Dataset Information

A Retrospective Study of Ranibizumab Treatment Regimens for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration (nAMD) in Australia and the United Kingdom.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) is the leading cause of vision loss among persons aged 65 years and older. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment is the recommended standard of care. The current study compares the effectiveness of ranibizumab in routine clinical practice in two countries that generally apply two different treatment regimens, treat-and-extend (T&E) in Australia or pro re nata (PRN) in the UK.

Methods

This retrospective, comparative, non-randomised cohort study is based on patients' data from electronic medical record (EMR) databases in Australia and the UK. Treatment regimens were defined based on location, with Australia as a proxy for analysing T&E and UK as a proxy for analysing PRN. The study included patients with a diagnosis of nAMD who started treatment with ranibizumab between January 2009 and July 2014. A total of 647 eyes of 570 patients in Australia and 3187 eyes of 2755 patients in the UK with complete 12-months follow-up were analysed.

Results

Baseline patient characteristics were comparable between the two cohorts. After 1 year of treatment, T&E-treated eyes achieved higher mean (±SE) visual acuity (VA) gains (5.00 ± 0.54 letters [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.93-6.06]) than PRN-treated eyes [3.04 ± 0.24 letters (95% CI 2.57-3.51); difference in means 2.07 ± 0.69 (95% CI 0.73-3.41), p < 0.001]. Non-inferiority of T&E compared to PRN was concluded based on the change in mean visual acuity gains at 12 months. Over the 12-month follow-up, T&E-treated eyes received a higher mean [±standard deviation (SD)] number of injections (9.29 ± 2.43) than PRN-treated eyes (6.04 ± 2.19) (p < 0.0001). Australian patients had a lower mean (±SD) number of total clinic visits (10.29 ± 2.90) than UK patients (11.47 ± 2.93) (p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

The higher injection frequency in the T&E cohort may account for the trend toward improved vision.

Funding

Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.

SUBMITTER: Johnston RL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5350206 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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:Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) is a common world-wide cause of visual loss. Intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents are an effective means to treat nAMD and reduce its impact on vision compared to either sham treatment or photodynamic therapy. Currently, the approved anti-VEGF drugs include ranibizumab, aflibercept and brolucizumab. In addition, bevacizumab, used as an off-label drug, and has been shown to be effective in treating nAMD. While anti-VEGF agents are effective, its limitations include the requirement for frequent, often monthly injections, and the need for long-term treatment of nAMD. These present significant burdens on the healthcare system and on the patients. In addition, reviews of patients with nAMD treated with anti-VEGF have reported deterioration of vision over time with progression of geographic atrophy. These limitations are partly addressed by exploring different treatment regimens that reduce the frequency of treatments. Newer anti-VEGF drugs have been shown in Phase III clinical trials to have injection intervals as long as 12 or even 16 weeks for a proportion of patients. There is research on newer drugs that affect other pathways, such as the angiopoietin pathway, which may impact nAMD by extending the treatment interval and reducing the burden of treatment. Other measures include the use of sustained-release implants that release the drug regularly over a period of time, and can be refilled periodically, as well as hydrogel platforms that serve to release the drug. The use of biosimilars will also serve to reduce the cost of treatment for nAMD. A new frontier of gene therapy, primarily targeting genes involved in the transduction of retinal cells to produce anti-VEGF proteins intraocularly, also opens a new avenue of therapeutic approaches that can be used for treatment. This review paper will discuss both current treatment options and the newer treatments under development.

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:PurposeNeovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) shows variable treatment response to intravitreal anti-VEGF. This analysis compared the potential of different artificial intelligence (AI)-based machine learning models using OCT and clinical variables to accurately predict at baseline the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 9 months in response to ranibizumab in patients with nAMD.DesignRetrospective analysis.ParticipantsBaseline and imaging data from patients with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization secondary to age-related macular dengeration.MethodsBaseline data from 502 study eyes from the HARBOR (NCT00891735) prospective clinical trial (monthly ranibizumab 0.5 and 2.0 mg arms) were pooled; 432 baseline OCT volume scans were included in the analysis. Seven models, based on baseline quantitative OCT features (Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator [Lasso] OCT minimum [min], Lasso OCT 1 standard error [SE]); on quantitative OCT features and clinical variables at baseline (Lasso min, Lasso 1SE, CatBoost, RF [random forest]); or on baseline OCT images only (deep learning [DL] model), were systematically compared with a benchmark linear model of baseline age and BCVA. Quantitative OCT features were derived by a DL segmentation model on the volume images, including retinal layer volumes and thicknesses, and retinal fluid biomarkers, including statistics on fluid volume and distribution.Main outcome measuresPrognostic ability of the models was evaluated using coefficient of determination (R2) and median absolute error (MAE; letters).ResultsIn the first cross-validation split, mean R2 (MAE) of the Lasso min, Lasso 1SE, CatBoost, and RF models was 0.46 (7.87), 0.42 (8.43), 0.45 (7.75), and 0.43 (7.60), respectively. These models ranked higher than or similar to the benchmark model (mean R2, 0.41; mean MAE, 8.20 letters) and better than OCT-only models (mean R2: Lasso OCT min, 0.20; Lasso OCT 1SE, 0.16; DL, 0.34). The Lasso min model was selected for detailed analysis; mean R2 (MAE) of the Lasso min and benchmark models for 1000 repeated cross-validation splits were 0.46 (7.7) and 0.42 (8.0), respectively.ConclusionsMachine learning models based on AI-segmented OCT features and clinical variables at baseline may predict future response to ranibizumab treatment in patients with nAMD. However, further developments will be needed to realize the clinical utility of such AI-based tools.Financial disclosuresProprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.