Macular Degeneration: Su XY

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.

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.