Comparison of Innovator vs. Biosimilar Ranibizumab in Treating Diabetic Macular Edema: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

Updates on medical and surgical managements of diabetic retinopathy and maculopathy

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) and diabetic macular edema (DME) are leading causes of vision loss globally. This is a comprehensive review focused on both medical and surgical management strategies for DR and DME. This review highlights the epidemiology of DR and DME, with a particular emphasis on the Asia-Pacific region, urban-rural disparities, ethnic variations, and grading methodologies. We examine various risk factors for DR, including glycemic control, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, obesity, chronic kidney disease, sex, myopia, pregnancy, and cataract surgery. Furthermore, we explore potential biomarkers in serum, proteomics, metabolomics, vitreous, microRNA, and genetics that may aid in the detection and management of DR. In addition to medical management, we review the evidence supporting systemic and ocular treatments for DR/DME, including anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents, anti-inflammatory agents, biosimilars, and integrin inhibitors. Despite advancements in treatment options such as pan-retinal photocoagulation and anti-VEGF agents, a subset of cases still progresses, necessitating vitrectomy. Challenging diabetic vitrectomies pose difficulties due to complex fibrovascular proliferations, incomplete posterior vitreous detachment, and fragile, ischemic retinas, making membrane dissection risky and potentially damaging to the retina. In this review, we address the question of challenging diabetic vitrectomies, providing insights and strategies to minimize complications. Additionally, we briefly explore newer modalities such as 3-dimensional vitrectomy and intra-operative optical coherence tomography as potential tools in diabetic vitrectomy. In conclusion, this review provides a comprehensive overview of both medical and surgical management options for DR and DME. It underscores the importance of a multidisciplinary approach, tailored to the needs of each patient, to optimize visual outcomes and improve the quality of life for those affected by these sight-threatening conditions.

Innovator ranibizumab ComparEd to Biosimilar ranibizumab in combination with Expansile gas in submaculaR HemorrhaGe: the ICEBERG study

PURPOSE

To compare the anatomical and visual outcomes in eyes with submacular hemorrhage (SMH) treated with a combination of ranibizumab (RBZ) either innovator or biosimilar (Razumab) and intravitreal perfluoropropane gas (C3F8).

METHODS

Treatment naïve neovascular age related macular degeneration (n-AMD) patients with SMH were retrospectively analyzed. Patients received either innovator or biosimilar RBZ (3 loading doses followed by pro re nata regimen) and single injection of intravitreal C3F8. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) was performed at baseline, 1, 3 and 6 months. Changes in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) were assessed at 6 months. P value ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 67 eyes (35 and 32 eyes in innovator and biosimilar group respectively) were analyzed. BCVA improved from 1.15 ± 0.19 to 0.51 ± 0.23 logarithm of minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) in innovator RBZ group (p < 0.001) and from 1.17 ± 0.15 to 0.53 ± 0.20 logMAR in biosimilar RBZ group (p < 0.001). Similarly, mean CMT showed significant reduction in both groups at 6 months (innovator RBZ: 609.5 ± 50.1 μm to 254.3 ± 20.3 μm, p < 0.001; biosimilar RBZ: 602.3 ± 58.9 μm to 251.8 ± 22.3 μm, p < 0.001). Intergroup comparisons between innovator and biosimilar RBZ showed no differences in either BCVA or CMT at all time points (all p values > 0.05). Mean number of intravitreal injections was marginally higher in innovator group compared to biosimilar RBZ (4.37 ± 0.49 vs. 4.22 ± 0.42; p = 0.18).

CONCLUSION

Biosimilar RBZ may act as a viable alternative to innovator RBZ to treat SMH with comparable anatomical and visual outcomes at 6 months.

Intravitreal therapy for the management of diabetic retinopathy: A concise review

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a serious microvascular complication of diabetes mellitus and may result in irreversible visual loss. Laser treatment has been the gold standard treatment for diabetic macular edema and proliferative diabetic retinopathy for many years. Of late, intravitreal therapy has emerged as a cornerstone in the management of DR. Among the diverse pharmacotherapeutic options, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents have demonstrated remarkable efficacy by attenuating neovascularization and reducing macular edema, thus preserving visual acuity in DR patients.

Systemic Arterial and Venous Thrombotic Events Associated With Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Injections: A Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the risk of systemic arteriovenous thrombotic events between intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) and sham injections.

DESIGN

Random-effects meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed on OVID MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library from January 2005 to August 2023. Our inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on systemic arteriovenous events for standard dose intravitreal anti-VEGF agents for any indication.

RESULTS

A total of 20 RCTs reporting on 12,833 eyes were included. There was no significant difference in the risk of any thrombotic event between bevacizumab 1.25 mg and ranibizumab 0.5 mg (Risk ratio (RR) = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.52-1.75, P = .89). There was no significant difference between bevacizumab and ranibizumab when restricting to arterial thrombotic events (RR= 0.88, 95% CI = 0.60-1.30, P = .53) or venous thrombotic events (RR = 1.99, 95% CI =86 0.68-5.82], P = .21). The risk of arterial thrombotic events was similar between aflibercept and bevacizumab (RR = 1.11, 95% CI = 0.60-2.07, P = .74), between aflibercept and ranibizumab (RR= 0.77, 95% CI = 0.49-1.21, P = .26), between brolucizumab and aflibercept (RR= 0.67, 95% CI = 0.32-1.38, P = .27), and between aflibercept and faricimab (RR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.43-2.17, P = .93). Compared to sham, neither dose of ranibizumab (0.5 mg or 0.3 mg) showed a higher risk of arterial thrombotic events.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a similar risk of systemic arteriovenous thrombotic adverse events between anti-VEGF agents and between ranibizumab and sham injections.

Ranibizumab Biosimilars in Treating Retinal Disorders: A Cost-Effective Revolution?

Ranibizumab, is a humanized, monoclonal antibody fragment that binds and inactivates vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A) and VEGF-B. One of the main indications for an intravitreal treatment with ranibizumab is age-related macular degeneration (AMD), which is a retinal disease with a high worldwide socioeconomic impact. Biosimilars constitute biological products that demonstrate similar pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic characteristics with a reference product, as well as comparable clinical efficacy, safety and immunogenicity. Since the approval of the first biosimilar Razumab, there has been a variety of new biosimilars available on the market. They offer the advantage of the same good clinical and safety results at a better price. All Ranibizumab biosimilars that have gained approval were tested in double masked Phase 3 clinical studies. The use of Ranibizumab biosimilars in neovascular AMD is well reported in the bibliography. Nevertheless, over the last few years, there is a tendency of using biosimilars in other retinal diseases like retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), diabetic macular edema (DME) or polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV). In conclusion, ranibizumab biosimilars offer a promising avenue for the management of retinal diseases, especially in countries with lower socioeconomic status, where there is lack of availability of innovator ranibizumab. However, further research is required to fully explore their efficacy, safety, and long-term outcomes in a plethora of retinal diseases.

Biosimilar versus InnovAtor MoLecule of RAnibizumab in Neovascular Age-Related MaCular DEgeneration (The BALANCE Trial): Real-World Evidence

Purpose

To analyse outcomes of innovator ranibizumab (IRM) (Lucentis) and biosimilar ranibizumab (BRM) (Razumab) in Indian eyes with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).

Methods

Retrospective observational study in nAMD patients, who were treated with IRM or BRM (3 loading doses followed by pro re nata (PRN). Primary outcome measures were change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) along with safety analysis. Secondary outcomes measures were changes in the subretinal fluid (SRF) and intraretinal fluid (IRF).

Results

Inclusion criteria were satisfied in 164 eyes (60.74%). A total of 87 eyes were treated with IRM, and 77 eyes received BRM. Baseline BCVA was 0.57±0.27 logMAR in IRM group and 0.61±0.25 in the BRM group. At 3, 6, 9, and 12 months BCVA was 0.27±0.22 (p<0.0001), 0.34±0.23 (p<0.0001), 0.39±0.25 (p<0.0001), and 12 months 0.41±0.23 (p<0.0001) in the IRM group and 0.24±0.16 (p<0.0001), 0.27±0.16 (p<0.0001), 0.34±0.17 (p<0.0001), 0.38±0.18 (p<0.0001) in the BRM group. Baseline CMT was 420.39±54.45 μm in IRM group and 407.82±53.07 μm in BRM group. At 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, CMT decreased to 258.28±20.4 μm (p<0.0001), 268.38±19.5 μm (p<0.0001), 269.51±32.41 μm (p<0.0001), and 278.28±16.56 μm (p<0.0001) in the IRM group and 258.84±17.47 μm (p<0.0001), 265.69±17.29 μm (p<0.0001), 273.64±23.13 μm (p<0.0001), and 283.09±19.66 μm (p<0.0001) in the BRM group. Similar improvements in IRF and SRF levels in the patients were noted in both groups. Required number of doses of IRM and BRM was similar over the 12 month period in both groups. A similar profile of adverse events was noted in both the groups.

Conclusion

Intravitreal injection of IRM and BRM show similar efficacy and safety in Indian eyes with nAMD.