Dataset Information

Comparative Safety of Bevacizumab, Ranibizumab, and Aflibercept for Treatment of Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD): A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Direct Comparative Studies.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Since the efficacy of ranibizumab (RBZ), bevacizumab (BVZ) and aflibercept (AFB) is comparable in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD), we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the long-term safety profiles of these agents, including ocular safety. METHODS:Systematic review identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RBZ, BVZ and AFB directly published before March 2019. Serious ocular adverse events (SOAE) of special interest were endophthalmitis, pseudo-endophthalmitis, retinal pigment epithelium tear and newly identified macular atrophy. RESULTS:Thirteen RCTs selected for meta-analysis (4952 patients, 8723 people-years follow-up): 10 compared RBZ vs. BVZ and three RBZ vs. AFB. There were no significant differences in almost all adverse events (systemic and ocular) between BVZ, RBZ and AFB in up to two years' follow-up. Macular atrophy was reported heterogeneously and not reported as SOAE in most trials. CONCLUSIONS:Direct comparison of RBZ, BVZ and AFB safety profiles in the RCT network meta-analytical setting have not revealed a consistent benefit of these three commonly used anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents in AMD. Network model ranking highlighted potential benefits of RBZ in terms of a systemic safety profile; however, this appears a hypothesis rather than a conclusion. Newly identified macular atrophy is underestimated in RCTs-future real-world data should be focused on SOAE.

SUBMITTER: Plyukhova AA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7291235 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative Safety of Bevacizumab, Ranibizumab, and Aflibercept for Treatment of Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD): A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Direct Comparative Studies.

Plyukhova Anna A AA Budzinskaya Maria V MV Starostin Kirill M KM Rejdak Robert R Bucolo Claudio C Reibaldi Michele M Toro Mario D MD

Journal of clinical medicine 20200518 5

<h4>Background</h4>Since the efficacy of ranibizumab (RBZ), bevacizumab (BVZ) and aflibercept (AFB) is comparable in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD), we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the long-term safety profiles of these agents, including ocular safety.<h4>Methods</h4>Systematic review identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RBZ, BVZ and AFB directly published before March 2019. Serious ocular adverse events (SOAE) of special in ...[more]

PMID: 32443612

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:BackgroundAnti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents have become the standard of care in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). Despite generally excellent response rates to anti-VEGF therapy, some patients do not respond or may respond suboptimally. In the case of refractory or rapidly recurring fluid in nAMD, clinicians may switch to another anti-VEGF agent. TITAN was an observational study that assessed the effectiveness and safety of intravitreal aflibercept (IVT-AFL) in patients with nAMD refractory to ranibizumab who switched to IVT-AFL after less than 12?months of ranibizumab treatment in routine clinical practice in France.MethodsTITAN was an observational, retrospective and prospective 12-month study conducted at 28 centres in France. Patients with nAMD refractory to ranibizumab were enrolled. Patients who were switched from ranibizumab to IVT-AFL were followed for 12?months. Data were obtained from medical records for retrospectively included patients, and at routine follow-up visits for those included prospectively. The main outcome measure was percentage of patients who achieved treatment success (gain of ?1 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters in best-corrected visual acuity [BCVA] and/or any reduction in central retinal thickness [CRT]) from baseline to 12?months after switching. A sample size of 225 patients was determined based on a 2-sided 95% confidence interval with a width equal to 0.12 when the sample proportion was 0.70.ResultsWe analysed safety data (N =?217) and clinical outcomes from patients in the per-protocol population (n =?125). The mean (standard deviation) number of IVT-AFL injections was 7.5 (2.6). Treatment success was achieved in 68.8% of patients. Mean BCVA change from baseline to Month 12 was +?1.5 letters (P =?0.105) and the mean CRT change was -?45.0??m (P <? 0.001). In a subgroup analysis, in patients who received three initial monthly IVT-AFL injections, mean BCVA gain was 3.3 letters at Month 12 (P =?0.015). Excluding lack of efficacy and inappropriate scheduling of drug administration, the most common adverse event was eye pain (2.3%).ConclusionsSwitching ranibizumab-refractory patients with nAMD to IVT-AFL may improve visual outcomes in some patients, particularly those who receive three initial monthly injections.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02321241 . First posted: December 22, 2014; Last update posted: July 2, 2018.

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: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: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.

Dataset Information

Comparative Safety of Bevacizumab, Ranibizumab, and Aflibercept for Treatment of Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD): A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Direct Comparative Studies.

Publications

Comparative Safety of Bevacizumab, Ranibizumab, and Aflibercept for Treatment of Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD): A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Direct Comparative Studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets