Macular Degeneration: Fish GE

Bressler NM, Arnold J, Benchaboune M, Blumenkranz MS, Fish GE, Gragoudas ES, Lewis H, Schmidt-Erfurth U, Slakter JS, Bressler SB, Manos K, Hao Y, Hayes L, Koester J, Reaves A, Strong HA, Anonymous00111. · Wilmer Photograph Reading Center, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205-2002, USA. · Arch Ophthalmol. · Pubmed #12427056 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To explore how baseline lesion composition influenced vision outcomes in patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) undergoing photodynamic therapy with verteporfin (Visudyne) for subfoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV) in the Treatment of Age-Related Macular Degeneration With Photodynamic Therapy Investigation. METHODS: Patients with subfoveal lesions secondary to AMD with evidence of classic CNV were categorized into 2 subgroups based on baseline color photographs and fluorescein angiograms assessed by graders at the Wilmer Photograph Reading Center (The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine) before any outcome analyses as follows: (1) predominantly classic CNV (area of classic CNV >/=50% of the area of the entire lesion) or (2) minimally classic CNV (area of classic CNV <50% but >0% of the area of the entire lesion). Additional exploratory analyses were performed in the predominantly classic subgroup to investigate the effects of visual acuity, lesion size, prior laser photocoagulation, phakic status, micronutrient use, and presence of occult CNV on vision outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Subgroup analyses of vision and fluorescein angiographic outcomes at 1 and 2 years after study enrollment were examined in an intent-to-treat analysis from 2 multicenter, double-masked, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials. RESULTS: Compared with patients who had minimally classic CNV, patients with predominantly classic CNV had a worse initial mean visual acuity and smaller lesions and were more likely to have lesions that included blood or blocked fluorescence. When evaluated by treatment assignment and lesion composition, 84% to 88% completed the month 24 examination. In the subgroup with predominantly classic lesions, visual acuity outcomes were consistently better in verteporfin-treated patients. Outcomes for patients with predominantly classic lesions without occult CNV tended to be better than outcomes for patients with predominantly classic lesions with occult CNV, although the former tended to have smaller lesions and lower levels of visual acuity at baseline. Contrast sensitivity and fluorescein angiographic outcomes (total lesion size, progression of classic CNV, and absence of classic CNV) were better in verteporfin-treated patients than in placebo-treated patients in the predominantly classic and the minimally classic CNV subgroups. In patients with predominantly classic CNV, no interaction of the treatment benefit by phakic status, micronutrient use, or prior laser photocoagulation therapy was noted. CONCLUSIONS: Verteporfin therapy can safely reduce the risk of moderate and severe vision loss in patients with subfoveal lesions that are predominantly classic CNV secondary to AMD. While this benefit seemed to be even greater in the absence of occult CNV, the effect may be related to the smaller lesions and worse visual acuity associated with predominantly classic lesions without occult CNV and not solely to the lesion composition itself. These analyses support initial reports that verteporfin therapy should be used to treat patients with AMD who have predominantly classic CNV, with or without occult CNV, but suggest that further investigations should be performed to determine if lesions with a minimally classic composition might benefit when they are smaller and have lower levels of visual acuity.

Blumenkranz MS, Bressler NM, Bressler SB, Donati G, Fish GE, Haynes LA, Lewis H, Miller JW, Monés JM, Potter MJ, Pournaras C, Reaves A, Rosenfeld PJ, Schachat AP, Schmidt-Erfurth U, Sickenburg M, Singerman LJ, Slakter JS, Strong A, Vannier S, Anonymous00194. · No affiliation provided · Arch Ophthalmol. · Pubmed #12365909 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To report vision and safety outcomes from an extension of a 2-year investigation evaluating verteporfin photodynamic therapy in patients with age-related macular degeneration with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV). DESIGN AND SETTING: Open-label extension of selected patients from 2 multicenter, double-masked, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials, the Treatment of Age-Related Macular Degeneration With Photodynamic Therapy (TAP) Investigation, at 22 ophthalmology practices in Europe and North America. PARTICIPANTS: Patients enrolled in the TAP Investigation and followed up for at least 24 months in whom verteporfin therapy to CNV might reduce the risk of further vision loss. METHODS: Before receiving verteporfin therapy in the extension, eligible patients signed a written informed consent form accompanied by an oral consent process approved by local institutional review boards. Methods were similar to those described for 1- and 2-year results, with follow-up examinations beyond 2 years continuing at 3-month intervals with a few exceptions, including that extension patients with fluorescein leakage from CNV were to receive open-label verteporfin therapy irrespective of their original treatment assignment. RESULTS: Of 402 patients in the verteporfin group, 351 (87.3%) completed the month 24 examination; 320 (91.2%) of these enrolled in the extension study. The enrolled participants included 124 (78.0%) of the 159 verteporfin-treated patients with lesions composed of predominantly classic CNV at baseline, of whom 105 (84.7%) completed the month 36 examination. Verteporfin-treated patients with this lesion composition at baseline who participated in the extension study, with or without a month 36 examination, appeared more likely to have a younger age, better level of visual acuity, absence of fluorescein leakage from classic CNV, or no progression of classic CNV beyond the baseline boundaries of the lesion at the month 24 examination compared with those who did not enroll in the extension. For the 105 patients with a predominantly classic baseline lesion composition who completed the month 36 examination, an average of 1.3 treatments were given from the month 24 examination up to, but not including, the month 36 examination. A letter score loss in the study eye of at least 15 from baseline for these patients occurred in 39 (37.5%) at the month 24 examination compared with 44 (41.9%) of these patients at the month 36 examination. Visual acuity changed little from the month 24 examination (mean, -1.9 lines) to the month 36 examination (mean, -2.0 lines) for these eyes. Verteporfin-treated patients had little change in the mean visual acuity lost and few or no additional instances of infusion-related back pain or photosensitivity reactions from month 24 to month 36. Two patients originally assigned to placebo had acute severe vision decrease within 7 days after verteporfin treatment during the extension. One patient originally assigned to verteporfin had acute severe vision decrease after verteporfin treatment of the fellow eye during the extension. CONCLUSIONS: Vision outcomes for verteporfin-treated patients with predominantly classic lesions at baseline remained relatively stable from month 24 to month 36, although only approximately one third of the verteporfin-treated patients originally enrolled with this lesion composition had a month 36 examination. From these results, the TAP Study Group identified no safety concerns to preclude repeating photodynamic therapy with verteporfin. Additional treatment was judged likely to reduce the risk of further vision loss. Caution appears warranted in the absence of comparison with an untreated group during the extension and since not all patients in the TAP Investigation participated in the TAP Extension.

Birch DG, Toler SM, Swanson WH, Fish GE, Laties AM. · Retina Foundation of the Southwest, Dallas, Texas 75231, USA. · Am J Ophthalmol. · Pubmed #11992864 No free full text.

Abstract: PURPOSE: To assess the effects of a single 100-mg dose of sildenafil citrate on visual function in men with early-stage age-related macular degeneration. DESIGN: Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial. METHODS: Nine men (mean age 71 years, range 59-85 years) with early-stage (minimal visual impairment and large drusen in the macula) age-related macular degeneration and 20/40 or better-corrected visual acuity in at least one eye were prospectively randomized to receive either placebo or sildenafil citrate (Viagra; Pfizer Inc, New York, New York) 100 mg as a single oral dose. After 7-14 days, they received the alternate treatment. Subjects underwent visual acuity, Amsler grid, color discrimination (D15), traffic light, Humphrey perimetry, and photo-stress testing in each eye before and at specific intervals within 8 hours after dosing. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, no pattern of errors were evident in any visual function test following sildenafil administration. No statistically or clinically relevant changes from baseline were observed in visual acuity, Humphrey perimetry (corrected pattern standard deviation), D15 color discrimination, or photo-stress tests. No clinically relevant changes were observed in the Amsler grid or traffic light tests. Sildenafil treatment was associated with transient mild or moderate headache, flushing, and rhinitis. There were no visual adverse events spontaneously reported to the investigator. CONCLUSION: A single 100-mg dose of sildenafil was well tolerated and produced no acute visual effects or exacerbation of preexisting visual impairment in nine men with early-stage age-related macular degeneration.

Fish GE. · Texas Retinal Associates and the Department of Ophthalmology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, Texas, USA. · Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. · Pubmed #19277242 links to  free full text

Abstract: PURPOSE: To compare intravitreous bevacizumab to other current treatments of branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) and hemisphere retinal vein occlusion (HRVO) with consideration to visual outcome, cost, convenience, and risk of treatment. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review from a large referral retina practice. The data comprise 56 patients with BRVO and HRVO treated by intravitreous bevacizumab, with and without intravitreous triamcinolone acetonide. Initial visual acuities at the time of first bevacizumab injection, best acuities through the follow-up time, final acuity at last visit before review, initial macular thickness, and final macular thickness were measured. Changes in vision and thickness were calculated, as were the percentage of eyes improving, stabilizing, and worsening. RESULTS: The data were compared to composite data derived from several current treatments of BRVO. The subgroup of 39 eyes that received only bevacizumab without triamcinolone acetonide had the most improvement in vision. The median change in visual acuity was 1.5 lines (P = .012) over a mean follow-up of 8.8 months. Twenty-three eyes (59%) improved visually, with 20 eyes (51%) improving 2 or more lines. These results are similar to those for eyes that received argon grid laser and chorioretinal anastomosis, but are worse than in eyes that received arteriovenous adventitial sheathotomy, macular decompression surgery, and intravitreous triamcinolone acetonide. CONCLUSIONS: Visual benefit from intravitreous bevacizumab compares well against laser treatments for BRVO and HRVO but not as well opposed to surgical techniques and intravitreous triamcinolone acetonide. Intravitreous bevacizumab injection has a risk, cost, and convenience profile that is favorable.

Kozma P, Hughbanks-Wheaton DK, Locke KG, Fish GE, Gire AI, Spellicy CJ, Sullivan LS, Bowne SJ, Daiger SP, Birch DG. · Retina Foundation of the Southwest, Dallas, Texas 75231, USA. · Am J Ophthalmol. · Pubmed #16214101 No free full text.

Abstract: PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical features associated with the RP10 form of autosomal-dominant retinitis pigmentosa in 11 affected members of various ages from one family with a defined IMPDH1 mutation (Asp226Asn). DESIGN: Prospective, observational case series. METHODS: Visual function assessment included visual acuity, color vision, visual field, dark adaptometry, full-field electroretinography (ffERG), and multifocal electroretinography (mfERG). Ophthalmologic examinations, fundus photography, and optical coherence tomographic scans were also performed. Blood samples were obtained to screen for basic immune function. RESULTS: Visual acuity was slightly reduced in the teenage years and substantially reduced in association with cystoid macular edema (CME) at all ages. Color defects were observed in three patients (one teen, two adults). Dark-adapted thresholds were elevated. Visual fields were markedly constricted by age 40 (<or=20 degrees). Rod and cone a-wave and b-wave ffERG responses were small or nondetectable by age 20, with greater rod than cone loss at all ages. The normal to significantly delayed ffERG cone b-wave implicit times in different patients were explained by their mfERG implicit times from the central retina. The amplification factors (log S) and recovery kinetics derived from the full-field rod a-waves were normal. Optical coherence tomography revealed subretinal fluid accumulation in the majority of eyes. Cystoid macular edema was diagnosed in four patients. No unusual immunologic findings were noted. CONCLUSIONS: The Asp226Asn mutation is associated with a severe, early-onset form of retinal degeneration in members of this family.

Azab M, Benchaboune M, Blinder KJ, Bressler NM, Bressler SB, Gragoudas ES, Fish GE, Hao Y, Haynes L, Lim JI, Menchini U, Miller JW, Mones J, Potter MJ, Reaves A, Rosenfeld PJ, Strong A, Su XY, Slakter JS, Schmidt-Erfurth U, Sorenson JA, Anonymous00093, Anonymous00094. · No affiliation provided · Retina. · Pubmed #15076937 No free full text.

Abstract: PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate the detailed safety profile of photodynamic therapy with verteporfin in patients with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV) caused by age-related macular degeneration (ARMD) from the combined analysis of three multicenter, double-masked, placebo-controlled, randomized 24-month clinical trials of similar design (TAP Investigation Studies A and B and the VIP ARMD Trial), and to clarify the adverse reaction information in the current verteporfin product prescription information approved in the United States. METHODS: Nine hundred forty-eight patients were randomly assigned to verteporfin or placebo. Treatment was administered as described in previous reports. All general entry criteria were similar, so systemic safety results were combined for this analysis. Entry criteria for CNV lesion composition and visual acuity in the two TAP Investigation trials was different from those used in the VIP ARMD trial, so ocular safety results for the treated eye were not combined. RESULTS: The percentage of patients who experienced at least one ocular or nonocular adverse event, regardless of relationship to therapy, was similar between the verteporfin and placebo groups (92.3 and 89.1%, respectively, P = 0.114). The overall incidence of study eye adverse events was not significantly different between verteporfin and placebo. The only clinically relevant ocular adverse events reported with higher incidence after verteporfin compared with placebo were visual disturbances (22.1 versus 15.5% in TAP [P = 0.054] and 41.7 and 22.8% in VIP [P < 0.001]). Acute severe visual acuity decrease (defined as a visual acuity letter score decrease of at least 20, equivalent to at least four-line decrease, within 7 days of therapy) occurred in 3 patients treated with verteporfin in the TAP Investigation (0.7%) and 11 in the VIP ARMD trial (4.9%). Systemic adverse events with increased incidence after verteporfin compared with placebo, most of which were transient and mild or moderate, were injection site reactions (13.1 versus 5.6%; P < 0.001), photosensitivity reactions (2.4 versus 0.3%; P = 0.016), and infusion-related back pain (2.4 versus 0%; P = 0.004). No clinically relevant difference was observed between the verteporfin and placebo groups in any other adverse event. CONCLUSION: In 948 ARMD patients, verteporfin therapy had an overall safety profile similar to that for placebo, with a few exceptions. Visual disturbances, including acute severe visual acuity decrease, did not affect the net vision outcome benefits associated with treatment that has been reported previously. This detailed safety profile of verteporfin therapy clarifies the adverse reaction information in the current verteporfin product prescription information.