Dataset Information

Effect of Bevacizumab vs Aflibercept on Visual Acuity Among Patients With Macular Edema Due to Central Retinal Vein Occlusion: The SCORE2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Studies have established the efficacy and safety of aflibercept for the treatment of macular edema due to central retinal vein occlusion. Bevacizumab is used off-label to treat this condition despite the absence of supporting data.

Objective

To investigate whether bevacizumab is noninferior to aflibercept for the treatment of macular edema secondary to central retinal or hemiretinal vein occlusion.

Design, setting, and participants

The SCORE2 randomized noninferiority clinical trial was conducted at 66 private practice or academic centers in the United States, and included 362 patients with macular edema due to central retinal or hemiretinal vein occlusion who were randomized 1:1 to receive aflibercept or bevacizumab. The first participant was randomized on September 17, 2014, and the last month 6 visit occurred on May 6, 2016. Analyses included data available as of December 30, 2016.

Interventions

Eyes were randomized to receive intravitreal injection of bevacizumab (1.25 mg; n = 182) or aflibercept (2.0 mg; n = 180) every 4 weeks through month 6.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was mean change in visual acuity (VA) letter score (VALS) from the randomization visit to the 6-month follow-up visit, based on the best-corrected electronic Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study VALS (scores range from 0-100; higher scores indicate better VA). The noninferiority margin was 5 letters, and statistical testing for noninferiority was based on a 1-sided 97.5% confidence interval.

Results

Among 362 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 69 [12] years; 157 [43.4%] women; mean [SD] VALS at baseline, 50.3 [15.2] [approximate Snellen VA 20/100]), 348 (96.1%) completed the month 6 follow-up visit. At month 6, the mean VALS was 69.3 (a mean increase from baseline of 18.6) in the bevacizumab group and 69.3 (a mean increase from baseline of 18.9) in the aflibercept group (model-based estimate of between-group difference, -0.14; 97.5% CI, -3.07 to ∞; P = .001 for noninferiority), meeting criteria for noninferiority. Ocular adverse events in the aflibercept group included 4 participants with intraocular pressure (IOP) more than 10 mm Hg greater than baseline; ocular adverse events in the bevacizumab group included 1 participant with endophthalmitis (culture negative), 9 with IOP more than 10 mm Hg greater than baseline, 2 with IOP higher than 35 mm Hg, and 1 with angle-closure glaucoma not attributed to the study drug or procedure.

Conclusions and relevance

Among patients with macular edema due to central retinal or hemiretinal vein occlusion, intravitreal bevacizumab was noninferior to aflibercept with respect to visual acuity after 6 months of treatment.

SUBMITTER: Scott IU

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5710547 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:The comparative clinical effectiveness of ranibizumab, aflibercept, and bevacizumab for the management of macular edema due to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) is unclear. Objective:To determine whether intravitreal aflibercept or bevacizumab compared with ranibizumab results in a noninferior mean change in vision at 100 weeks for eyes with CRVO-related macular edema. Design, Setting, and Participants:This prospective, 3-arm, double-masked, randomized noninferiority trial (Lucentis, Eylea, Avastin in Vein Occlusion [LEAVO] Study) took place from December 12, 2014, through December 16, 2016, at 44 UK National Health Service ophthalmology departments. Inclusion criteria included age 18 years or older, visual impairment due to CRVO-related macular edema of less than 12 months with best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letter score (approximate Snellen equivalent) in the study eye between 19 (20/400) and 78 (20/32), and spectral domain optical coherence tomography imaging central subfield thickness of 320 ?m or greater. Data were analyzed from March 4, 2019, to April 26, 2019. Interventions:Participants were randomized (1:1:1) to receive repeated intravitreal injections of ranibizumab (0.5 mg/0.05 mL) (n?=?155), aflibercept (2.0 mg/0.05 mL) (n?=?154), or bevacizumab (1.25 mg/0.05 mL) (n?=?154) for 100 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures:Adjusted mean change in BCVA in the study eye at 100 weeks wherein noninferiority was concluded if the lower bounds of the 95% CI of both the intention-to-treat and the per protocol analyses were above -5 letters. Results:Of 463 participants, 265 (57.2%) were male, with a mean (SD) age of 69.1 (13.0) years. The mean (SD) gain in BCVA letter score was 12.5 (21.1) for ranibizumab, 15.1 (18.7) for aflibercept, and 9.8 (21.4) for bevacizumab at 100 weeks. Aflibercept was noninferior to ranibizumab (intention-to-treat-adjusted mean BCVA difference, 2.23 letters; 95% CI, -2.17 to 6.63 letters; P?<?.001). Bevacizumab was not noninferior to ranibizumab (intention-to-treat-adjusted mean BCVA difference, -1.73 letters; 95% CI, -6.12 to 2.67 letters; P?=?.07). The per protocol analysis conclusions were similar. Fewer mean injections were given in the aflibercept group (10.0) than in the ranibizumab (11.8) group (mean difference at 100 weeks, -1.9; 95% CI, -2.9 to -0.8). Conclusions and Relevance:Mean changes in vision after treatment of macular edema due to CRVO were no worse using aflibercept compared with ranibizumab. Mean changes in vision using bevacizumab compared with ranibizumab were inconclusive regarding vision outcomes (ie, the change in visual acuity from baseline, on average, may be worse or may not be worse when using bevacizumab compared with ranibizumab). Trial Registration:ISRCTN13623634.

Project description:ImportanceMacular edema (ME) is the leading cause of decreased visual acuity (VA) associated with retinal vein occlusion (RVO). Identifying factors associated with better outcomes in RVO eyes treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy may provide information useful in counseling patients.ObjectiveTo investigate baseline characteristics associated with 6-month VA and central subfield thickness (CST) outcomes in participants in the Study of Comparative Treatments for Retinal Vein Occlusion 2 (SCORE2).Design, setting, and participantsA total of 362 patients with central RVO or hemi-RVO were enrolled between September 17, 2014, and November 18, 2015, and randomized 1:1 in a masked fashion to receive bevacizumab or aflibercept. At month 6, 348 participants (96%) had VA outcomes measured and 335 participants (93%) had spectral domain optical coherence tomography outcomes measured. The current data analysis was conducted from February 27, 2017, to April 7, 2017.InterventionsEyes were randomly assigned to receive an intravitreal injection of bevacizumab, 1.25 mg, or aflibercept, 2.0 mg, at baseline and every 4 weeks, with the primary outcome measured at 6 months.Main outcomes and measuresChange from baseline in VA letter score (VALS), VALS gain of 15 or more, change from baseline in CST, CST less than 300 µm, and resolution of ME. Baseline factors associated with 6-month outcome at the 0.05 level in univariate regressions were included in multivariate regressions, with those significant after multiplicity control by the Hochberg method reported.ResultsThe mean (SD) age of patients was 69 (12) years, and 43% were women. Younger patient age (odds ratio [OR], 0.95 per year of age; 95% CI, 0.93-0.98; P = .007) and lower baseline VALS (OR, 0.96 per letter; 95% CI, 0.94-0.98; P < .001) were associated with a 6-month VALS gain of 15 or greater. Compared with bevacizumab, aflibercept treatment was associated with a higher odds of ME resolution (OR, 3.59; 95% CI, 2.22-5.80; P < .001) and CST less than 300 µm (OR, 5.30; 95% CI, 2.40-11.67; P = .001), but not with a better VA outcome. Macular edema was less likely to resolve in eyes that received anti-VEGF treatment prior to study participation (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.17-0.64; P = .03).Conclusions and relevanceIn eyes treated with bevacizumab or aflibercept, younger age and worse baseline VALS were associated with better 6-month VA outcomes. Aflibercept treatment was associated with more favorable spectral domain optical coherence tomography outcomes but not VA outcomes. These findings may be useful in assessing expected response at month 6 after monthly injection of anti-VEGF agents for treating ME due to CRVO and HRVO.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01969708.

Project description:ImportanceThe DRCR Retina Network Protocol AC showed no significant difference in visual acuity outcomes over 2 years between treatment with aflibercept monotherapy and bevacizumab first with switching to aflibercept for suboptimal response in treating diabetic macular edema (DME). Understanding the estimated cost and cost-effectiveness of these approaches is important.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost and cost-effectiveness of aflibercept monotherapy vs bevacizumab-first strategies for DME treatment.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation was a preplanned secondary analysis of a US randomized clinical trial of participants aged 18 years or older with center-involved DME and best-corrected visual acuity of 20/50 to 20/320 enrolled from December 15, 2017, through November 25, 2019.InterventionsAflibercept monotherapy or bevacizumab first, switching to aflibercept in eyes with protocol-defined suboptimal response.Main outcomes and measuresBetween February and July 2022, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) over 2 years was assessed. Efficacy and resource utilization data from the randomized clinical trial were used with health utility mapping from the literature and Medicare unit costs.ResultsThis study included 228 participants (median age, 62 [range, 34-91 years; 116 [51%] female and 112 [49%] male; 44 [19%] Black or African American, 60 [26%] Hispanic or Latino, and 117 [51%] White) with 1 study eye. The aflibercept monotherapy group included 116 participants, and the bevacizumab-first group included 112, of whom 62.5% were eventually switched to aflibercept. Over 2 years, the cost of aflibercept monotherapy was $26 504 (95% CI, $24 796-$28 212) vs $13 929 (95% CI, $11 984-$15 874) for the bevacizumab-first group, a difference of $12 575 (95% CI, $9987-$15 163). The aflibercept monotherapy group gained 0.015 (95% CI, -0.011 to 0.041) QALYs using the better-seeing eye and had an ICER of $837 077 per QALY gained compared with the bevacizumab-first group. Aflibercept could be cost-effective with an ICER of $100 000 per QALY if the price per dose were $305 or less or the price of bevacizumab was $1307 per dose or more.Conclusions and relevanceVariability in individual needs will influence clinician and patient decisions about how to treat specific eyes with DME. While the bevacizumab-first group costs still averaged approximately $14 000 over 2 years, this approach, as used in this study, may confer substantial cost savings on a societal level without sacrificing visual acuity gains over 2 years compared with aflibercept monotherapy.

Project description:BackgroundThe relative efficacy and safety of intravitreous aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab in the treatment of diabetic macular edema are unknown.MethodsAt 89 clinical sites, we randomly assigned 660 adults (mean age, 61±10 years) with diabetic macular edema involving the macular center to receive intravitreous aflibercept at a dose of 2.0 mg (224 participants), bevacizumab at a dose of 1.25 mg (218 participants), or ranibizumab at a dose of 0.3 mg (218 participants). The study drugs were administered as often as every 4 weeks, according to a protocol-specified algorithm. The primary outcome was the mean change in visual acuity at 1 year.ResultsFrom baseline to 1 year, the mean visual-acuity letter score (range, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better visual acuity; a score of 85 is approximately 20/20) improved by 13.3 with aflibercept, by 9.7 with bevacizumab, and by 11.2 with ranibizumab. Although the improvement was greater with aflibercept than with the other two drugs (P<0.001 for aflibercept vs. bevacizumab and P=0.03 for aflibercept vs. ranibizumab), it was not clinically meaningful, because the difference was driven by the eyes with worse visual acuity at baseline (P<0.001 for interaction). When the initial visual-acuity letter score was 78 to 69 (equivalent to approximately 20/32 to 20/40) (51% of participants), the mean improvement was 8.0 with aflibercept, 7.5 with bevacizumab, and 8.3 with ranibizumab (P>0.50 for each pairwise comparison). When the initial letter score was less than 69 (approximately 20/50 or worse), the mean improvement was 18.9 with aflibercept, 11.8 with bevacizumab, and 14.2 with ranibizumab (P<0.001 for aflibercept vs. bevacizumab, P=0.003 for aflibercept vs. ranibizumab, and P=0.21 for ranibizumab vs. bevacizumab). There were no significant differences among the study groups in the rates of serious adverse events (P=0.40), hospitalization (P=0.51), death (P=0.72), or major cardiovascular events (P=0.56).ConclusionsIntravitreous aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab improved vision in eyes with center-involved diabetic macular edema, but the relative effect depended on baseline visual acuity. When the initial visual-acuity loss was mild, there were no apparent differences, on average, among study groups. At worse levels of initial visual acuity, aflibercept was more effective at improving vision. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01627249.).

Project description:BackgroundIn eyes with diabetic macular edema, the relative efficacy of administering aflibercept monotherapy as compared with bevacizumab first with a switch to aflibercept if the eye condition does not improve sufficiently (a form of step therapy) is unclear.MethodsAt 54 clinical sites, we randomly assigned eyes in adults who had diabetic macular edema involving the macular center and a visual-acuity letter score of 24 to 69 (on a scale from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better visual acuity; Snellen equivalent, 20/320 to 20/50) to receive either 2.0 mg of intravitreous aflibercept or 1.25 mg of intravitreous bevacizumab. The drug was administered at randomization and thereafter according to the prespecified retreatment protocol. Beginning at 12 weeks, eyes in the bevacizumab-first group were switched to aflibercept therapy if protocol-specified criteria were met. The primary outcome was the mean change in visual acuity over the 2-year trial period. Retinal central subfield thickness and visual acuity at 2 years and safety were also assessed.ResultsA total of 312 eyes (in 270 adults) underwent randomization; 158 eyes were assigned to receive aflibercept monotherapy and 154 to receive bevacizumab first. Over the 2-year period, 70% of the eyes in the bevacizumab-first group were switched to aflibercept therapy. The mean improvement in visual acuity was 15.0 letters in the aflibercept-monotherapy group and 14.0 letters in the bevacizumab-first group (adjusted difference, 0.8 letters; 95% confidence interval, -0.9 to 2.5; P = 0.37). At 2 years, the mean changes in visual acuity and retinal central subfield thickness were similar in the two groups. Serious adverse events (in 52% of the patients in the aflibercept-monotherapy group and in 36% of those in the bevacizumab-first group) and hospitalizations for adverse events (in 48% and 32%, respectively) were more common in the aflibercept-monotherapy group.ConclusionsIn this trial of treatment of moderate vision loss due to diabetic macular edema involving the center of the macula, we found no evidence of a significant difference in visual outcomes over a 2-year period between aflibercept monotherapy and treatment with bevacizumab first with a switch to aflibercept in the case of suboptimal response. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; Protocol AC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03321513.).