Macular Degeneration: Hao Y

Rosenfeld PJ, Boyer DS, Bressler NM, Fish G, Grizzard WS, Hao Y, Hnik P, Hudson HL, Singerman L, Slakter JS, Anonymous00049. · Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, Miami, FL, USA. · Am J Ophthalmol. · Pubmed #18036873 No free full text.

Abstract: PURPOSE: To compare photodynamic therapy (PDT) with verteporfin (Visudyne; Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland) using either standard or delayed light application. DESIGN: Phase II, multicenter, masked, randomized clinical trial. METHODS: Sixty patients with occult with no classic choroidal neovascularization (CNV) resulting from age-related macular degeneration were assigned randomly (1:1) to verteporfin infusion followed by light application either at 15 minutes (standard light) or 30 minutes (delayed light) after the start of the infusion. The assigned treatment was repeated every three months if fluorescein leakage was detected. RESULTS: At month 12, patients lost a mean of 15.7 letters and 11.4 letters from baseline in the standard and delayed light groups, respectively (P = .38). Twelve (52%) of 23 patients in the standard light group and 11 (42%) of 26 in the delayed light group lost at least 15 letters of visual acuity (P = .57). CONCLUSIONS: There were no statistically significant differences between verteporfin therapy using the delayed light regimen of 30 minutes or the standard light regimen of 15 minutes in eyes with occult with no classic CNV.

Bressler NM, Bressler SB, Haynes LA, Hao Y, Kaiser PK, Miller JW, Naor J, Potter MJ, Pournaras CJ, Reaves A, Rosenfeld PJ, Schmidt-Erfurth U, Slakter JS, Strong A, Vannier S. · No affiliation provided · Arch Ophthalmol. · Pubmed #16157822 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Azab M, Boyer DS, Bressler NM, Bressler SB, Cihelkova I, Hao Y, Immonen I, Lim JI, Menchini U, Naor J, Potter MJ, Reaves A, Rosenfeld PJ, Slakter JS, Soucek P, Strong HA, Wenkstern A, Su XY, Yang YC, Anonymous00313. · No affiliation provided · Arch Ophthalmol. · Pubmed #15824216 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To compare the treatment effect and safety of photodynamic therapy with verteporfin using a standard (SF) or reduced (RF) light fluence rate with that of placebo therapy in patients with subfoveal minimally classic choroidal neovascularization (CNV) with age-related macular degeneration. DESIGN: Phase 2, multicenter, double-masked, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Nineteen ophthalmology practices in North America and Europe. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with initial best-corrected visual acuity of at least 20/250 and a lesion size of no greater than 6 Macular Photocoagulation Study (MPS) disc areas. METHODS: We randomly assigned 117 patients (1:1:1) to verteporfin infusion (6 mg/m(2)) and light application with an RF rate (300 mW/cm(2)) for 83 seconds (light dose of 25 J/cm(2)) or an SF rate (600 mW/cm(2)) for 83 seconds (light dose of 50 J/cm(2)) or to placebo infusion with RF or SF. Treatment was repeated every 3 months if the treating physician noted fluorescein leakage from CNV on angiography. Patients in whom a predominantly classic lesion developed could receive open-label standard verteporfin treatment. Best-corrected visual acuity was measured every 3 months, and angiographic changes were assessed by the Photograph Reading Center through the 3-month examination unless an ocular adverse event or conversion to a predominantly classic lesion was identified by an investigator. Safety was assessed throughout the study. All outcomes were on an intent-to-treat basis. RESULTS: One hundred three (88%) of 117 patients completed the 24-month examination. Twelve (30%) of 40 patients assigned to placebo received open-label standard verteporfin treatment after confirmation of presence of predominantly classic CNV. At month 12, a loss of at least 3 lines of visual acuity occurred in 5 (14%) of 36 eyes assigned to RF and 10 (28%) of 36 eyes assigned to SF, compared with 18 (47%) of 38 eyes assigned to placebo (RF, P = .002; SF, P = .08; RF + SF, P = .004). At month 24, this loss occurred in 9 (26%) of 34 eyes assigned to RF and 17 (53%) of 32 assigned to SF, compared with 23 (62%) of 37 eyes assigned to placebo (RF, P = .003; SF, P = .45; RF + SF, P = .03). Progression to predominantly classic CNV by 24 months was more common in the placebo group (11 [28%] of 39 patients compared with 2 [5%] of 38 in the RF group [P = .007] and 1 [3%] of 37 in the SF group [P = .002]). No unexpected ocular or systemic adverse events were identified. Treatment-related, usually transient visual disturbances were 13% with SF, 10% with placebo, and 5% with RF. CONCLUSIONS: Verteporfin therapy safely reduced the risks of losing at least 15 letters (> or =3 lines) of visual acuity and progression to predominantly classic CNV for at least 2 years in individuals with subfoveal minimally classic lesions due to age-related macular degeneration measuring 6 MPS disc areas or less. Based on the overall evidence available on verteporfin therapy for these lesions, the VIM Study Group would consider recommending verteporfin therapy for relatively small minimally classic lesions similar to those enrolled in the VIM Trial.

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.

Kaiser PK, Anonymous00056, Boyer DS, Garcia R, Hao Y, Hughes MS, Jabbour NM, Kaiser PK, Mieler W, Slakter JS, Samuel M, Tolentino MJ, Roth D, Sheidow T, Strong HA. · Cole Eye Institute, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio 44195, USA. · Ophthalmology. · Pubmed #19243834 No free full text.

Abstract: PURPOSE: To assess outcomes for patients with choroidal neovascularization (CNV) due to age-related macular degeneration (AMD) treated with verteporfin photodynamic therapy (PDT) and bevacizumab. DESIGN: Retrospective, case series database study (registry). PARTICIPANTS: We included 1196 patients with CNV due to AMD who received > or =1 combination treatment of 1.25 mg intravitreal bevacizumab within 14 days of verteporfin PDT. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of baseline data with ongoing follow-up. Physicians from 45 clinical centers entered patient data at baseline and follow-up examinations, including subsequent treatments, into a secure, Web-accessed database. Snellen visual acuity (VA) was converted to logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) for statistical analyses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change from baseline in VA and retreatment rates of any therapy after the initial combination treatment. RESULTS: Of 1196 patients, 1073 patients had > or =6 months of follow-up. For these 1073 patients, mean baseline VA was 0.967 logMAR (approximate Snellen 20/185) and 56.3% of patients (604/1073) were treatment naïve. After their baseline combination treatment, patients received a mean of 0.6 additional verteporfin PDT retreatments and 2.0 bevacizumab retreatments over a mean follow-up period of 15.0 months. By 12 months, 82% of patients (578/701) had stable or improved vision (loss of <3 lines or a gain in VA), 36% (255/701) improved by > or =3 lines, and 17% (121/701) improved by > or =6 lines. By 12 months, patients gained approximately 1.2 lines (6 letters) of VA from baseline. Patients who were treatment naïve gained significantly more VA by month 12 (+8.4 letters) compared with those who had been previously treated (+2.4 letters; P<0.01). Most serious adverse events (26/30) were judged by investigators as not related to any study treatment, although 3 ocular events were judged related to bevacizumab alone, and 1 ocular event was judged related to both bevacizumab and PDT. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with PDT and bevacizumab led to vision benefit for most patients, particularly those who were treatment naïve at baseline. The number of retreatments was lower than published reports with either treatment delivered as monotherapy. Randomized clinical trials are underway to confirm these findings.

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.

Blinder KJ, Bradley S, Bressler NM, Bressler SB, Donati G, Hao Y, Ma C, Menchini U, Miller J, Potter MJ, Pournaras C, Reaves A, Rosenfeld PJ, Strong HA, Stur M, Su XY, Virgili G, Anonymous00153, Anonymous00154. · · Am J Ophthalmol. · Pubmed #12967792 No free full text.

Abstract: PURPOSE: To determine whether differences in baseline lesion size and visual acuity might explain differing results found in three different lesion compositions (predominantly classic, minimally classic, and occult with no classic) among three placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials evaluating photodynamic therapy with verteporfin (Visudyne, Novartis AG), also termed verteporfin therapy, in patients with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV) due to age-related macular degeneration (AMD). METHODS: Exploratory analyses were conducted in patients with predominantly classic or minimally classic lesions at enrollment in the Treatment of AMD with Photodynamic Therapy (TAP) Investigation and in AMD patients with occult with no classic CNV in the Verteporfin In Photodynamic Therapy (VIP) Trial. Baseline characteristics of patients among these three lesion compositions were compared. In addition, multiple linear regression modeling was used to explore the effect of baseline lesion size, visual acuity, and lesion composition on mean change in visual acuity from baseline to 24 months. RESULTS: At baseline, the mean size of predominantly classic lesions (3.4 disk areas) was smaller than that of minimally classic (4.7 disk areas) and occult with no classic lesions (4.3 disk areas). In the multiple linear regression model of individual lesion compositions, there was a significant treatment-by-lesion-size interaction for minimally classic and occult with no classic lesions, but not for predominantly classic lesions. Interaction between treatment and baseline visual acuity was not significant for any lesion composition. Small verteporfin-treated lesions lost less vision than large verteporfin-treated lesions in each lesion composition. In the multiple linear regression model that included all lesion compositions, lesion size was a more significant predictive factor for the magnitude of treatment benefit than either lesion composition or visual acuity. Smaller (4.0 disk areas or less) minimally classic and occult with no classic lesions had similar visual acuity outcomes to those observed in predominantly classic lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Based on exploratory analyses, lesion size in the TAP Investigation and VIP Trial was an important predictor of the magnitude of treatment benefit with verteporfin therapy in occult with no classic and minimally classic lesion compositions. In patients with AMD, treating smaller rather than larger neovascular lesions, regardless of lesion composition, likely will result in a better level of visual acuity.