Five-year outcomes after intravitreal bevacizumab of treatment-naive eyes with macular edema secondary to CRVO in routine clinical practice: Results of the Pan-American Collaborative Retina Study (PACORES) group

Intravitreal Ziv-Aflibercept versus Bevacizumab for Naïve Central Retinal Vein Occlusion with Macular Edema: An Interim Analysis of a Randomized Non-Inferiority Trial

Purpose

To compare the efficacy of intravitreal ziv-aflibercept (IVZ) and bevacizumab (IVB) injections for the treatment of macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion.

Methods

Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 3 monthly IVZ (1.25 mg/0.05 mL) or IVB (1.25 mg/0.05 mL) followed by the pro-re-nata protocol for persistent or recurrent macular edema. The primary outcomes were best-corrected visual acuity and central subfield thickness. An interim analysis was planned when half of the participants completed the follow-up.

Results

Twenty-four participants were recruited. At 6 months, mean best-corrected visual acuity in the IVB and IVZ groups improved from 1.23 ± 0.64 to 0.76 ± 0.56 logMAR (p = 0.003) and from 1.13 ± 0.59 to 0.53 ± 0.26 logMAR (p = 0.003), respectively. The percentage of visual improvement and reduction in central subfield thickness in the IVZ group were insignificantly better than those in the IVB group (44.41 ± 26.72 vs 39.64 ± 24.22%; p = 0.65) and (51.94 ± 20.35 vs 45.78 ± 24.71%; p = 0.51), respectively. Although the mean number of injections was lower in the IVZ group (4.55 ± 1.29 vs 4.82 ±1.33), the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.68). No ocular or systemic adverse events were observed.

Conclusion

The interim analysis demonstrated that the visual and anatomical results of IVZ were insignificantly better than those of IVB at 6 months of follow-up. The results also showed that IVZ was non-inferior to IVB for anatomical improvement but inconclusive for visual improvement.

Clinical Trial Registration

(identifier: TCTR20191205008).

Benefits of a Laser Chorioretinal Anastomosis Plus Ranibizumab vs Ranibizumab Alone for Central Retinal Vein Occlusion: 4-Year Results

PURPOSE

To evaluate what clinical gains can be achieved over conventional treatment with ranibizumab alone for central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) when causal pathology is additionally addressed successfully with a laser-induced chorio-retinal anastomosis (L-CRA).

DESIGN

Two-year extension of prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial.

METHODS

A total of 58 patients with macular edema secondary to CRVO were randomized 1:1 to receive either an L-CRA (n = 29) or sham procedure (n = 29) at baseline and then monthly intravitreal ranibizumab 0.5 mg. Outcomes (best corrected visual acuity [BCVA], central subfield thickness [CST], injection requirements) were monitored in the monthly pro re nata (PRN) ranibizumab phase from months 7 to 48.

RESULTS

Injection requirements for patients with a functioning L-CRA (24 of 29) during the monthly PRN period from 7 to 24 months were a mean (95% CI) of 2.18 (1.57, 2.78) injections compared to 7.07 (6.08, 8.06) (P < .0001) for control (ranibizumab alone). These decreased further over the next 2 years to 0.29 (0.14, 0.61) compared to 2.20 (1.68, 2.88) (P < .001) for the third year and 0.25 (0.11, 0.56) and 1.84 (1.34, 2.54) for the fourth year (P < .001). Mean BCVA was statistically different at all follow-up time points from month 7 through month 48 for the group with the functioning L-CRA compared to the control monotherapy group. This improved to 14.06 letters at month 48 (P = .009). There was no difference in CST between any of the groups over the 48 months of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

For CRVO patients, addressing causal pathology in addition to conventional therapy improves BCVA and reduces injection requirements.

Resveratrol: Its Path from Isolation to Therapeutic Action in Eye Diseases

Due to the confirmed therapeutic potential of resveratrol (Rv) for eye diseases, namely its powerful anti-angiogenic and antioxidant effects, this molecule must be studied more deeply. Nowadays, the pharmaceutic and pharmacokinetic available studies offer a troubling picture because of its low stability and bioavailability. To overcome this problem, researchers started to design and create different delivery systems that could improve the delivery amount of Rv. Therefore, this review aims to shed light on the proper and efficient techniques to isolate, purify and quantify the Rv molecule, and how this therapeutic molecule can be a part of a delivery system. The Rv great impact on aspects regarding its stability, bioavailability and absorption are also debated here, based on the existent literature on in vitro and in vivo human and animal studies. Moreover, after its absorption the Rv influence at the molecular level in ocular pathologies is described. In addition, the present review summarizes the available literature about Rv, hoping that Rv will gain more attention to investigate its unexplored side.

Central retinal vein occlusion 36-month outcomes with anti-vascular endothelial growth factors: the Fight Retinal Blindness! registry

PURPOSE

To analyze the 3-year outcomes in a broad population of patients starting VEGF inhibitors for central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) in routine clinical practice.

DESIGN

Observational database study.

PARTICIPANTS

Overall, 527 treatment-naïve CRVO eyes that commenced VEGF inhibitors between December 1, 2010 and 2018 were tracked in the Fight Retinal Blindness! registry.

METHODS

Longitudinal models were used to plot changes in visual acuity (VA) and central subfield thickness (CST).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Mean change in VA from baseline to 36 months, injections, visits, completion, switching, and suspensions of therapy > 180 days at the final review.

RESULTS

Overall (527 eyes) mean VA change (95% confidence interval [CI]) was + 10 (7, 12) letters, 37% had final VA ≥ 70 and 30% ≤ 35 letters, mean CST changed -306 μm. Completers (257/527, 49%) had mean 36-month changes in VA and CST of + 12 letters and -324 μm with a median of 18 injections at 26 visits. The adjusted mean VA change was similar to each VEGF inhibitor (mean, + 11.4 letters) despite a greater reduction in CST with aflibercept (-310 μm) versus ranibizumab (-258 μm) versus bevacizumab (-216 μm; P < 0.001). Eyes with baseline VA that was trial-eligible (19-73 letters; 356/527, 68%) gained 7 letters, very poor (< 19 letters; 129/527, 24%) gained 22 letters, or very good (> 73 letters; 42/527, 8%) lost 7 letters. Switching (160/527, 30%) was most often to aflibercept (79 eyes). By using suspensions and discontinuation reasons, we identified similar proportions had ceased therapy (154/527, 29%) and were still receiving it at 36 months (165/527, 31%). Only 62/527 eyes (12%) had resolution of macular edema without treatment for > 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with CRVO that commenced VEGF inhibitors in routine care for whom follow-up was available had VA improvements of around 12 letters at 3 years, but with > 50% lost to follow-up, the VA outcome for the entire group was likely worse. The choice of VEGF inhibitor influenced CST but not VA outcomes. We estimated that around half of the eyes were still receiving injections after 36 months.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Long-term outcomes of anti-VEGF treatment of macular oedema due to retinal vein occlusions

PURPOSE

retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is classified as either branch (BRVO) or central (CRVO) RVO. The gold standard treatment for macular oedema (MO) secondary to RVO is intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections. Our study aimed to compare ranibizumab and aflibercept outcomes over a maximum follow-up of five years.

METHODS

this retrospective study assessed treatment-naïve RVO patients. Active disease was treated with three loading injections followed by a pro-re-nata (PRN) regimen of an anti-VEGF agent. Visual outcomes and injection frequency were analyzed, with patients stratified according to RVO subtype, anti-VEGF agent used, baseline vision, and age.

RESULTS

316 CRVO-affected eyes and 467 BRVO-affected eyes were analysed. Visual benefits between different treatments did not significantly differ, except in year 1 in ranibizumab-treated BRVO eyes. However, aflibercept-treated CRVO and BRVO eyes required significantly fewer injections during the follow up period. Furthermore, our results confirm that younger patients achieve better visual outcomes with fewer intravitreal injections. Overall, half of our patients did not require further injections after 1 year from diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

the results demonstrate that anti-VEGF treatment of RVO benefits vision for up to 5 years. Our findings are the first to suggest that compared to ranibizumab, fewer aflibercept injections may be required over five years follow up. Prospective randomised trials are needed to confirm this, alongside further attention to OCT scan features and the effect of patient demographics on treatment outcomes.