Explore the vast range of titles available.

A trial of three drugs — bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept — for the treatment of diabetic macular edema showed that each drug improved visual acuity, but aflibercept outperformed the other two drugs for eyes with a baseline visual acuity of 20/50 or worse. Diabetic macular edema, a manifestation of diabetic retinopathy that impairs central vision, affects approximately 750,000 people in the United States and is a leading cause of vision loss. 1 The costs associated with visual disability and treatment of diabetic macular edema are high. 2 The increasing prevalence of diabetes worldwide highlights the importance of diabetic macular edema as a global health issue. 3 Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is an important mediator of abnormal vascular permeability in diabetic macular edema. 4 , 5 Intravitreous injections of anti-VEGF agents have been shown to be superior to laser photocoagulation of the macula, the standard treatment for diabetic . . .

Proliferative diabetic retinopathy is the most common cause of severe sight impairment in people with diabetes. Proliferative diabetic retinopathy has been managed by panretinal laser photocoagulation (PRP) for the past 40 years. We report the 1 year safety and efficacy of intravitreal aflibercept. In this phase 2b, single-blind, non-inferiority trial (CLARITY), adults (aged ≥18 years) with type 1 or 2 diabetes and previously untreated or post-laser treated active proliferative diabetic retinopathy were recruited from 22 UK ophthalmic centres. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to repeated intravitreal aflibercept (2 mg/0·05 mL at baseline, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks, and from week 12 patients were reviewed every 4 weeks and aflibercept injections were given as needed) or PRP standard care (single spot or mutlispot laser at baseline, fractionated fortnightly thereafter, and from week 12 patients were assessed every 8 weeks and treated with PRP as needed) for 52 weeks. Randomisation was by minimisation with a web-based computer generated system. Primary outcome assessors were masked optometrists. The treating ophthalmologists and participants were not masked. The primary outcome was defined as a change in best-corrected visual acuity at 52 weeks with a linear mixed-effect model that estimated adjusted treatment effects at both 12 weeks and 52 weeks, having excluded fluctuations in best corrected visual acuity owing to vitreous haemorrhage. This modified intention-to-treat analysis was reapplied to the per protocol participants. The non-inferiority margin was prespecified as −5 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters. Safety was assessed in all participants. This trial is registered with ISRCTN registry, number 32207582. We recruited 232 participants (116 per group) between Aug 22, 2014 and Nov 30, 2015. 221 participants (112 in aflibercept group, 109 in PRP group) contributed to the modified intention-to-treat model, and 210 participants (104 in aflibercept group and 106 in PRP group) within per protocol. Aflibercept was non-inferior and superior to PRP in both the modified intention-to-treat population (mean best corrected visual acuity difference 3·9 letters [95% CI 2·3–5·6], p<0·0001) and the per-protocol population (4·0 letters [2·4–5·7], p<0·0001). There were no safety concerns. The 95% CI adjusted difference between groups was more than the prespecified acceptable margin of −5 letters at both 12 weeks and 52 weeks. Patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy who were treated with intravitreal aflibercept had an improved outcome at 1 year compared with those treated with PRP standard care. The Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research partnership.

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.

Cisplatin and gemcitabine is the standard first-line chemotherapy regimen for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer; expression of VEGF and its receptors is associated with adverse outcomes. We aimed to assess the effect of the addition of cediranib (an oral inhibitor of VEGF receptor 1, 2, and 3) to cisplatin and gemcitabine on progression-free survival. In this multicentre, placebo-controlled, randomised phase 2 study, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed or cytologically confirmed advanced biliary tract cancer from hepatobiliary oncology referral centres in the UK. Patients were eligible if they had an ECOG performance status of 0–1 and an estimated life expectancy of longer than 3 months. Patients were given first-line cisplatin and gemcitabine chemotherapy (25 mg/m2 cisplatin and 1000 mg/m2 gemcitabine [on days 1 and 8 every 21 days, for up to eight cycles]) with either 20 mg oral cediranib or placebo once a day until disease progression. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) with a minimisation algorithm, incorporating the stratification factors: extent of disease, primary disease site, previous treatment, ECOG performance status, and centre. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00939848, and was closed on Sept 30, 2014; results of the final analysis for the primary endpoint are presented. Between April 5, 2011, and Sept 28, 2012, we enrolled 124 patients (62 in each group). With a median follow-up of 12·2 months (IQR 7·3–18·5), median progression-free survival was 8·0 months (95% CI 6·5–9·3) in the cediranib group and 7·4 months (5·7–8·5) in the placebo group (HR 0·93, 80% CI 0·74–1·19, 95% CI 0·65–1·35; p=0·72). Patients who received cediranib had more grade 3–4 toxic effects than did patients who received placebo: hypertension (23 [37%] vs 13 [21%]; p=0·05), diarrhoea (eight [13%] vs two [3%]; p=0·05); platelet count decreased (ten [16%] vs four [6%]; p=0·09), white blood cell decreased (15 [24%] vs seven [11%]; p=0·06) and fatigue (16 [24%] vs seven [11%]; p=0·04). Cediranib did not improve the progression-free survival of patients with advanced biliary tract cancer in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine, which remains the standard of care. Although patients in the cediranib group had more adverse events, we recorded no unexpected toxic effects. The role of VEGF inhibition in addition to chemotherapy for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer remains investigational. Cancer Research UK and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals.

Aflibercept is a recombinant fusion protein that acts as a soluble decoy receptor for vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), a key regulator of angiogenesis. It binds to all isoforms of VEGF-A as well as VEGF-B and placental growth factor, and, thus, prevents them from binding to and activating their cognate receptors. In the USA and EU, intravenously administered aflibercept in combination with an infusion of leucovorin, fluorouracil and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) is approved for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer that is resistant to or has progressed after treatment with an oxaliplatin-containing regimen. The efficacy of aflibercept in this indication was assessed in a multinational, pivotal phase 3 trial (VELOUR), in which the approved regimen of aflibercept 4 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus FOLFIRI significantly prolonged median overall survival by 1.44 months compared with FOLFIRI alone (primary endpoint). The addition of aflibercept also significantly prolonged progression-free survival and significantly increased the objective response rate compared with FOLFIRI alone. Addition of aflibercept to FOLFIRI was associated with anti-VEGF-related adverse events and an increased incidence of FOLFIRI-related adverse events, but the tolerability of the combination was generally acceptable in this pre-treated population. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events with aflibercept plus FOLFIRI included neutropenia, diarrhoea and hypertension. In conclusion, aflibercept plus FOLFIRI is a useful treatment option for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with an oxaliplatin-containing regimen, with or without bevacizumab.

PurposePost hoc analysis of the phase III HAWK and HARRIER studies to compare the reductions in subretinal hyper-reflective material (SHRM) thickness following brolucizumab 6 mg or aflibercept 2 mg treatment and to assess SHRM thickness and thickness variability as a potential biomarker of visual outcomes in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).MethodsOptical coherence tomography images from the brolucizumab (n=700) and aflibercept (n=696) arms were analysed for the maximum SHRM thickness across the macula over 96 weeks. In a pooled treatment-agnostic analysis, the effect of week 12 SHRM thickness and SHRM thickness variability on best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) through week 96 were also assessed.ResultsBrolucizumab was associated with numerically higher percentage reductions from baseline in SHRM thickness versus aflibercept in all patients (week 96: 54.4% vs 47.6%, respectively) and also in the matched subgroups with disease activity at week 16 (week 96: 51.6% vs 33.8%, respectively). In eyes with lower SHRM measurements at week 12, mean BCVA gains from baseline were higher at week 96 (<200 µm, +6.47 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters; ≥200 µm, +3.10 letters). Eyes with the lowest SHRM thickness variability from week 12 to week 96 showed the greatest mean BCVA gains from baseline (week 96: <12 µm, +7.42 letters; >71 µm, −2.95 letters).ConclusionsIn HAWK and HARRIER, greater reductions in maximum SHRM thickness from baseline were observed with brolucizumab compared with aflibercept. Furthermore, the data suggest that SHRM thickness postloading and SHRM thickness variability over time are biomarkers for visual outcomes in patients with nAMD.

This study compares the effectiveness of Conbercept and Aflibercept in treating neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). Conducted at the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University's Ophthalmology Department (May 2020–May 2023), this prospective study enrolled 159 nAMD patients. Participants were randomly divided into two groups: one receiving 0.5 mg Conbercept and the other 2 mg Aflibercept intravitreal injections. Over 12 months, the study, employing a Treat-and-Extend (T&E) regimen, assessed Best-Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA), Central Retinal Thickness (CRT) changes and injection frequency. Of the 159 patients, 137 (149 eyes) completed the study. No significant age difference was found between the groups (P = 0.331). After 12 months, BCVA improved similarly in both groups (Conbercept: 52.8 ± 18.9, Aflibercept: 52.0 ± 19.7 letters; P = 0.820). CRT reduction was also comparable (Conbercept: 246.3 ± 82.8 µm, Aflibercept: 275.9 ± 114.3 µm; P = 0.079). Injection frequencies averaged 6.9 ± 0.7 (Conbercept) and 6.7 ± 0.7 (Aflibercept; P = 0.255). Subtype analysis revealed Type 1 MNV had higher baseline BCVA and lower CRT, with more frequent injections compared to other types. Both Conbercept and Aflibercept are clinically similar in efficacy for nAMD, with the T&E regimen proving therapeutically effective and potentially reducing patient costs. Anti-VEGF treatment efficacy varies across nAMD subtypes, indicating a potential benefit in tailored treatments for specific subtypes. Clinical trial registration number NCT05539235 (Protocol Registration and Results System).

Aim To determine the efficacy of 2.0 mg aflibercept in the management of patients with recalcitrant exudative age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Methods In this prospective, open-label, single-arm clinical trial, patients were seen monthly and given mandatory 2.0 mg aflibercept at baseline, months 1, 2 and 4. Pro re nata (PRN) retreatment at months 3 and 5 was performed upon evidence of disease on spectral domain-optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). End point at month 6: mean change in Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study best corrected visual acuity (ETDRS BCVA) and central subfield thickness (CST), mean number of aflibercept injections, percentage of PRN injections required, patients with no fluid on SD-OCT and patients losing >15 letters. Results At baseline, 46 patients with a mean of 42 prior antivascular endothelial growth factor-A (anti-VEGF) intravitreal treatments had a mean of 74.2 letters (Snellen equivalent 20/32) and mean CST of 347 µm. ETDRS letters remained stable throughout the trial; at month 6, mean BCVA change was +0.2 letters (range −10 to +13, p=0.71). Anatomically, mean CST improved significantly from baseline at each study visit including −23.6 µm at month 1 and −27.3 µm at month 6 (p=0.018). Seventy-one of 90 (79%) possible PRN injections were required and a mean of 5.6 aflibercept injections out of the maximum six were administered. Ten of 45 (22%) patients had no retinal fluid on SD-OCT at month 6. No patient lost >15 letters. Conclusions Aflibercept 2.0 mg treatment maintained mean visual acuity improvements previously achieved with high-dose 2.0-mg ranibizumab injections in recalcitrant wet AMD patients. Aflibercept 2.0 mg treatment led to significant anatomic improvement and was required monthly in most patients. Clinical Trials Registration FDA IND#12462. NCT 01543568. Trial Details IND 12462, NCT 01543568 http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01543568.

Purpose To evaluate 2-year efficacy, durability, and safety of faricimab in the TENAYA Japan subgroup and pooled global TENAYA/LUCERNE cohort of patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). Methods Subgroup analysis of TENAYA/LUCERNE (NCT03823287/NCT03823300): phase III, multicentre, randomised, active comparator–controlled, double-masked, non-inferiority trials. Treatment-naïve patients aged ≥ 50 years with nAMD were randomised (1:1) to intravitreal faricimab (6.0 mg up to every 16 weeks [Q16W] after 4 initial Q4W doses) or aflibercept (2.0 mg Q8W after 3 initial Q4W doses). Outcomes were assessed through year 2 for the TENAYA Japan subgroup ( N  = 133) and global pooled TENAYA/LUCERNE cohort ( N  = 1329). Results Vision and anatomic improvements achieved with faricimab at year 1 were maintained over 2 years and were generally comparable between the TENAYA Japan subgroup and pooled TENAYA/LUCERNE cohort. Adjusted mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) change from baseline at year 2 for the TENAYA Japan subgroup and global pooled TENAYA/LUCERNE cohort was +7.1 (3.7–10.5) and +4.4 (3.2–5.5) letters in the faricimab arm, respectively, and +5.2 (1.9–8.6) and +4.3 (3.1–5.4) letters in the aflibercept arm, respectively. At week 112, the proportion of faricimab-treated patients on Q16W dosing was 61.0% and 63.1% in the TENAYA Japan subgroup and pooled TENAYA/LUCERNE cohort. Faricimab was well tolerated through year 2. Conclusion Year 2 TENAYA Japan subgroup findings for faricimab were generally consistent with the pooled global TENAYA/LUCERNE results in patients with nAMD. Vision and anatomical benefits with faricimab were similar to those with aflibercept but with fewer injections.

To compare the efficacy and safety of the proposed aflibercept biosimilar SCD411 and reference aflibercept in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration, this randomized, double-masked, parallel-group, multicenter study was conducted in 14 countries from 13 August 2020 to 8 September 2022. Patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration. With subfoveal, juxtafoveal, or extrafoveal choroidal neovascularization were aged 50 years or older. Intravitreal injection of SCD411 or aflibercept (2.0 mg) were administered every 4 weeks for the first three injections and every 8 weeks until week 48. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in best-corrected visual acuity from baseline to week 8 with an adjusted equivalence margin of ± 3.0 letters. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either SCD411 (n = 288) or reference aflibercept (n = 288). A total of 566 participants (98.3%) completed week 8 of the study. The least-squares mean difference of change in best-corrected visual acuity from baseline to week 8 (SCD411—aflibercept) was − 0.4 letters (90% confidence interval =  − 1.6 to 0.9). The incidence of ocular (69 of 287 [24.0%] vs. 71 of 286 [24.8%]) and serious ocular (5 of 287 [1.7%] vs. 3 of 286 [1.0%]) treatment-emergent adverse effects were similar between the SCD411 and aflibercept groups. Immunogenicity analysis revealed a low incidence of neutralizing antibody formation in both groups. In conclusion, SCD411 has equivalent efficacy compared with reference aflibercept in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration and has a comparable safety profile. The results support the potential use of SCD411 for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration.