Dataset Information

Multicentre, randomised clinical trial comparing intravitreal aflibercept monotherapy versus aflibercept combined with reduced-fluence photodynamic therapy (RF-PDT) for the treatment of polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To compare the efficacy and safety of intravitreal aflibercept (IVA) monotherapy versus aflibercept combined with reduced-fluence photodynamic therapy (RF-PDT) (IVA+RF-PDT) for the treatment of polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV).

Methods and analysis

Multicentred, double-masked, randomised controlled trial to compare the two treatment modalities. The primary outcome of the study is to compare the 52-week visual outcome of IVA versus IVA+RF PDT. One hundred and sixty treatment-naïve patients with macular PCV confirmed on indocyanine green angiography will be recruited from three centres in Singapore. Eligible patients will be randomised (1:1 ratio) into one of the following groups: IVA monotherapy group-aflibercept monotherapy with sham photodynamic therapy (n=80); combination group-aflibercept with RF-PDT (n=80). Following baseline visit, all patients will be monitored at 4 weekly intervals during which disease activity will be assessed based on best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), ophthalmic examination findings, optical coherence tomography (OCT) and angiography where indicated. Eyes that meet protocol-specified retreatment criteria will receive IVA and sham/RF-PDT according to their randomisation group. Primary endpoint will be assessed as change in BCVA at week 52 from baseline. Secondary endpoints will include anatomical changes based on OCT and dye angiography as well as safety assessment. Additionally, we will be collecting optical coherence tomography angiography data prospectively for exploratory analysis.

Ethics and dissemination

This study will be conducted in accordance with the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki and that are consistent with the ICH E6 guidelines of Good Clinical Practice and the applicable regulatory requirements. Approval from the SingHealth Centralised Institutional Review Board has been sought prior to commencement of the study.

Trial registration number

NCT03941587.

SUBMITTER: Vyas CH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8286776 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe EVEREST II trial showed that for patients with polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV), intravitreal ranibizumab in combination with verteporfin photodynamic therapy improves visual acuity relative to ranibizumab monotherapy. However, whether combination therapy is incrementally cost-effective relative to monotherapy during a lifetime is unclear.ObjectiveTo assess the incremental cost-effectiveness of combination therapy compared with ranibizumab monotherapy in patients with PCV.Design, setting, and participantsThis model-based, economic evaluation used 2018 unit cost data from a tertiary eye hospital in Singapore, first- and second-year outcomes and resource use data from a multicenter trial across various Asian countries (EVEREST II) to model a hypothetical cohort of patients with symptomatic PCV. Scenario analyses and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to examine uncertainty. Data were collected from October 2018 through April 2019 and analyzed from March through October 2019.InterventionsThis model used data from the EVEREST II trial, in which all participants were given 0.5 mg of intravitreal ranibizumab once every 4 weeks for the first 3 months. Subsequent administration occurred as needed. For participants receiving combination therapy, standard fluence (50 J/cm3) photodynamic therapy with 6-mg/m2 verteporfin was administered once during the first 3 months and thereafter as needed.Main outcomes and measuresIncremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for combination therapy relative to monotherapy for patients with PCV.ResultsIn this model based on a cohort of 1000 patients aged 68 years, a patient with PCV incurred a total cost in Singapore dollars (SGD) of 92 327 (US $67 399) with combination therapy and SGD 92 371 (US $67 431) with monotherapy during a lifetime horizon, generating a modest cost savings of SGD 44 (US $32) per patient undergoing combination therapy. Lifetime QALYs were estimated to be 7.87 for combination therapy and 7.85 for monotherapy, for an incremental gain of 0.02 QALYs. Combination therapy remained cost-saving or cost-effective in all lifetime scenarios modeled, but during shorter time horizons and at lower monotherapy costs, it may not be cost-effective.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found combination therapy to be a dominant (more effective and less costly) strategy, being similar in costs and slightly more effective than ranibizumab monotherapy during a lifetime horizon. However, decreasing the time horizon to less than 10 years and/or reductions in the cost of monotherapy may result in combination therapy no longer being cost-effective.

Project description:PurposeThe purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of intravitreal aflibercept (IVA) with sham photodynamic therapy (sPDT) versus IVA with verteporfin PDT (vPDT) in a Caucasian population with treatment-naive polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV), enrolling into a treat and extend (T&E) regimen.Methods and analysisRandomised, double-masked, sham-controlled, multicentre phase 4 investigator-driven clinical trial. The primary outcomes are (1) change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline and (2) polyp regression at week 52, assessed by indocyanine green angiography (ICGA). Fifty patients with treatment-naive PCV will be recruited from Portuguese and Spanish clinical sites. Eligible patients will receive monthly IVA for 3 months (week 0, week 4 and week 8). At week 16, all patients will repeat ICGA and undergo central randomisation (1:1 ratio) into one of the following groups: Group 1-IVA T&E + vPDT; Group 2-IVA T&E + sPDT. PDT will be performed at week 16, week 28 and week 40 in the presence of active polyps. After week 16, the presence of macular fluid on optical coherence tomography will determine the schedule of observations. When present, the interval between visits/injections will decrease 2 weeks (minimum 6 weeks). When not, the interval between visits/injections will increase 2 weeks (maximum 12 weeks). Efficacy will be evaluated based on BCVA, central retinal thickness and polyp regression. Safety parameters will include assessment of intraocular pressure, adverse events and serious adverse events.Ethics and disseminationThis study was designed and shall be implemented and reported in accordance with the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) Harmonised Tripartite Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice, with applicable local regulations and with the ethical principles laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki. The study received approval from Comissão de Ética para a Investigação Clínica and Comité Ético de investigación Clínica del Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge.Trial registration numberThis study is registered under the EudraCT number: 2015-001368-20 and the ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02495181.