INTRAVITREAL RANIBIZUMAB FOR MACULAR EDEMA SECONDARY TO CENTRAL RETINAL VEIN OCCLUSION

Intravitreal ranibizumab versus aflibercept versus bevacizumab for macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion: the LEAVO non-inferiority three-arm RCT

BACKGROUND

Licensed ranibizumab (0.5 mg/0.05 ml Lucentis®; Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland) and aflibercept (2 mg/0.05 ml Eylea®; Bayer AG, Leverkusen, Germany) and unlicensed bevacizumab (1.25 mg/0.05 ml Avastin®; F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Basel, Switzerland) are used to treat macula oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion, but their relative clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and impact on the UK NHS and Personal Social Services have never been directly compared over the typical disease treatment period.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor agents for the management of macula oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion.

DESIGN

This was a three-arm, double-masked, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

SETTING

The trial was set in 44 UK NHS ophthalmology departments, between 2014 and 2018.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 463 patients with visual impairment due to macula oedema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion were included in the trial.

INTERVENTIONS

The participants were treated with repeated intravitreal injections of ranibizumab (n = 155), aflibercept (n = 154) or bevacizumab (n = 154).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was an increase in the best corrected visual acuity letter score from baseline to 100 weeks in the trial eye. The null hypothesis that aflibercept and bevacizumab are each inferior to ranibizumab was tested with a non-inferiority margin of -5 visual acuity letters over 100 weeks. Secondary outcomes included additional visual acuity, and imaging outcomes, Visual Function Questionnaire-25, EuroQol-5 Dimensions with and without a vision bolt-on, and drug side effects. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using treatment costs and Visual Function Questionnaire-Utility Index to measure quality-adjusted life-years.

RESULTS

The adjusted mean changes at 100 weeks in the best corrected visual acuity letter scores were as follows - ranibizumab, 12.5 letters (standard deviation 21.1 letters); aflibercept, 15.1 letters (standard deviation 18.7 letters); and bevacizumab, 9.8 letters (standard deviation 21.4 letters). Aflibercept was non-inferior to ranibizumab in the intention-to-treat population (adjusted mean best corrected visual acuity difference 2.23 letters, 95% confidence interval -2.17 to 6.63 letters; p = 0.0006), but not superior. The study was unable to demonstrate that bevacizumab was non-inferior to ranibizumab in the intention-to-treat population (adjusted mean best corrected visual acuity difference -1.73 letters, 95% confidence interval -6.12 to 2.67 letters; p = 0.071). A post hoc analysis was unable to demonstrate that bevacizumab was non-inferior to aflibercept in the intention-to-treat population (adjusted mean best corrected visual acuity difference was -3.96 letters, 95% confidence interval -8.34 to 0.42 letters; p = 0.32). All per-protocol population results were the same. Fewer injections were required with aflibercept (10.0) than with ranibizumab (11.8) (difference in means -1.8, 95% confidence interval -2.9 to -0.8). A post hoc analysis showed that more bevacizumab than aflibercept injections were required (difference in means 1.6, 95% confidence interval 0.5 to 2.7). There were no new safety concerns. The model- and trial-based cost-effectiveness analyses estimated that bevacizumab was the most cost-effective treatment at a threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year.

LIMITATIONS

The comparison of aflibercept and bevacizumab was a post hoc analysis.

CONCLUSION

The study showed aflibercept to be non-inferior to ranibizumab. However, the possibility that bevacizumab is worse than ranibizumab and aflibercept by 5 visual acuity letters cannot be ruled out. Bevacizumab is an economically attractive treatment alternative and would lead to substantial cost savings to the NHS and other health-care systems. However, uncertainty about its relative effectiveness should be discussed comprehensively with patients, their representatives and funders before treatment is considered.

FUTURE WORK

To obtain extensive patient feedback and discuss with all stakeholders future bevacizumab NHS use.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13623634.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Retro-orbital injection of FITC-dextran combined with isolectin B4 in assessing the retinal neovascularization defect

Background

A reliable and effective method is required to deliver agent that can aid the in vivo imaging of retinal vessels. The aim of the present study was to evaluate retro-orbital (RO) injection of fluorescein-labeled isothiocyanate dextran (FITC-dextran) as a method of demonstrating retinal neovascularization (NV) and avascular areas in oxygen-induced retinopathy (OIR) mice.

Methods

Different concentrations of FITC-dextran were used to compare the efficacy of this agent in perfusing the retinal vessels. Hematoxylin–eosin (HE) staining was used to evaluate the safety of RO injection. The vitreous blood vessels and extent of NV were assessed in P17 OIR mice using FITC-dextran and compared with the corresponding measurements obtained following isolectin B4 staining or the combination of both methods.

Results

The fluorescence of small vessels and neovascular tufts could be observed clearly following RO injection of 0.05 ml of 25 mg/ml or 50 mg/ml FITC-dextran. No visible damage to tissues adjacent to the injection site was discovered. Vitreous blood flow was gradually reduced from P0 to P5 and eventually disappeared in P17 OIR mice, as demonstrated by FITC-dextran perfusion. The retinal NV areas assessed by isolectin B4 were larger than those assessed by FITC-dextran, but the retinal avascular areas were smaller. The combination of both methods could conduce to distinguish non-functional blood vessels.

Conclusions

RO injection of FITC-dextran combined with isolectin B4 is an effective, optimal method for assessing the NV area and avascular area.

Combination of Grid Laser Photocoagulation and a Single Intravitreal Ranibizumab as an Efficient and Cost-Effective Treatment Option for Macular Edema Secondary to Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion

Our prospective comparative study of 60 patients aimed to compare the efficacy and feasibility of a single injection ranibizumab versus a single grid laser photocoagulation and versus a combined treatment in macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion in Asian population. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 (n = 20/group) into grid laser (LAS), the ranibizumab (RAN), and the combination (COM) group. Outcomes were measured as best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT). There were significant differences in mean BCVA between the three groups at 1 week and 1 month (p < 0.05) and in mean CMT at 1 week and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months (p < 0.05). Overall, best results were observed in the combination group. However, the RAN and COM groups achieved very similar results. At 12 months, the CMT in all three groups was decreased compared with baseline (p < 0.05). Our results allow to conclude that the effect of early treatment with a single injection of intravitreal ranibizumab (cost reduction) and the stabilizing effect of grid laser photocoagulation is indeed an effective, feasible, and safe regiment for macular edema secondary to BRVO in Chinese patients, allowing to obviate the need for repeated intravitreal injections and thus reduce the adverse events, therapy duration, patients' malcompliance, and adverse events. A single ranibizumab therapy however is a comparable alternative.

Efficacy of single bevacizumab injection as adjuvant therapy to laser photocoagulation in macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion

Background

Macular grid laser photocoagulation remains the standard treatment for macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). One possible strategy for treating macular edema is to inhibit VEGF activity by competitive binding of VEGF with an anti-VEGF antibody, suggesting the therapy option with bevacizumab. However, multiple injections of anti-VEGF may lead to complications and high cost.

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the improvement in visual acuity and central macular thickness after combination therapy of laser photocoagulation with single intravitreal bevacizumab injection in macular edema secondary to BRVO.

Methods

Nineteen patients with macular edema secondary to BRVO were assigned to either the group of nine patients in combination therapy of laser photocoagulation with intravitreal bevacizumab or the group of ten patients in the laser photocoagulation therapy. Complete ophthalmologic examinations were performed just before the therapy and at 1 month following the therapy. Changes in visual acuity were tested with the logarithm of minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), and central macular thickness was measured by optical coherence tomography (OCT).

Results

Combination therapy of laser photocoagulation and single intravitreal bevacizumab injection resulted in a significantly better visual acuity compared to laser photocoagulation therapy (0.35 versus 0.13 logMAR; P=0.041) and reduced macular thickness by 120.33 µm versus 71.50 µm (P=0.277), although this difference was not significant.

Conclusion

Laser photocoagulation combined with a single intravitreal bevacizumab has a substantial effect on increasing visual acuity in macular edema secondary to BRVO.

Comparison between ranibizumab and aflibercept for macular edema associated with central retinal vein occlusion

PURPOSE

We compared the efficacy of bimonthly intravitreal injections of ranibizumab (IVR) with that of bimonthly intravitreal injections of aflibercept (IVA) in two prospective, consecutive groups of patients with macular edema (ME) secondary to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eyes with ME after CRVO received either bimonthly IVR (ranibizumab group; n = 13) or IVA (aflibercept group; n = 13) injections and were followed monthly for 6 months. Three patients in the ranibizumab group and two in the aflibercept group were lost to follow-up and excluded from the study. The best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central foveal thickness (CFT) on optical coherence tomography, and aqueous vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) concentrations were evaluated before and after treatment.

RESULTS

From baseline to month 6, significant improvements occurred in mean logMAR BCVA (ranibizumab group: 0.78-0.47; p < 0.05; aflibercept group: 0.74-0.54; p < 0.05) and mean CFT (ranibizumab group: 685-311 µm; p < 0.05; aflibercept group: 695-230 µm; p < 0.05). Fluctuations in CFT were seen at months 2, 4, and 6 in the ranibizumab group. Mean aqueous VEGF concentration decreased from baseline to month 2 in the ranibizumab group (509.9-348.2 pg/ml) and aflibercept group (412.1 pg/ml to undetectable limits in eight of 11 eyes and to 13.6, 15.6, and 24.1 pg/ml in the other three eyes, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant improvement of visual acuity in one group compared with another; VEGF may not be completely neutralized by bimonthly injections of ranibizumab.

Surgically Induced Corneal Astigmatism Following Intravitreal Ranibizumab Injection

Purpose :

To evaluate surgically induced astigmatism (SIA) after an intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) injection.

Methods :

Fifty eight eyes of 58 patients who underwent IVR injection due to age-related macular degeneration (wet form) or macular edema were included in this study. Patients’ pre- and postoperative detailed ophthalmologic examinations were done and topographic keratometric values (K1, K2) were noted. Pre- and postoperative measurements were compared.

Results :

The mean preoperative astigmatism of 0.87 Diopters (D) was found to be 0.95 D, 0.75 D, 0.82 D and 0.78 D on the 1st day, 3rd day, 1st week and 1st month, respectively. After injection, absolute change in astigmatism was found to be 0.08 D, 0.12 D, 0.05 D and 0.09 D on the 1st day, 3rd day, 1st week and 1st month, respectively. The absolute change in astigmatism seemed to be insignificant in terms of refractive analysis, however; when we performed a vectorial analysis, which takes into account changes in the axis of astigmatism, the mean value of induced astigmatism were found to be 0.33±0.22 D, 0.32±0.29 D, 0.41±0.37 D, 0.46±0.32 D on the 1st day, 3rd day, 1st week and on 1st month, respectively.

Conclusion :

Intravitreal injection is a minimally invasive ophthalmologic procedure, however; it may still cause statistically significant induced astigmatism when evaluated from a vectorial point of view.

[Management of macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion]

BACKGROUND

In recent years, intravitreal injections have added to the treatment modalities available for macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO). This article aims to provide an update regarding the management of ME secondary to RVO.

METHODS

A work group met in order to analyze the literature available on Embase/PubMed, regarding treatments for venous occlusion that have received market approval and are reimbursed in France. In total, 33 articles were selected. Consensus within the group for recommendations was based on this data from the literature review and clinical experience and was reported in this article.

RESULTS

The management of ME secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) or central vein occlusion of the retina (CRVO) differs on a number of points. Methods of best practice were discussed separately for BRVO and CRVO, taking into account various ocular and associated parameters.

DISCUSSION

Ranibizumab and dexamethasone implant are the first-line treatments for visual impairment due to ME secondary to RVO. The choice of either of these drugs may take into account various ocular and extraocular parameters. A change of treatment to one or the other or to laser may also be considered during follow-up.

Targeted photocoagulation of peripheral ischemia to treat rebound edema

Introduction

Peripheral retinal ischemia not detectable by conventional fluorescein angiography has been proposed to be a driving force for rebound edema in retinal vein occlusions. In this report, we examine the treatment of peripheral retinal ischemia with targeted retinal photocoagulation (TRP) to manage a patient’s rebound edema.

Methods

To assess the extent of peripheral nonperfusion, an Optos 200Tx device was used. To target the treatment to peripheral ischemia areas, a Navilas Panretinal Laser was used.

Results

A 64-year-old male with a central retinal vein occlusion and a visual acuity 20/300, and central macular thickness 318 μm presented with rubeosis. Angiography revealed extensive peripheral nonperfusion. Despite TRP to areas of irreversible ischemia, after 2 months, he continued show rubeosis and rebound edema. Additional TRP laser was repeatedly added more posteriorly to areas of reversible nonperfusion, resulting in eventual resolution of rubeosis and edema.

Conclusion

In this study, we demonstrate the use of widefield imaging with targeted photo-coagulation of peripheral ischemia to treat rebound edema, while preserving most peripheral vision. In order to treat rebound edema, extensive TRP, across reversible and nonreversible areas of ischemia, had to be performed – not just in areas of nonreversible peripheral ischemia. These areas need to be mapped during episodes of rebound edema, when ischemia is at its maximum. In this way, by doing the most TRP possible, the cycle of rebound edema can be broken.

Ranibizumab in retinal vein occlusion: treatment recommendations by an expert panel

Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is a common cause of retinal vascular disease, resulting in potentially irreversible loss of vision despite the existence of several therapeutic options. The humanised monoclonal antibody fragment ranibizumab binds to and inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor, a key driver of macular oedema in RVO. In 2010, ranibizumab was approved in the USA for the treatment of macular oedema in RVO and, in 2011, ranibizumab was approved in the European Union for the treatment of visual impairment caused by macular oedema secondary to RVO in branch and central RVO. Ranibizumab provides an additional therapeutic option for this complex disease: an option that was not fully considered during the preparation of current international guidelines. An expert panel was convened to critically evaluate the evidence for treatment with ranibizumab in patients with visual impairment caused by macular oedema secondary to RVO and to develop treatment recommendations, with the aim of assisting physicians to optimise patient treatment.

One day wonder: fast resolution of macular edema following intravitreal ranibizumab in retinal venous occlusions

Macular edema is a significant cause of vision loss in patients with central retinal vein occlusions and branch retinal vein occlusions. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) appears to be a key factor in the pathogenesis of this disease. Anti-VEGF therapy, such as intravitreal ranibizumab provides an effective treatment against vision-threatening macular edema. We report three patients of retinal vein occlusion with macular edema who demonstrated overnight resolution of macular edema following treatment with intravitreal ranibizumab (0.5 mg). 3D optical coherence tomography (Optovue) was used as a tool for comparison of the macular thickness before and after treatment. The significant reductions in the central foveal thickness demonstrated in these patients one night after intravitreal injections could have significant influence on modifying current treatment protocols. Early treatment of macular edema related to retinal venous occlusive disease with anti-VEGF injections could result in faster visual rehabilitation in these patients.

The effect of subconjunctival ranibizumab on corneal and anterior segment neovascularization: study on an animal model

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of subconjunctival anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) ranibizumab on corneal and anterior segment neovascularization.

METHODS

In this experimental study and laboratory investigation, chemical cauterization was utilized to induce corneal neovascularization in 16 rabbits randomly divided in 2 equal groups. Cauterized eyes were either treated with 0.1 mL (1 mg) of subconjunctival ranibizumab or administered a sham injection. A third group of 4 rabbits served as control for side effects after ranibizumab administration. All animals were monitored daily for 14 days and the extent of corneal scarring and neovascularization was measured on days 1, 7, and 14. After enucleation, ocular tissues were separated under a surgical microscope and VEGF levels were measured with ELISA. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the extent of corneal neovascularization and VEGF levels between treated and untreated eyes.

RESULTS

Subconjunctival ranibizumab inhibited corneal neovascularization significantly both in the first and the second week compared to untreated controls (p = 0.006 and p = 0.001, respectively). The VEGF levels were significantly lower in all anterior segment tissues like the cornea, iris, aqueous humor, and conjunctiva of the treated eyes (p<0.01). The reduction of VEGF levels ranged from 19% to 73% in different ocular tissues. Corneal scarring was not significantly affected by anti-VEGF treatment (p = 0.7). No side effects were noticed.

CONCLUSIONS

Early subconjunctival administration of ranibizumab may successfully inhibit alkali-induced corneal neovascularization in an animal model. Subconjunctival ranibizumab reduces VEGF levels significantly not only in the cornea and the bulbar conjunctiva but also in the aqueous humor and the iris.

Retreatment with Ozurdex for macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion

PURPOSE

To review the current practice of retreatment with Ozurdex injections in patients with macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO), and to recommend simple guidelines for Ozurdex reinjection in management of RVO.

METHODS

This was a multicenter retrospective study of patients who received more than 2 Ozurdex injections for the treatment of ME in RVO. Recorded parameters included percent of patients with a 15-letter gain, visual acuity (VA) improvement from baseline, change in central macular thickness (CMT), time to reinjection, and occurrence of any complications.

RESULTS

A total of 128 patients were included, 58 (45.3%) with central RVO (CRVO) and 70 (54.7%) with branch RVO (BRVO). Mean interval for Ozurdex reinjection was 5.9 months following the first injection and 8.7 months following the second. A >15-letter gain in VA was observed in 34 (48.8%) patients with CRVO and 16 (28%) patients with BRVO. Mean overall VA improvement at month 6 did not show significance (p>0.05); however, a significantly better mean VA improvement was seen in treatment-naïve eyes (p<0.03). The CMT was significantly reduced compared to baseline. The mean CMT decreased by 214.6 µm in eyes with BRVO (n = 53) and by 355.1 µm in eyes with CRVO (n = 63) (p = 0.002). Complication rates were very low.

CONCLUSIONS

Repeated injections of Ozurdex are effective and have a favorable safety profile. In current practice, the retreatment interval with Ozurdex injections might be too long, precluding the full therapeutic potential of this treatment modality. A strategy for managing RVO patients treated with Ozurdex on an as-needed basis is provided.

Prospective study of peripheral panretinal photocoagulation of areas of nonperfusion in central retinal vein occlusion

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect that panretinal photocoagulation to peripheral areas of retinal vascular nonperfusion has on the visual acuity and injection frequency of ranibizumab in eyes with previous central retinal vein occlusion.

METHODS

Patients enrolled in a prospective study of ranibizumab for central retinal vein occlusion were imaged with wide-field angiography using the Optos P200 system. Laser photocoagulation was carried out and the extent of laser photocoagulation was evaluated with repeat wide-field angiography. Injection of ranibizumab was based on an as needed strategy throughout the study. The injection frequency in the 6 months before laser was compared with a 6-month period starting 2 months after the laser photocoagulation. The visual acuity was measured by Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study protocol refraction at both the end of the 6-month follow-up period and at the time of laser photocoagulation.

RESULTS

There were 10 patients treated in this study with a mean number of 1,757 spots of laser photocoagulation in the peripheral retina. The injection frequency in the 6-month lead-in period was 3.4 and in the 6-month follow-up period was 3.1, a difference that was not significant (P = 0.26). The visual acuity at the time of laser photocoagulation was 54.2 letters (approximate Snellen equivalent of 20/80) and at the end of the observation period was 51.4 letters, a difference that was not significant (P = 0.33).

CONCLUSION

In this small study, laser photocoagulation to peripheral areas of nonperfusion as visualized by wide-field angiography did not result in either decreased injection frequency or improved visual acuity in eyes with central retinal vein occlusion treated with ranibizumab.

Retinal Vein Occlusions

Retinal vein occlusions (RVOs) are second to diabetic retinopathy in the prevalence as retinal vascular disorder and are characterized by dilatation of the retinal veins with retinal and subretinal hemorrhages, macular edema, hard retinal exudates, retinal ischemia, and consequent atrophy of the retina and optic nerve. They are differentiated into central RVOs and branch RVOs (BRVO), into ischemic versus nonischemic RVOs, and in the case of BRVOs, into intrapapillary BRVOs and extrapapillary BRVOs. Diagnosis is based on ophthalmoscopy, fluorescein angiography, and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. The latter can display the presence and integrity of the retinal outer limiting membrane and of the inner and outer segments of the photoreceptors as useful information for prognosis and a guide for treatment. Risk factors for RVOs are glaucoma and arterial hypertension. Ischemic RVOs can develop iris neovascularization and secondary angle-closure glaucoma. Formerly, therapy consisted of laser photocoagulation in a "grid" pattern over the leaking area, leading to a reduction of macular edema and, as adverse effect, to focal retinal destruction. Intravitreal medical therapy including steroids and vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors shows a marked antiedematous effect leading to an at least temporary reduction in foveal edema and correspondingly improves visual function. Intravitreal medical therapy is associated with the disadvantage of a limited duration of its effect and the advantage of not damaging the retina. A preventive therapy to avoid a recurrence of RVO or the development of an RVO in the contralateral eye has not been proven yet.

Safety and Efficacy of Ranibizumab in Macular Edema following Retinal Vein Occlusion

Macular edema is the leading cause of visual impairment in patients with retinal vein occlusion. Limited improvements may be obtained with laser photocoagulation or intravitreal triamcinolone. However, according to the data provided by randomized clinical trials, intravitreal injections of ranibizumab (Lucentis; Genentech, South San Francisco, CA) constitute a new effective and safe option for the management of these vision-threatening diseases. The aim of the present review is to summarize the clinical evidence of ranibizumab for macular edema due to retinal vein occlusions.

Retinal vein occlusion and macular edema - critical evaluation of the clinical value of ranibizumab

Retinal vein occlusions (RVOs) constitute the second most common cause of retinal vascular disease after diabetic retinopathy, with a prevalence of between 1% and 2% in persons older than 40 years of age. Despite the existence of numerous potential therapeutic options, none is entirely satisfactory, and many patients with RVO suffer irreversible visual loss. Fortunately however, the recent introduction of antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents, such as ranibizumab (Lucentis^®, Genentech, South San Francisco, CA) and bevacizumab (Avastin^®, Genentech), offers a potentially new treatment approach for clinicians managing this disorder. The results of the BRAVO and CRUISE trials have provided the first definitive evidence for the efficacy and safety of ranibizumab in the treatment of RVO. As a result, ranibizumab has recently been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of RVO-associated macular edema. In this review, we provide a critical evaluation of clinical trial data for the safety and efficacy of ranibizumab, and address unresolved issues in the management of this disorder.