Explore the vast range of titles available.

Geographic atrophy is an advanced form of dry age-related macular degeneration that can lead to irreversible vision loss and high burden of disease. We aimed to assess efficacy and safety of avacincaptad pegol 2 mg in reducing geographic atrophy lesion growth. GATHER2 is a randomised, double-masked, sham-controlled, 24-month, phase 3 trial across 205 retina clinics, research hospitals, and academic institutions globally. To be eligible, patients had to be aged 50 years or older with non-centrepoint-involving geographic atrophy and best corrected visual acuity between 20/25 and 20/320 in the study eye. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to monthly avacincaptad pegol 2 mg administered as a 100 μL intravitreal injection or sham for the first 12 months. Randomisation was performed using an interactive response technology system with stratification by factors known to be of prognostic importance in age-related macular degeneration. Patients, investigators, study centre staff, sponsor personnel, and data analysts were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was geographic atrophy lesion size measured by fundus autofluorescence at baseline, month 6, and month 12. Efficacy and safety analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat and safety populations, respectively. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04435366. Between June 22, 2020, and July 23, 2021, 1422 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 448 were enrolled and randomly assigned to avacincaptad pegol 2 mg (n=225) or sham (n=223). One patient in the sham group did not receive study treatment and was excluded from analyses. There were 154 (68%) female patients and 71 (32%) male patients in the avacincaptad pegol 2 mg group, and 156 (70%) female patients and 66 (30%) male patients in the sham group. From baseline to month 12, the mean rate of square-root-transformed geographic atrophy area growth was 0·336 mm/year (SE 0·032) with avacincaptad pegol 2 mg and 0·392 mm/year (0·033) with sham, a difference in growth of 0·056 mm/year (95% CI 0·016–0·096; p=0·0064), representing a 14% difference between the avacincaptad pegol 2 mg group and the sham group. Ocular treatment-emergent adverse events in the study eye occurred in 110 (49%) patients in the avacincaptad pegol 2 mg group and 83 (37%) in the sham group. There were no endophthalmitis, intraocular inflammation, or ischaemic optic neuropathy events over 12 months. To month 12, macular neovascularisation in the study eye occurred in 15 (7%) patients in the avacincaptad pegol 2 mg group and nine (4%) in the sham group, with exudative macular neovascularisation occurring in 11 (5%) in the avacincaptad pegol 2 mg group and seven (3%) in the sham group. Monthly avacincaptad pegol 2 mg was well tolerated and showed significantly slower geographic atrophy growth over 12 months than sham treatment, suggesting that avacincaptad pegol might slow disease progression and potentially change the trajectory of disease for patients with geographic atrophy. Iveric Bio, An Astellas Company.

Faricimab is a bispecific antibody that acts through dual inhibition of both angiopoietin-2 and vascular endothelial growth factor A. We report primary results of two phase 3 trials evaluating intravitreal faricimab with extension up to every 16 weeks for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). TENAYA and LUCERNE were randomised, double-masked, non-inferiority trials across 271 sites worldwide. Treatment-naive patients with nAMD aged 50 years or older were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravitreal faricimab 6·0 mg up to every 16 weeks, based on protocol-defined disease activity assessments at weeks 20 and 24, or aflibercept 2·0 mg every 8 weeks. Randomisation was performed through an interactive voice or web-based response system using a stratified permuted block randomisation method. Patients, investigators, those assessing outcomes, and the funder were masked to group assignments. The primary endpoint was mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline averaged over weeks 40, 44, and 48 (prespecified non-inferiority margin of four letters), in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses included patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (TENAYA NCT03823287 and LUCERNE NCT03823300). Across the two trials, 1329 patients were randomly assigned between Feb 19 and Nov 19, 2019 (TENAYA n=334 faricimab and n=337 aflibercept), and between March 11 and Nov 1, 2019 (LUCERNE n=331 faricimab and n=327 aflibercept). BCVA change from baseline with faricimab was non-inferior to aflibercept in both TENAYA (adjusted mean change 5·8 letters [95% CI 4·6 to 7·1] and 5·1 letters [3·9 to 6·4]; treatment difference 0·7 letters [−1·1 to 2·5]) and LUCERNE (6·6 letters [5·3 to 7·8] and 6·6 letters [5·3 to 7·8]; treatment difference 0·0 letters [–1·7 to 1·8]). Rates of ocular adverse events were comparable between faricimab and aflibercept (TENAYA n=121 [36·3%] vs n=128 [38·1%], and LUCERNE n=133 [40·2%] vs n=118 [36·2%]). Visual benefits with faricimab given at up to 16-week intervals demonstrates its potential to meaningfully extend the time between treatments with sustained efficacy, thereby reducing treatment burden in patients with nAMD. F Hoffmann-La Roche.

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. 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). 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%]). 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. F Hoffmann-La Roche.

In chronic central serous chorioretinopathy (CSCR), fluid accumulates in the subretinal space. CSCR is a common visually disabling condition that develops in individuals up to 60 years of age, and there is no definitive treatment. Previous research suggests the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, eplerenone, is effective for treating CSCR; however, this drug is not licensed for the treatment of patients with CSCR. We aimed to evaluate whether eplerenone was superior to placebo in terms of improving visual acuity in patients with chronic CSCR. This randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre placebo-controlled trial was done at 22 hospitals in the UK. Participants were eligible if they were aged 18–60 years and had had treatment-naive CSCR for 4 months or more. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the eplerenone or the placebo group by a trial statistician through a password-protected system online. Allocation was stratified by best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and hospital. Patients were given either oral eplerenone (25 mg/day for 1 week, increasing to 50 mg/day for up to 12 months) plus usual care or placebo plus usual care for up to 12 months. All participants, care teams, outcome assessors, pharmacists, and members of the trial management group were masked to the treatment allocation. The primary outcome was BCVA, measured as letters read, at 12 months. All outcomes apart from safety were analysed on a modified intention-to-treat basis (participants who withdrew consent without contributing a post-randomisation BCVA measurement were excluded from the primary analysis population and from most secondary analysis populations). The trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN92746680, and is completed. Between Jan 11, 2017, and Feb 22, 2018, we enrolled and randomly assigned 114 patients to receive either eplerenone (n=57) or placebo (n=57). Three participants in the placebo group withdrew consent without contributing a post-randomisation BCVA measurement and were excluded from the primary outcome analysis population. All patients from the eplerenone group and 54 patients from the placebo group were included in the primary outcome. Modelled mean BCVA at 12 months was 79·5 letters (SD 4·5) in the placebo group and 80·4 letters (4·6) in the eplerenone group, with an adjusted estimated mean difference of 1·73 letters (95% CI −1·12 to 4·57; p=0·24) at 12 months. Hyperkalaemia occurred in eight (14%) patients in each group. No serious adverse events were reported in the eplerenone group and three unrelated serious adverse events were reported in the placebo group (myocardial infarction [anticipated], diverticulitis [unanticipated], and metabolic surgery [unanticipated]). Eplerenone was not superior to placebo for improving BCVA in people with chronic CSCR after 12 months of treatment. Ophthalmologists who currently prescribe eplerenone for CSCR should discontinue this practice. Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme, and National Institute for Health Research and Social Care.

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.

Background Retinal prosthesis systems (RPS) are a novel treatment for profound vision loss in outer retinal dystrophies. Ideal prostheses would offer stable, long-term retinal stimulation and reproducible spatial resolution in a portable form appropriate for daily life. Methods We report a prospective, internally controlled, multicentre trial of the Argus II system. Twenty-eight subjects with light perception vision received a retinal implant. Controlled, closed-group, forced-choice letter identification, and, open-choice two-, three- and four-letter word identification tests were carried out. Results The mean±SD percentage correct letter identification for 21 subjects tested were: letters L, T, E, J, F, H, I, U, 72.3±24.6% system on and 17.7±12.9% system off; letters A, Z, Q, V, N, W, O, C, D, M, 55.0±27.4% system on and 11.8%±10.7% system off, and letters K, R, G, X, B, Y, S, P, 51.7±28.9% system on and 15.3±7.4% system off. (p<0.001 for all groups). A subgroup of six subjects was able to consistently read letters of reduced size, the smallest measuring 0.9 cm (1.7°) at 30 cm, and four subjects correctly identify unrehearsed two-, three- and four-letter words. Average implant duration was 19.9 months. Conclusions Multiple blind subjects fitted with the Argus II system consistently identified letters and words using the device, indicating reproducible spatial resolution. This, in combination with stable, long-term function, represents significant progress in the evolution of artificial sight.

PurposeTo evaluate the effects of 0.01% and 0.02% atropine eye drops on myopia progression, pupil diameter and accommodative amplitude in myopic children.MethodsA cohort study assessed 400 myopic children divided into three groups: 138 and 142 children were randomised to use either 0.02% or 0.01% atropine eye drops, respectively. They wore single-vision (SV) spectacles, with one drop of atropine eye drop applied to both eyes once nightly. Control children (n=120) only wore SV spectacles. Repeated measurements of spherical equivalent refractive errors (SERs), axial length (AL), pupil diameter and accommodative amplitude were performed at baseline, and 4, 8 and 12 months after treatment.ResultsAfter 12 months, the SER change was −0.38±0.35D, −0.47±0.45D, −0.70±0.60D and AL change was 0.30±0.21 mm, 0.37±0.22 mm, 0.46±0.35 mm in the 0.02%, 0.01% atropine and control groups, respectively. There were significant differences in the change in AL and SER between three groups (all p<0.001). Between baseline and the 12-month visit, the overall change in accommodative amplitude was 1.50±0.25D, 1.61±0.31D and change in pupil diameter was 0.78±0.42 mm, 0.69±0.39 mm, with 0.02% and 0.01% atropine, respectively. Accommodative amplitude significantly decreased and pupil diameter significantly increased in two atropine groups (all p<0.001). Moreover, there was no statistical difference in the change difference in accommodative amplitude and pupil diameter between two atropine groups (p=0.24, p=0.38), whereas the accommodative amplitude (p=0.45) and pupil diameter (p=0.39) in the control group remained stable.Conclusions0.02% atropine eye drops had a better effect on myopia progression than 0.01% atropine, but 0.02% and 0.01% atropine showed similar effects on pupil diameter and accommodative amplitude after 12 months of treatment.Trial registration numberChiCTR-IPD-16008844.

This comparison of ranibizumab and bevacizumab to treat neovascular age-related macular degeneration showed equivalent efficacy in maintaining visual acuity. Bevacizumab was associated with more serious adverse events (mainly hospitalizations). In 2005, clinical trials established the efficacy of ranibizumab 1 , 2 (Lucentis, Genentech) for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD), the leading cause of legal blindness in the United States. While awaiting approval for ranibizumab from the Food and Drug Administration, ophthalmologists began treating neovascular AMD with off-label use of bevacizumab (Avastin, Genentech), since the drug had a target specificity similar to that of ranibizumab and was available at low cost. 3 , 4 Because the intraocular safety of bevacizumab and the duration of its therapeutic effect were unknown, the drug was usually administered only when there were signs of active . . .

Background/AimTo assess visual acuity (VA) outcomes and antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment intensity in diabetic macular oedema (DMO).MethodsRetrospective analysis was performed in treatment-naïve patients with DMO from 2013 to 2018 using a database of aggregated de-identified electronic medical records (Vestrum Health).ResultsAt 1 year, 28 658 patient eyes underwent a mean of 6.4 anti-VEGF injections, gaining a mean of +4.2 letters (95% confidence interval for mean gain: +4.0 to +4.5 letters, p<0.001). When stratified by anti-VEGF medication and by years 2013–2018, no clinically meaningful differences in injection frequency or 1-year VA change resulted. At 1 year, 50% of eyes received ≤6 injections, while <20% received 10–13 injections, representing monthly treatment. Mean letters gained at 1 year generally showed a linear relationship with mean number of anti-VEGF injections, beyond two injections. Eyes with good baseline VA (≥20/40) generally were at risk of VA loss at 1 year; those with moderately severe baseline impairment (20/70 to 20/200) who received ≥10 injections improved by a mean of +10.3 letters.ConclusionIn clinical practice, patients with DMO undergo fewer anti-VEGF injections and exhibit worse visual gains compared with patients in randomised clinical trials. Visual outcomes correlate with treatment intensity at 1 year, with ceiling effects related to baseline VA.