseline to months 1–12 (T&E+laser: +5.9 and T&E: +6.1 vs PRN: +6.2 letters; both p<0.0001). Mean BCVA change at month 24 was similar across groups (+8.3, +6.5 and +8.1 letters, respectively). The mean number of injections was 12.4 and 12.8 in the T&E+laser and T&E groups and 10.7 in the PRN group. The T&E regimens showed 46% reduction in the number of clinic visits. Over 70% of patients maintained their BCVA, with treatment intervals of ≥2 months over 24 months. Safety profile was consistent with that described in the product information.ConclusionsT&E is a feasible treatment option for patients with DMO, with a potential to reduce treatment burden. Slightly more injections were required versus PRN, likely due to the specifics of the T&E regimen applied here.Trial registration numberNCT01171976.

Aim To evaluate intravitreal VEGF Trap-Eye (VTE) in patients with macular oedema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO). Methods In this double-masked study, 177 patients were randomised (3:2 ratio) to intravitreal injections of VTE 2 mg or sham procedure every 4 weeks for 24 weeks. Best-corrected visual acuity was evaluated using the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart. Central retinal thickness (CRT) was measured with optical coherence tomography. Results From baseline until week 24, more patients receiving VTE (60.2%) gained ≥15 letters compared with those receiving sham injections (22.1%) (p<0.0001). VTE patients gained a mean of 18.0 letters compared with 3.3 letters with sham injections (p<0.0001). Mean CRT decreased by 448.6 and 169.3 µm in the VTE and sham groups (p<0.0001). The most frequent ocular adverse events in the VTE arm were typically associated with the injection procedure or the underlying disease, and included eye pain (11.5%), increased intraocular pressure (9.6%) and conjunctival haemorrhage (8.7%). Conclusions VTE 2 mg every 4 weeks was efficacious in CRVO with an acceptable safety profile. Vision gains with VTE were significantly higher than with observation/panretinal photocoagulation if needed. Based on these data, VTE may provide a new treatment option for CRVO.

ObjectiveTo compare different doses and dosing regimens of RC28-E, a novel bispecific antibody that simultaneously binds vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A) and fibroblast growth factor-2 (FGF-2), with conbercept in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME).DesignProspective, randomised, active comparator-controlled, open-label, multicentre, phase 2 clinical trial.centeParticipantsThe trial enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with centre-involving DME, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 73 to 24 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters, and central subfield thickness (CST) of 300 µm or more.MethodsPatients were assigned randomly to one of five treatment regimens: 1.0 mg RC28-E for three initial monthly doses and then every 8 weeks (1.0mgQ8); 1.0 mg RC28-E for five initial monthly doses and then on a pro re nata (PRN) basis (1.0mgPRN); 2.0 mg RC28-E for three initial monthly doses and then every 8 weeks (2.0mgQ8); 2.0 mg RC28-E for five initial monthly doses and then on a PRN basis (2.0mgPRN); or 0.5 mg conbercept for three initial monthly doses and then on a PRN basis. Assessments were made at baseline and every 4 weeks thereafter.Main outcome measuresThe primary endpoint was the change in BCVA compared with baseline at 24 and 52 weeks. Secondary endpoints included the change in CST from baseline at 52 weeks; the proportion of patients who gained/lost ≥15 letters, ≥10 letters and >0 letter in BCVA; and the number of injections and safety outcomes.ResultsThe trial enrolled 156 patients. Mean improvements in BCVA in the RC28-E groups at week 24 were 7.1, 11.0, 7.4 and 10.5 letters for 1.0mgQ8, 1.0mgPRN, 2.0mgQ8 and 2.0mgPRN regimens, respectively, versus 9.7 letters for the conbercept group (p=0.146). By week 52, the RC28-E groups exhibited respective mean BCVA enhancements of 5.5, 9.5, 9.2 and 9.7 letters, compared with 8.4 letters of the conbercept group (p=0.469). Mean reductions in CST in the RC28-E groups at week 52 were −163.2 µm, −136.9 µm, −142.5 µm and −153.6 µm, versus −160.7 µm for the conbercept group (p=0.948). The Per Protocol Set analysis indicated that at 24 weeks, the BCVA improvement in the 2.0mgPRN group was significantly greater than that in the conbercept group (14.0 vs 9.8, p=0.019). In patients with poor baseline glycaemic control (HbA1c ≥7.5%), the 2.0mgPRN group showed greater BCVA improvement than the conbercept group (14.4 vs 4.2, p=0.039) at week 52. During the maintenance phase, the 2.0mgPRN group had fewer injections (2.8, 95% CI 1.8 to 3.7) compared with the conbercept group (4.4, 95% CI 3.5 to 5.2). RC28-E was generally well tolerated. The incidence of ocular adverse events in study eyes was comparable between RC28-E groups (22.6% in 1.0mgQ8 group, 26.7% in 1.0mgPRN group, 34.4% in 2.0mgQ8 group, 25.0% in 2.0 mg PRN group) and conbercept group (32.3%). The number of ocular serious adverse events was 1 (1.0mgQ8), 0 (1.0mgPRN), 1 (2.0mgQ8), 2 (2.0mgPRN) and 0 (conbercept).ConclusionsIntravitreous RC28-E improved BCVA and CST in eyes with centre-involved DME. Compared with conbercept, the 2.0mgPRN regimen of RC28-E was recommended due to its superior efficacy in improving vision particularly for patients with poor glycaemic control, fewer treatment injections during the maintenance phase and comparable safety profile.Trial registration number NCT04782115.

Purpose To evaluate whether treatment with dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX implant) 0.7 mg every 5 months provides a similar average change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline as ranibizumab 0.5 mg administered as per its European Summary of Product Characteristics in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). Methods This was a multicenter, open-label, 12-month, randomized, parallel-group, noninferiority study in patients with DME (one eye/patient). The primary efficacy measure was BCVA using the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) method. Secondary efficacy measures included area of leakage on fluorescein angiography and central retinal thickness (CRT) on optical coherence tomography. Results Baseline patient characteristics were similar in the two treatment groups (DEX implant, n  = 181; ranibizumab, n  = 182); mean DME duration was ∼33 months. The mean average BCVA change from baseline over 12 months was 4.34 letters with DEX implant and 7.60 letters with ranibizumab. The lower limit of the 95 % confidence interval of the between-group difference was −4.74 letters, and therefore, DEX was demonstrated to be noninferior to ranibizumab based on the prespecified noninferiority margin of 5 letters. At monthly follow-up visits, the percentage of patients with ≥15-letter BCVA gain from baseline ranged from 7.2 to 17.7 % with DEX implant and 4.4 to 26.9 % with ranibizumab. Both DEX implant and ranibizumab effectively reduced CRT and reduced the area of fluorescein leakage. Between-group differences in change from baseline CRT favored DEX implant at 1, 2, 6, and 7 months ( p  ≤ 0.007) and ranibizumab at 4, 5, 9, and 10 months ( p  < 0.001); the decrease in fluorescein leakage area was greater with DEX implant than ranibizumab at month 12 ( p  < 0.001). Ocular adverse events in the study eye were more frequent in the DEX implant group because of the occurrence of intraocular pressure (IOP) increases and cataract. IOP increases were transient and generally managed with topical medication. Conclusions Both DEX implant and ranibizumab were well tolerated and improved BCVA and anatomic outcomes in patients with DME. DEX implant met the a priori criterion for noninferiority to ranibizumab in average change from baseline BCVA over 12 months. Noninferiority was achieved with an average of 2.85 DEX implant injections and 8.70 ranibizumab injections per patient.

Background/aimsWe characterised the relationships between monitoring frequency, ranibizumab injection need and vision in patients receiving as-needed (pro re nata; PRN) ranibizumab for macular oedema due to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) or central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) in this post-hoc analysis of SHORE and HORIZON.MethodsPatients aged 18 years and older with macular oedema due to BRVO/CRVO were included in this analysis. Injection frequency and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) were evaluated by PRN injection frequency in the PRN dosing phase (months (M) 7–15) of SHORE and through 12 months of HORIZON. Prespecified PRN re-treatment criteria for each trial were based on protocol-prespecified BCVA and optical coherence tomography outcomes.ResultsAfter the initial 7 monthly ranibizumab injections, patients in SHORE gained a mean of 18.3 letters from baseline. Patients randomised to PRN, on average, maintained these gains. However, some patients experienced additional mean gains, whereas others suffered losses (range 4.0 (95% CI 0.7 to 7.3) to −4.6 (95% CI −11.8 to 2.6) letters in patients who received 0 and 6–7 PRN injections, respectively). In BRAVO and CRUISE (lead-in trials), patients experienced mean gains from baseline to M6 (monthly dosing) of 19.3 and 15.0 letters, respectively, with gains maintained with PRN from M6 to M12. However, mean BCVA changes from baseline to M12 varied in HORIZON (range −0.4 (95% CI −2.5 to 1.6) to −3.6 (95% CI −6.2 to −1.0) letters in patients who received zero and six injections, respectively, during the preceding PRN phase of BRAVO and CRUISE).ConclusionThe BRVO/CRVO population is heterogenous with a varied response to ranibizumab treatment.

Click here to listen to the Podcast Background/aimsTo compare the efficacy of combined intravitreal injection of bevacizumab and a Rho-kinase inhibitor, fasudil (intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB)/intravitreal fasudil (IVF)), with IVB alone for centre-involving diabetic macular oedema (DME).MethodsIn this prospective randomised clinical trial, 44 eyes with centre-involving DME were randomised into two groups. The combined group received three consecutive injections of IVB (1.25 mg) and IVF (50 µM/L) monthly, while the monotherapy group received only one IVB (1.25 mg) injection per month for 3 months. Changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) were compared between the two groups at months 3 and 6. The primary outcome measure was the mean change in BCVA at month 6.ResultsMean BCVA was significantly improved in both groups at month 3 (P<0.001), but it persisted up to month 6 only in the IVB/IVF group. Improvement of BCVA was greater in the IVB/IVF group at both time points (P=0.008, P<0.001). In the IVB/IVF and IVB groups, 54.5% versus 10% of the eyes gained≥15 ETDRS letters at month 6 (P=0.026). Between months 3 and 6, mean BCVA significantly decreased by 5±7 ETDRS letters in the IVB group (P=0.002), while no significant deterioration was observed in the IVB/IVF group. Corresponding with the BCVA changes, CMT was significantly reduced in both groups at month 3 (p=0.006, p<0.001) but this reduction sustained only in the IVB/IVF group up to month 6 (p<0.001).ConclusionAdjunctive intravitreal injection of a Rho-kinase inhibitor may enhance and prolong the therapeutic effects of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drugs for centre- involving DME.

Purpose To evaluate the 2-year efficacy, durability, and safety of faricimab in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) in the YOSEMITE Japan subgroup. Study design YOSEMITE/RHINE (NCT03622580/NCT03622593) subgroup analysis: global, multicenter, randomized, double-masked, active-comparator–controlled, phase 3 faricimab trials. Methods Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to intravitreal faricimab 6.0 mg every 8 weeks (Q8W) and per treat-and-extend (T&E) dosing, or aflibercept 2.0 mg Q8W. Outcomes were assessed through year 2 for the YOSEMITE Japan subgroup (N = 60) and the pooled YOSEMITE/RHINE global cohort (N = 1891). Results In the YOSEMITE Japan subgroup, 21, 19, and 20 patients were randomized to faricimab Q8W, faricimab T&E, and aflibercept Q8W, respectively (632, 632, and 627 patients in the pooled YOSEMITE/RHINE cohort). Vision gains and anatomic improvements with faricimab at year 1 were maintained over 2 years and were generally consistent between groups. Mean best-corrected visual acuity changes from baseline at year 2 (weeks 92–100 average) for the YOSEMITE Japan subgroup were +12.5, +9.0, and +5.0 letters in the faricimab Q8W, faricimab T&E and aflibercept Q8W arms, respectively (+10.8, +10.4, and +10.3 letters in the pooled YOSEMITE/RHINE cohort). At week 96, 61.1% of the YOSEMITE Japan subgroup and 78.1% of the pooled YOSEMITE/RHINE cohort were on ≥ Q12W dosing. Faricimab was well-tolerated with a safety profile comparable with aflibercept. Conclusion Faricimab up to Q16W offered durable vision gains and anatomic improvements up to 2 years in patients with DME in the YOSEMITE Japan subgroup. Outcomes were generally consistent with the pooled YOSEMITE/RHINE cohort.