Macular Degeneration: Krzystolik MG

Vedula SS, Krzystolik MG. · No affiliation provided · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #18425911 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a common cause of severe vision loss in people 55 years and older. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to investigate the effects of anti-VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor) modalities for treating neovascular AMD. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS. We handsearched ARVO abstracts for 2006, 2007 for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data. We contacted trial authors for additional data. We summarized outcomes as relative risks (RR), number needed to treat (NNT) and weighted mean differences. MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs of good methodological quality. All five trials were conducted by pharmaceutical companies. An intention-to-treat analysis using the last observation carried forward method was done in most trials.Two trials compared pegaptanib versus sham. One trial compared ranibizumab versus sham, another compared ranibizumab/sham verteporfin PDT versus verteporfin PDT/sham ranibizumab, and the final trial compared ranibizumab plus verteporfin PDT versus verteporfin PDT alone.Fewer patients treated with pegaptanib lost 15 or more letters of visual acuity at one year follow-up compared to sham (pooled relative risk (RR) 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 0.84). The NNT was 6.67 (95% CI 4.35 to 14.28) for 0.3 mg pegaptanib, 6.25 (95% CI 4.17 to 12.5) for 1 mg pegaptanib and 14.28 (95% CI 6.67 to 100) for 3 mg pegaptanib. In a trial of ranibizumab versus sham, RR for loss of 15 or more letters visual acuity at one year was 0.14 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.22) in favour of ranibizumab. The NNT was 3.13 (95% CI 2.56 to 3.84) for 0.3 mg ranibizumab and 3.13 (95% CI 2.56 to 3.84) for 0.5 mg ranibizumab. In a trial of ranibizumab versus verteporfin PDT, RR for loss of 15 or more letters at one year was 0.13 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.23) favouring ranibizumab. The NNT was 3.33 (95% CI 2.56 to 4.76) for 0.3 mg ranibizumab and 3.12 (95% CI 2.43 to 4.17) for 0.5 mg ranibizumab. In another trial of combined ranibizumab plus verteporfin PDT versus verteporfin PDT, RR for loss of 15 or more letters at one year favoured combined therapy (RR 0.3 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.60). The NNT was 4.35 (95% CI 2.78 to 11.11).Pooled RR for gain of 15 or more letters visual acuity at one year was 5.81 (95% CI 3.29 to 10.26) for ranibizumab versus sham, 6.79 (95% CI 3.41 to 13.54) for ranibizumab/sham verteporfin PDT versus verteporfin PDT/sham ranibizumab, and 4.44 (95% CI 1.40 to 14.08) for ranibizumab plus verteporfin PDT versus verteporfin PDT.Frequency of endophthalmitis in included studies was between 0.7% to 4.7% with ranibizumab and 1.3% with pegaptanib. Improvement in vision-specific quality of life was reported for both treatments. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Pegaptanib and ranibizumab reduce the risk of visual acuity loss in patients with neovascular AMD. Ranibizumab causes gains in visual acuity in many eyes. Quality of life and cost will be important for treatment decisions. Other agents blocking VEGF are being tested in ongoing trials.

Anonymous00153, Krzystolik MG, Strauber SF, Aiello LP, Beck RW, Berger BB, Bressler NM, Browning DJ, Chambers RB, Danis RP, Davis MD, Glassman AR, Gonzalez VH, Greenberg PB, Gross JG, Kim JE, Kollman C. · Jaeb Center for Health Research, 15310 Amberly Drive, Suite 350, Tampa, FL 33647, USA. · Ophthalmology. · Pubmed #17353052 links to  free full text

Abstract: PURPOSE: To evaluate optical coherence tomography (OCT) reproducibility in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN: Prospective 1-day observational study. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred twelve eyes of 107 patients with DME involving the macular center by clinical examination and OCT central subfield thickness of > or =225 microm. METHODS: Retinal thickness was measured with the OCT3 system, and scans were evaluated by a reading center. Reproducibility of retinal thickness measurements was assessed, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for a change in thickness were estimated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reproducibility of OCT-measured central subfield thickness. RESULTS: Reproducibility was better for central subfield thickness than for center point thickness (half-width of the 95% CI for absolute change, 38 microm vs. 50 microm, and for relative change, 11% vs. 17%, respectively; P<0.001). The median absolute difference between replicate measurements of the central subfield was 7 microm (2%). Half-widths of the 95% CI for a change in central subfield thickness were 22, 23, 33, and 56 microm for scans with central subfield thicknesses of <200, 200 to <250, 250 to <400, and > or =400 microm, respectively. When expressed as percentage differences between 2 measurements, half-widths of the 95% CI for a change in central subfield thickness were 10%, 10%, 10%, and 13% for scans with central subfield thicknesses of <200, 200 to <250, 250 to <400, and > or =400 microm, respectively. We were unable to identify an effect on reproducibility of central subfield measurements with respect to the presence of cystoid abnormalities, subretinal fluid, vitreomacular traction, or reduced visual acuity. Reproducibility was better when both scans had a standard deviation (SD) of the center point of <10.0% (half-width of the 95% CI for change, 33 microm vs. 56 microm; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Reproducibility is better for central subfield thickness measurements than for center point measurements, and variability is less with retinal thickness when expressed as a percent change than when expressed as an absolute change. A change in central subfield thickness exceeding 11% is likely to be real. Scans with an SD of the center point of > or =10.0% are less reproducible and should be viewed with caution when assessing the validity of an observed change in retinal thickness in patients with DME.

Krzystolik MG, Afshari MA, Adamis AP, Gaudreault J, Gragoudas ES, Michaud NA, Li W, Connolly E, O'Neill CA, Miller JW. · Retina Service, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, 243 Charles St, Boston, MA 02114, USA. · Arch Ophthalmol. · Pubmed #11879138 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of intravitreal injections of an antigen-binding fragment of a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody directed toward vascular endothelial growth factor (rhuFab VEGF) in a monkey model of choroidal neovascularization (CNV). METHODS: In phase 1 of the study, each animal received intravitreal injections, 500 microg per eye, of rhuFab VEGF in one eye (prevention eye), while the contralateral eye received rhuFab VEGF vehicle (control eye) at 2-week intervals. On day 21, laser photocoagulation was performed to induce CNV. In phase 2, the vehicle-treated eye was crossed over and both eyes received 500 microg of rhuFab VEGF beginning 21 days following laser-induced injury at days 42 and 56. The eyes were monitored by ophthalmic examinations, color photographs, and fluorescein angiography. RESULTS: rhuFab VEGF did not cause any ocular hemorrhages. All eyes treated with rhuFab VEGF developed acute anterior chamber inflammation within 24 hours of the first injection that resolved within 1 week, and this inflammation was less severe with subsequent injections. The incidence of CNV, defined angiographically, was significantly lower in the prevention eyes than the control eyes (P<.001). Subsequent treatments were associated with less leakage in eyes with established CNV that were crossed over from the control eyes to the treatment eyes (P =.001). CONCLUSIONS: Intravitreal rhuFab VEGF injections prevented formation of clinically significant CNV in cynomolgus monkeys and decreased leakage of already formed CNV with no significant toxic effects. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study provides the nonclinical proof of principle for ongoing clinical studies of intravitreally injected rhuFab VEGF in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration.