Dataset Information

Comparing the Effectiveness of Bevacizumab to Ranibizumab in Patients with Exudative Age-Related Macular Degeneration. The BRAMD Study.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To compare the effectiveness of bevacizumab and ranibizumab in the treatment of exudative age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

Design

Multicentre, randomized, controlled, double-masked clinical trial in 327 patients. The non-inferiority margin was 4 letters.

Patients

Patients ? 60 years of age with primary or recurrent sub- or juxtafoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV) secondary to AMD with a total area of CNV < 12 disc areas and a best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) score between 20 and 78 letters on an EDTRS like chart in the study eye.

Methods

Monthly intravitreal injections with 1.25 mg bevacizumab or 0.5 mg ranibizumab were given during one year. Intention to treat with last observation carried forward analysis was performed.

Main outcome measures

Primary outcome was the change in BCVA in the study eye from baseline to 12 months.

Results

The mean gain in BCVA was 5.1 (±14.1) letters in the bevacizumab group (n = 161) and 6.4 (±12.2) letters in the ranibizumab group (n = 166) (p = 0.37). The lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the difference in BCVA gain was 3.72. The response to bevacizumab was more varied; 24% of patients showed a gain of ?15 letters, 11% a loss of ?15 letters and 65% a gain or loss < 15 letters compared to 19%, 5% and 76% respectively for ranibizumab (p = 0.038). No significant differences in absolute CRT and CRT change (p = 0.13) or in the presence of subretinal or intraretinal fluid (p = 0.14 and 0.10, respectively) were observed. However, the presence of any fluid on SD-OCT (subretinal and/or intraretinal) differed significantly (p = 0.020), with definite fluid on SD-OCT in 45% of the patients for bevacizumab versus 31% for ranibizumab. The occurrence of serious adverse events and adverse events was similar, with 34 SAEs and 256 AEs in the bevacizumab group and 37 SAEs and 299 AEs in the ranibizumab group (p = 0.87 and p = 0.48, respectively).

Conclusions

Bevacizumab was not inferior to ranibizumab. The response to bevacizumab was more varied with higher percentages of both gainers and losers and more frequently observed retinal fluid on SD-OCT at 12 months when compared to the ranibizumab group.

Trial registration

Trialregister.nl NTR1704.

SUBMITTER: Schauwvlieghe AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4874598 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparing the Effectiveness of Bevacizumab to Ranibizumab in Patients with Exudative Age-Related Macular Degeneration. The BRAMD Study.

Schauwvlieghe A M E AM Dijkman G G Hooymans J M JM Verbraak F D FD Hoyng C B CB Dijkgraaf M G W MG Peto T T Vingerling J R JR Schlingemann R O RO

PloS one 20160520 5

<h4>Purpose</h4>To compare the effectiveness of bevacizumab and ranibizumab in the treatment of exudative age-related macular degeneration (AMD).<h4>Design</h4>Multicentre, randomized, controlled, double-masked clinical trial in 327 patients. The non-inferiority margin was 4 letters.<h4>Patients</h4>Patients ≥ 60 years of age with primary or recurrent sub- or juxtafoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV) secondary to AMD with a total area of CNV < 12 disc areas and a best corrected visual acuit ...[more]

PMID: 27203434

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: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:ObjectiveTo assess the incremental cost and cost-effectiveness of continuous and discontinuous regimens of bevacizumab (Avastin) and ranibizumab (Lucentis) for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective.DesignA within-trial cost-utility analysis with a 2-year time horizon, based on a multicentre factorial, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.Setting23 hospital ophthalmology clinics.Participants610 patients aged ?50?years with untreated nAMD in the study eye.Interventions0.5?mg ranibizumab or 1.25?mg bevacizumab given continuously (monthly) or discontinuously (as-needed) for 2?years.Main outcome measuresQuality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).ResultsTotal 2-year costs ranged from £3002/patient ($4700; 95% CI £2601 to £3403) for discontinuous bevacizumab to £18?590/patient ($29?106; 95% CI £18?258 to £18?922) for continuous ranibizumab. Ranibizumab was significantly more costly than bevacizumab for both continuous (+£14?989/patient ($23?468); 95% CI £14?522 to £15?456; p<0.001) and discontinuous treatment (+£8498 ($13?305); 95% CI £7700 to £9295; p<0.001), with negligible difference in QALYs. Continuous ranibizumab would only be cost-effective compared with continuous bevacizumab if the NHS were willing to pay £3.5 million ($5.5 million) per additional QALY gained. Patients receiving continuous bevacizumab accrued higher total costs (+£599 ($938); 95% CI £91 to £1107; p=0.021) than those receiving discontinuous bevacizumab, but also accrued non-significantly more QALYs (+0.020; 95% CI -0.032 to 0.071; p=0.452). Continuous bevacizumab therefore cost £30?220 ($47?316) per QALY gained versus discontinuous bevacizumab. However, bootstrapping demonstrated that if the NHS is willing to pay £20?000/QALY gained, there is a 37% chance that continuous bevacizumab is cost-effective versus discontinuous bevacizumab.ConclusionsRanibizumab is not cost-effective compared with bevacizumab, being substantially more costly and producing little or no QALY gain. Discontinuous bevacizumab is likely to be the most cost-effective of the four treatment strategies evaluated in this UK trial, although there is a 37% chance that continuous bevacizumab is cost-effective.Trial registration numberISRCTN92166560.

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:PURPOSE: To compare fixation location and stability in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) treated with or without ranibizumab. METHODS: Patients were recruited from the Macular Clinic of the King's College Hospital in London. Two groups of patients with neovascular AMD with at least 12 months of follow-up were included in the study. The treated group was treated with ranibizumab while the untreated group did not have any treatment. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) with modified ETDRS chart, fixation location and stability as measured with Nidek MP1, central retinal thickness as measured by Zeiss Cirrus SD-optical coherent tomography (OCT), and lesion size as measured by Topcon TRC-50IX camera were analysed and correlated. RESULTS: In total, 102 eyes were included in the study with 76 in the ranibizumab-treated group and 26 in the untreated group. There were no significantly demographic differences between the two groups. However, as expected, the treated group has significantly better vision (48.5 vs 15.5 letters, P < 0.0001) and smaller lesions (10.8 vs 18.3 mm(2), P = 0.004), the central macular thickness as measured by OCT also showed a trend of normalised macular thickness (252 vs 282 microns, P = 0.07). The location of fixation was significantly more central in the ranibizumab-treated group (χ(2) 17.9, P < 0.0001) with over 50% of eyes with predominantly central fixation. Majority (84.6%) of the patients in the untreated group had predominantly eccentric fixation. Fixation stability was significantly better in the ranibizumab-treated group as compared with the untreated group, using both the software provided by the MP1 machine (χ(2) 21.8, P < 0.0001) and the mean log bivariate contour ellipse area calculated from the raw data obtained from the machine (3.64 vs 4.39 in treated and untreated group respectively, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Low vision rehabilitation strategy for this group of patients in the ranibizumab era will be very different from those used in untreated patients with dense central scotoma. Further studies on the visual rehabilitation in the ranibizumab-treated patients should consider fixation characteristics of the patients.

Dataset Information

Comparing the Effectiveness of Bevacizumab to Ranibizumab in Patients with Exudative Age-Related Macular Degeneration. The BRAMD Study.

Purpose

Design

Patients

Methods

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Comparing the Effectiveness of Bevacizumab to Ranibizumab in Patients with Exudative Age-Related Macular Degeneration. The BRAMD Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets