Dataset Information

Resource Use and Real-World Outcomes for Ranibizumab Treat and Extend for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration in the UK: Interim Results from TERRA.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Ranibizumab is an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor-A (anti-VEGF) approved for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). The treat and extend (T&E) regimen can potentially reduce the burden of clinic visits compared with a pro re nata (PRN) regimen. Retrospective, interim analyses of clinical effectiveness, treatment and resource use patterns were conducted using real-world data in England and Wales from the TERRA study.

Methods

Two cohorts, those switching from a PRN to a T&E regimen ('prior PRN') and those initiating ranibizumab on the T&E regimen as their first anti-VEGF therapy ('anti-VEGF-naïve') were enrolled in TERRA. Retrospective clinical assessments were gathered from medical records, while resource use patterns were collected via an operating cost questionnaire completed by each study site.

Results

At the interim analysis cut-off date (15 November 2016), 11 sites had enrolled 145 patients (prior PRN: n = 110; anti-VEGF-naïve: n = 35). Mean change from baseline (date of first injection) in visual acuity and central subfield retinal thickness to 12 months was +7.6 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.8, 12.4; p = 0.003; n = 27] and -67.7 μm (95% CI -106.5, -28.9; p = 0.001, n = 29), respectively, in the anti-VEGF-naïve cohort. Most T&E clinics were run as one-stop services (same-day monitoring and injection), whereas 4/10 PRN clinics were run as two-stop services (monitoring and injection on different days). In general, one-stop clinics used less staff resources and were likely to be shorter in duration for healthcare providers than the cumulative time spent for two-stop clinics.

Conclusion

This is the first real-world observational study conducted in England and Wales demonstrating the effectiveness of the ranibizumab T&E regimen in anti-VEGF-naïve patients. T&E is compatible with one-stop clinic services, which these real-world data suggest to be less resource intensive than two-stop clinic services, possibly providing a dosing regimen beneficial to both patients and resource burden in UK clinical practice.

Funding

Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Limited.

SUBMITTER: Yang Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5449310 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceTo our knowledge, this is the first randomized clinical trial to compare visual outcomes and injection loads between ranibizumab and aflibercept using an identical treat-and-extend (TE) regimen for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).ObjectiveTo report the results of the preplanned 12-month interim analysis of 2 predefined secondary efficacy end points of a randomized clinical trial.Design, setting, and participantsThe Comparison of Ranibizumab and Aflibercept for the Development of Geographic Atrophy in (Wet) AMD Patients (RIVAL) trial was conducted in 24 sites in Australia and included 281 treatment-naive eyes from 281 participants with active choroidal neovascularization secondary to nAMD and a visual acuity letter score of 23 or greater who were recruited between April 11, 2014, and October 31, 2015. A preplanned interim analysis was performed at month 12. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) assessors and the central reading center, which determined treatment intervals, were masked to treatment assignments.InterventionsParticipants were randomized (1:1) to receive intravitreal injections of 0.5 mg of ranibizumab or 2.0 mg of aflibercept. After receiving 3 initial monthly injections, participants entered the TE phase.Main outcomes and measuresMean change in BCVA and the number of injections from baseline to month 12.ResultsOf 281 participants, 148 (52.7%) were women and the mean (SD) age was 77.7 (8.1) years. The baseline mean BCVA letter score (approximate Snellen equivalent) was 65.3 (20/50) in the ranibizumab arm and 65.1 (20/50) in the aflibercept arm. One hundred twenty-seven ranibizumab participants (90.1%) and 121 aflibercept participants (88.3%) completed month 12 with a mean (SD [Snellen equivalent]) BCVA letter score of 72.9 (15.5 [20/32]) and 70.5 (14.6 [20/40]), respectively. The mean change in BCVA letter scores from baseline to month 12 was 7.2 (95% CI, 5.5-8.9) for ranibizumab and 4.9 (95% CI, 3.1-6.6) for aflibercept (letter score difference, 2.3; 95% CI, -0.1 to 4.7; P = .06). The mean number of injections from baseline to month 12 was 9.7 in both the ranibizumab (SD, 2.8) and aflibercept (SD, 2.6) arms with a rate ratio of 1.00 (95% CI, 1.0-1.1; P = .86).Conclusions and relevanceOur findings suggest that neither aflibercept nor ranibizumab for nAMD are superior to the other regarding the average visual acuity gains and number of injections during 1 year in a TE regimen. Further follow-up to 2 years may determine if advantages of one over the other can be identified.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.Gov identifier: NCT02130024.

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:ImportanceAlthough the Canadian Treat-and-Extend Analysis Trial With Ranibizumab in Patients With Neovascular Age-Related Macular Disease (CANTREAT) reported herein and the Treat and Extend study provided data to show noninferiority of treat-and-extend (T&E) at 12 months, to date there are few data on 24-month T&E trials compared with monthly dosing.ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of ranibizumab using a T&E regimen to monthly dosing in treatment-naive patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) after 24 months.Design, setting, and participantsA randomized, open-label, multicenter, noninferiority intention-to-treat trial with a margin of -5 letters in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline to 12 months between groups was conducted at 27 treatment centers in Canada. Participants included 580 patients with treatment-naive choroidal neovascularization secondary to AMD. The study was conducted from May 8, 2013, to August 28, 2018, and data analysis was performed between August 29 and September 12, 2018.InterventionsPatients with nAMD were randomized 1:1 to receive intravitreal ranibizumab, 0.5 mg, in either a T&E or monthly dosing regimen.Main outcomes and measuresMean change in BCVA in Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters from baseline to month 24.ResultsOf the 580 randomized patients, 350 were women (60.3%) and 547 were white (94.3%). Mean (SD) age was 78.8 (7.8) years. By the end of month 24, 466 of the 580 randomized patients (80.3%) had completed the study and participants in the T&E arm received a mean of 17.6 injections compared with 23.5 injections for the monthly arm, for a difference of 5.9 injections and visits over 2 years (95% CI, 5.4-6.5; P < .001). The mean (SD) BCVA improvement was not worse with the T&E arm, 6.8 (14.1) letters vs 6.0 (12.6) letters, compared with the monthly arm (difference, 0.9; 95% CI, -1.6 to 3.3; P = .21). There was a gain of 15 or more letters in 25.5% of the T&E group and 23.1% of the monthly treatment group (difference, 2.4%; 95% CI, -6.8% to 11.6%; P = .59) and a loss of 15 or more letters in 6.5% of the T&E group and 5.8% of the monthly treatment group (difference, -0.7%; 95% CI, -9.9% to 8.5%; P = .85).Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that change in vision from baseline is not worse with a T&E compared with a monthly regimen of ranibizumab for nAMD through 24 months, achieving clinically meaningful improvements in BCVA despite fewer injections and visits.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02103738.

Project description:PurposeTo compare the efficacy and safety of conbercept using a treat-and-extend (T&E) regimen vs. a pro re nata (PRN) regimen in Chinese patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).MethodsThis was a randomized, multicenter, non-inferiority study. After an initial loading phase of three consecutive monthly intravitreal injections of 0.5 mg Conbercept, the patients were treated to PRN or T&E regimen. The prespecified retreatment criteria was defined as a more than 5-letter decrease in BCVA from the previous visit or any evidence of new retinal hemorrhages, or the presence of any IRF and any SRF of more than 200 μm in height at the sub-foveal center. The primary outcome was the mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline to 24 months, with a prespecified non-inferiority limit of -5 letters.ResultsFrom July 2016 through August 2018, 141 participants were allocated and treated (T&E, n = 69; PRN, n = 72). About one fifth of the overall participants were dropped out during the 12-month follow-up (28/141, 19.9%), and about one thirds of the overall participants were lost during the 24-month follow-up (51/141, 36%). At 2 years, mean BCVA letter improvement was + 4.0 in the T&E group vs. + 5.1 in the PRN group, and T&E regimen was not non-inferior to PRN regimen [difference, -1.169 letters; 95% confidence interval (CI): -6.864 ∼ 4.526]. Subgroup analyses also demonstrate the similar results in PCV patients, naive patients and no-naive patients. The mean decrease in central subfield thickness were 180 ± 165 μm in the T&E group and 247 ± 230 μm in the PRN group, respectively. The patients in the PRN group had required significantly fewer injections than those in the T&E group (12.4 vs. 14.6 injections, P = 0.041). The types and rates of adverse events were comparable in the two treatment groups.ConclusionThese findings suggest that the T&E regimen was not non-inferior to the PRN regimen in patients with nAMD in terms of BCVA outcomes through 24 months.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02802657.

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.