Macular Degeneration: Strong A

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.

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.

Houle JM, Strong A. · QLT Inc., Vancouver, BC, Canada. · J Clin Pharmacol. · Pubmed #12017349 No free full text.

Abstract: Verteporfin, a benzoporphyrin derivative, is the first photo-sensitive (light-activated) drug to be proven effective in treating certain types of choroidal neovascularization (CNV) secondary to age-related macular degeneration (AMD). The pharmacokinetics of light-activated drugs are central to their safety and efficacy. Forty healthy Caucasian volunteers, 24 healthy Japanese volunteers, 9 patients with mild hepatic dysfunction, 69 patients with CNV due to AMD, and 21 patients with skin cancer were infused with verteporfin 3 to 20 mg/m2 of body surface area over 1.5 to 45 minutes. Verteporfin regioisomers and the metabolite benzoporphyrin derivative diacid (BPD-DA) were quantified by validated methods of liquid chromatography and capillary electrophoresis with laser-induced fluorescence. Cmax of verteporfin occurred at the end of the infusion and was proportional to the dose and rate of infusion. The extent of formation of the metabolite BPD-DA was less than 10%, based on the AUC ratio. Renal elimination was minimal (< 0.01% of the dose). All groups studied had similar pharmacokinetics, which were biexponential with distribution in the first 1 to 3 hours and elimination t(1/2) of 5 to 6 hours. No significant differences were observed between Japanese and Caucasian volunteers or between men and women. Patients older than 65 years had a slightly higher average Cmax than patients younger than 65 years (1.14 vs. 1.03 microg/ml, p = 0.066), but the ranges of the two age groups overlapped. Verteporfin has a short half-life and is rapidly eliminated in the bile, mainly as unchanged drug. Based on pharmacokinetic data, dose adjustments are not required for age, gender, race, or mild hepatic or renal impairment. The rapid elimination of verteporfin shows that the period of skin photosensitivity is unlikely to persist after 24 to 48 hours.

Miller JW, Schmidt-Erfurth U, Sickenberg M, Pournaras CJ, Laqua H, Barbazetto I, Zografos L, Piguet B, Donati G, Lane AM, Birngruber R, van den Berg H, Strong A, Manjuris U, Gray T, Fsadni M, Bressler NM, Gragoudas ES. · Retina Service, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA. · Arch Ophthalmol. · Pubmed #10496388 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and short-term visual and fluorescein angiographic effects of a single photodynamic therapy treatment with verteporfin with the use of different dosage regimens in patients with choroidal neovascularization (CNV) from age-related macular degeneration. DESIGN: Nonrandomized, multicenter, open-label, clinical trial using 5 dosage regimens. SETTING: Four ophthalmic centers in North America and Europe providing retinal care. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with subfoveal CNV caused by age-related macular degeneration. METHODS: Standardized protocol refraction, visual acuity testing, ophthalmic examination, color photographs, and fluorescein angiograms were used to evaluate the effects of a single treatment of photodynamic therapy with verteporfin. Follow-up was planned through 3 months in 97 patients and for less than 3 months in 31 other patients. RESULTS: The mean visual acuity change (and range of change) from baseline at the follow-up examination at week 12 after a single treatment with regimens 1 through 5 was -0.2 (-3 to +2), -0.9 (-9 to +5), -1.6 (-9 to +2), +0.4 (-8 to +7), and +0.1 (-8 to +9) lines, respectively. Only the highest light dose (150 J/cm2) in regimens 2 and 3, which produced angiographic nonperfusion of neurosensory retinal vessels, caused marked vision loss. Some cessation of fluorescein leakage from CNV was achieved without loss of vision when the light dose used was less than 150 J/cm2. Systemic adverse events were rare. Cessation of fluorescein leakage from CNV was noted in all regimens by 1 week after photodynamic therapy. Fluorescein leakage from at least a portion of the CNV reappeared by 4 to 12 weeks after treatment in almost all cases. Progression of classic CNV beyond the area of CNV identified before treatment was noted in 42 (51%) of the 83 eyes with classic CNV followed up for 3 months after a single treatment. Eyes in which the area of any CNV leakage at 12 weeks was less than at baseline had a significantly better visual acuity outcome (+0.8 line) than eyes in which CNV leakage progressed (-0.8 line). CONCLUSIONS: Photodynamic therapy with verteporfin achieved short-term cessation of fluorescein leakage from CNV without loss of vision or growth of classic CNV in some patients with age-related macular degeneration. Except for nonperfusion of neurosensory retinal vessels at a light dose of 150 J/cm2, no other adverse events were of concern. Randomized clinical trials to investigate whether this new modality can preserve vision in patients with CNV secondary to age-related macular degeneration are justified.

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.

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.