Macular Degeneration: Reaves A

 Topic:  
Hints · Remembered Topics    
  Start Here  Overview  World Articles  Find Experts  Books & DVDs  Help 
 
Column View Map 9 Articles   Help
A digest of articles written 1999 and later, on the topic "Macular Degeneration," originating from Planet Earth —» Reaves A.  Display:  All Citations ·  All Abstracts
1 Clinical Conference Verteporfin therapy for subfoveal choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration: four-year results of an open-label extension of 2 randomized clinical trials: TAP Report No. 7. 2005

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.

2 Clinical Conference Verteporfin therapy of subfoveal minimally classic choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration: 2-year results of a randomized clinical trial. 2005

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.

3 Clinical Conference Verteporfin therapy of subfoveal choroidal neovascularization in patients with age-related macular degeneration: additional information regarding baseline lesion composition's impact on vision outcomes-TAP report No. 3. 2002

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.

4 Clinical Conference Verteporfin therapy for subfoveal choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration: three-year results of an open-label extension of 2 randomized clinical trials--TAP Report no. 5. 2002

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.

5 Article Verteporfin therapy of subfoveal choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration: meta-analysis of 2-year safety results in three randomized clinical trials: Treatment Of Age-Related Macular Degeneration With Photodynamic Therapy and Verteporfin In Photodynamic Therapy Study Report no. 4. 2004

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.

6 Article Acute severe visual acuity decrease after photodynamic therapy with verteporfin: case reports from randomized clinical trials-TAP and VIP report no. 3. 2004

Arnold JJ, Blinder KJ, Bressler NM, Bressler SB, Burdan A, Haynes L, Lim JI, Miller JW, Potter MJ, Reaves A, Rosenfeld PJ, Sickenberg M, Slakter JS, Soubrane G, Strong HA, Stur M, Anonymous00242, Anonymous00243. · No affiliation provided · Am J Ophthalmol. · Pubmed #15059708 No free full text.

Abstract: PURPOSE: To describe in detail occurrences of acute severe visual acuity decrease after photodynamic therapy (PDT) with verteporfin in the Treatment of Age-related macular degeneration with Photodynamic therapy (TAP) Investigation and the Verteporfin In Photodynamic therapy (VIP) Trial. DESIGN: Observational case series. METHODS: Retrospective review of all cases that developed acute severe visual acuity decrease after treatment. RESULTS: Of 15 acute severe visual acuity decrease events originally identified in 14 eyes of 14 patients, one event in one patient was judged unlikely to have been an acute severe visual acuity decrease event on retrospective review of these events in preparation of this report. Eleven events occurred after the first treatment. At follow-up, 10 improved by at least 1 line in visual acuity from the level noted at the time of the event. Of the nine patients returning for the month 24 examination, visual acuity decreased at least 3 lines from baseline in six, including at least 6 lines in four, and remained within 1 line in three. Associated abnormal morphology included three with a serous macular detachment and abnormal choroidal hypofluorescence, four with macular hemorrhage, three with a greenish subfoveal hemorrhage, and four with no abnormality. Events appeared to be more likely when patients had a visual acuity of 20/50 or better. CONCLUSIONS: Acute severe visual acuity decrease after PDT with verteporfin was an uncommon event; the risk did not outweigh the benefits of therapy previously reported. When considering verteporfin therapy, patients should be warned of the possibility of this serious adverse event.

7 Article Effect of lesion size, visual acuity, and lesion composition on visual acuity change with and without verteporfin therapy for choroidal neovascularization secondary to age-related macular degeneration: TAP and VIP report no. 1. 2003

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.

8 Article Photodynamic therapy of subfoveal choroidal neovascularization with verteporfin: fluorescein angiographic guidelines for evaluation and treatment--TAP and VIP report No. 2. 2003

Barbazetto I, Burdan A, Bressler NM, Bressler SB, Haynes L, Kapetanios AD, Lukas J, Olsen K, Potter M, Reaves A, Rosenfeld P, Schachat AP, Strong HA, Wenkstern A, Anonymous00097, Anonymous00098. · Medizinische Universität zu Lübeck, Klinik für Augenheilkunde, Lübeck, Germany. · Arch Ophthalmol. · Pubmed #12963608 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To describe fluorescein angiographic guidelines for the use of verteporfin therapy in patients with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV) secondary to age-related macular degeneration (AMD) or other conditions based on 2-year vision outcomes from the Treatment of Age-Related Macular Degeneration With Photodynamic Therapy (TAP) Investigation and Verteporfin in Photodynamic Therapy (VIP) Trial. METHODS: Three multicenter, double-masked, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials at 28 ophthalmology clinical centers in Europe and North America involving prospectively identified patients with best-corrected visual acuity (Snellen equivalent) of approximately 20/20 to 20/200, subfoveal CNV secondary to AMD or pathologic myopia with evidence of CNV, and a lesion greatest linear dimension of 5400 micro m or less. Fluorescein angiography was to be performed on all patients at enrollment and at regular 3-month follow-up visits through 2 years. The initial treatment laser spot size and all subsequent treatment decisions were based on the investigator's interpretation of these fluorescein angiograms. Photographic materials forwarded to the Wilmer Photograph Reading Center were reviewed by masked graders. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Baseline angiographic features, including lesion composition and size, morphologic response to treatment during follow-up (eg, absence of leakage), and reliability (kappa values) of grading selected characteristics based on a 10% regrading of baseline visits. RESULTS: Terms and examples of different lesions and lesion components are provided to assist recognition of fluorescein angiographic characteristics of choroidal neovascular lesions that were important in determining when and where to apply verteporfin therapy. The kappa statistics for agreement of identification of lesion characteristics by the Wilmer Photograph Reading Center for these trials ranged from 0.70 to 0.85. CONCLUSIONS: Ophthalmologists should consider interpreting fluorescein angiographic images of subfoveal lesions with terms provided to follow recommendations regarding which patients are most likely to benefit from verteporfin therapy based on results from the TAP Investigation and VIP Trial.

9 Minor Improvement after verteporfin therapy. 2003

Anand R, Bressler NM, Bressler SB, Gray TE, Harvey P, Haynes L, Koester JM, Manos KS, Miller JW, Murphy S, Reaves A, Sickenberg M, Singerman LJ, Strong A, Stur M, Anonymous00416. · No affiliation provided · Arch Ophthalmol. · Pubmed #12617718 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.