Dataset Information

Is it necessary to use three mandatory loading doses when commencing therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration using bevacizumab? (BeMOc Trial).

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: To determine whether a Pro Re Nata (PRN) regimen with three initial mandatory loading doses results in better functional and anatomical outcome compared with a PRN regimen without initial loading when using intravitreal bevacizumab in patients with minimal classic or occult choroidal neovascularisation secondary to age-related macular degeneration. METHODS: Patients were randomised (1 : 1) to Loading (LD group) or No Loading (NLD group) and treated with open label intravitreal bevacizumab. In the LD group, patients received two mandatory doses after the baseline dose before entering the PRN phase and in the NLD group, patients did not receive mandatory doses after the baseline dose. Six-weekly evaluations were performed up to week 54 and retreatment was done based on OCT criteria. Visual stability and reduction in central retinal thickness were compared between groups. RESULTS: 49 patients were in the NLD group and 50 patients were in the LD group. At the 12-month end point, 84% of the patients in the LD group achieved visual stability (<15 letter loss) compared with 67% of the patients in the NLD group (P<0.05). The mean reduction in central macular thickness was 105.35 ?m in the LD group and 81.45 ?m in the NLD group (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in scores of VFQ-25 questionnaire testing between the two groups and no serious ocular or systemic side effects were observed. CONCLUSION: The results supported our hypothesis that a loading dose leads to slightly better visual stability in terms of proportions of patients experiencing moderate visual loss, but did not support the hypothesised difference in anatomical outcome.

SUBMITTER: Menon G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3740324 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Is it necessary to use three mandatory loading doses when commencing therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration using bevacizumab? (BeMOc Trial).

Menon G G Chandran M M Sivaprasad S S Chavan R R Narendran N N Yang Y Y

Eye (London, England) 20130607 8

<h4>Purpose</h4>To determine whether a Pro Re Nata (PRN) regimen with three initial mandatory loading doses results in better functional and anatomical outcome compared with a PRN regimen without initial loading when using intravitreal bevacizumab in patients with minimal classic or occult choroidal neovascularisation secondary to age-related macular degeneration.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients were randomised (1 : 1) to Loading (LD group) or No Loading (NLD group) and treated with open label intravitr ...[more]

PMID: 23743535

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundClinical trials have established the efficacy of ranibizumab for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD). In addition, bevacizumab is used off-label to treat AMD, despite the absence of similar supporting data.MethodsIn a multicenter, single-blind, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned 1208 patients with neovascular AMD to receive intravitreal injections of ranibizumab or bevacizumab on either a monthly schedule or as needed with monthly evaluation. The primary outcome was the mean change in visual acuity at 1 year, with a noninferiority limit of 5 letters on the eye chart.ResultsBevacizumab administered monthly was equivalent to ranibizumab administered monthly, with 8.0 and 8.5 letters gained, respectively. Bevacizumab administered as needed was equivalent to ranibizumab as needed, with 5.9 and 6.8 letters gained, respectively. Ranibizumab as needed was equivalent to monthly ranibizumab, although the comparison between bevacizumab as needed and monthly bevacizumab was inconclusive. The mean decrease in central retinal thickness was greater in the ranibizumab-monthly group (196 μm) than in the other groups (152 to 168 μm, P=0.03 by analysis of variance). Rates of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke were similar for patients receiving either bevacizumab or ranibizumab (P>0.20). The proportion of patients with serious systemic adverse events (primarily hospitalizations) was higher with bevacizumab than with ranibizumab (24.1% vs. 19.0%; risk ratio, 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.01 to 1.66), with excess events broadly distributed in disease categories not identified in previous studies as areas of concern.ConclusionsAt 1 year, bevacizumab and ranibizumab had equivalent effects on visual acuity when administered according to the same schedule. Ranibizumab given as needed with monthly evaluation had effects on vision that were equivalent to those of ranibizumab administered monthly. Differences in rates of serious adverse events require further study. (Funded by the National Eye Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00593450.).

Project description:PurposeWe sought to determine the most cost-effective treatment for patients with newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration: monthly or as-needed bevacizumab injections, or monthly or as-needed ranibizumab injections.DesignCost-effectiveness analysis.ParticipantsHypothetical cohort of 80-year-old patients with newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration.MethodsUsing a mathematical model with a 20-year time horizon, we compared the incremental cost-effectiveness of treating a hypothetical cohort of 80-year-old patients with newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration using monthly bevacizumab, as-needed bevacizumab, monthly ranibizumab, or as-needed ranibizumab. Data came from the Comparison of Age-related macular degeneration Treatment Trial (CATT), the Medicare Fee Schedule, and the medical literature.Main outcome measuresCosts, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental costs per QALY gained.ResultsCompared with as-needed bevacizumab, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of monthly bevacizumab is $24,2 357/QALY. Monthly ranibizumab gains an additional 0.02 QALYs versus monthly bevacizumab at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of >$10 million/QALY. As-needed ranibizumab was dominated by monthly bevacizumab, meaning it was more costly and less effective. In sensitivity analyses assuming a willingness to pay of $100,000/QALY, the annual risk of serious vascular events would have to be ≥2.5 times higher with bevacizumab than that observed in the CATT trial for as-needed ranibizumab to have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of <$100,000/QALY. In another sensitivity analysis, even if every patient receiving bevacizumab experienced declining vision by 1 category (e.g., from 20/25-20/40 to 20/50-20/80) after 2 years but every patient receiving ranibizumab retained their vision level, as-needed ranibizumab would have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $97,340/QALY.ConclusionsEven after considering the potential for differences in risks of serious adverse events and therapeutic effectiveness, bevacizumab confers considerably greater value than ranibizumab for the treatment of neovascular macular degeneration.

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe effects of ranibizumab and bevacizumab when administered monthly or as needed for 2 years and to describe the impact of switching to as-needed treatment after 1 year of monthly treatment.DesignMulticenter, randomized clinical trial.ParticipantsPatients (n = 1107) who were followed up during year 2 among 1185 patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration who were enrolled in the clinical trial.InterventionsAt enrollment, patients were assigned to 4 treatment groups defined by drug (ranibizumab or bevacizumab) and dosing regimen (monthly or as needed). At 1 year, patients initially assigned to monthly treatment were reassigned randomly to monthly or as-needed treatment, without changing the drug assignment.Main outcome measuresMean change in visual acuity.ResultsAmong patients following the same regimen for 2 years, mean gain in visual acuity was similar for both drugs (bevacizumab-ranibizumab difference, -1.4 letters; 95% confidence interval [CI], -3.7 to 0.8; P = 0.21). Mean gain was greater for monthly than for as-needed treatment (difference, -2.4 letters; 95% CI, -4.8 to -0.1; P = 0.046). The proportion without fluid ranged from 13.9% in the bevacizumab-as-needed group to 45.5% in the ranibizumab monthly group (drug, P = 0.0003; regimen, P < 0.0001). Switching from monthly to as-needed treatment resulted in greater mean decrease in vision during year 2 (-2.2 letters; P = 0.03) and a lower proportion without fluid (-19%; P < 0.0001). Rates of death and arteriothrombotic events were similar for both drugs (P > 0.60). The proportion of patients with 1 or more systemic serious adverse events was higher with bevacizumab than ranibizumab (39.9% vs. 31.7%; adjusted risk ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.07-1.57; P = 0.009). Most of the excess events have not been associated previously with systemic therapy targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF).ConclusionsRanibizumab and bevacizumab had similar effects on visual acuity over a 2-year period. Treatment as needed resulted in less gain in visual acuity, whether instituted at enrollment or after 1 year of monthly treatment. There were no differences between drugs in rates of death or arteriothrombotic events. The interpretation of the persistence of higher rates of serious adverse events with bevacizumab is uncertain because of the lack of specificity to conditions associated with inhibition of VEGF.

Project description:BACKGROUNDStudies assessing the efficacy of therapies for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nvAMD) have demonstrated that aflibercept may have a longer treatment interval than its less-expensive alternative, bevacizumab. However, whether this benefit justifies the additional cost of aflibercept remains under debate. We have recently reported that a treat-and-extend-pause/monitor approach can be used to successfully wean 31% of patients with nvAMD off anti-VEGF therapy. Here, we examined whether the choice of therapy influences the outcomes of this approach.METHODSIn this retrospective analysis, 122 eyes of 106 patients with nvAMD underwent 3 consecutive monthly injections with either aflibercept (n = 70) or bevacizumab (n = 52), followed by a treat-and-extend protocol, in which the decision to extend the interval between treatments was based on visual acuity, clinical exam, and the presence or absence of fluid on optical coherence tomography. Eyes that remained stable 12 weeks from their prior treatment were given a 6-week trial of holding further treatment, followed by quarterly monitoring. Treatment was resumed for worsening vision, clinical exam, or optical coherence tomography findings.RESULTSAt the end of 1 year, eyes receiving bevacizumab had similar vision but required more injections (8.7 ± 0.3 treatments vs. 7.2 ± 0.3 treatments) compared with eyes receiving aflibercept. However, eyes treated with aflibercept were almost 3 times more likely to be weaned off treatment (43% vs. 15%) compared with eyes treated with bevacizumab at the end of 1 year.CONCLUSIONThese observations expose an advantage of aflibercept over bevacizumab and have important clinical implications for the selection of therapy for patients with nvAMD.FUNDINGThis work was supported by the National Eye Institute, NIH grants R01EY029750 and R01EY025705, Research to Prevent Blindness, the Alcon Young Investigator Award from the Alcon Research Institute, and the Branna and Irving Sisenwein Professorship in Ophthalmology.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the baseline predictors of visual acuity (VA) outcomes 1 year after treatment with ranibizumab or bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD).DesignCohort study within the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials (CATT).ParticipantsA total of 1105 participants with neovascular AMD, baseline VA 20/25 to 20/320, and VA measured at 1 year.MethodsParticipants were randomly assigned to ranibizumab or bevacizumab on a monthly or as-needed schedule. Masked readers evaluated fundus morphology and features on optical coherence tomography (OCT). Visual acuity was measured using electronic VA testing. Independent predictors were identified using regression techniques.Main outcome measuresThe VA score, VA score change from baseline, and ?3-line gain at 1 year.ResultsAt 1 year, the mean VA score was 68 letters, mean improvement from baseline was 7 letters, and 28% of participants gained ?3 lines. Older age, larger area of choroidal neovascularization (CNV), and elevation of retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) were associated with worse VA (all P<0.005), less gain in VA (all P<0.02), and a lower proportion gaining ?3 lines (all P<0.04). Better baseline VA was associated with better VA at 1 year, less gain in VA, and a lower proportion gaining ?3 lines (all P<0.0001). Predominantly or minimally classic lesions were associated with worse VA than occult lesions (66 vs. 69 letters; P=0.0003). Retinal angiomatous proliferans (RAP) lesions were associated with more gain in VA (10 vs. 7 letters; P=0.03) and a higher proportion gaining ?3 lines (odds ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-3.1). Geographic atrophy (GA) was associated with worse VA (64 vs. 68 letters; P=0.02). Eyes with total foveal thickness in the second quartile (325-425 ?m) had the best VA (P=0.01) and were most likely to gain ?3 lines (P=0.004). Predictors did not vary by treatment group.ConclusionsFor all treatment groups, older age, better baseline VA, larger CNV area, predominantly or minimally classic lesion, absence of RAP lesion, presence of GA, greater total fovea thickness, and RPE elevation on optical coherence tomography were independently associated with less improvement in VA at 1 year.Financial disclosure(s)The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

Dataset Information

Is it necessary to use three mandatory loading doses when commencing therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration using bevacizumab? (BeMOc Trial).

Publications

Is it necessary to use three mandatory loading doses when commencing therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration using bevacizumab? (BeMOc Trial).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets