Phase 1 Dose-Escalation Study of Plasma Kallikrein Inhibitor THR-149 for the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of a single intravitreal injection of 3 dose levels of THR-149 in adults with center-involved diabetic macular edema (DME). Methods: A phase 1, open-label, multicenter 3 + 3 dose-esclation study with 3-month follow-up. The primary endpoint was the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) up to and including the Day 14 visit. Additional key endpoints included the incidence of (serious) adverse events ([S]AEs), mean change from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central subfield thickness (CST), and additional imaging parameters on widefield fluorescein angiography and optical coherence tomography (OCT) angiography. Results: Twelve subjects were treated: 3 subjects received THR-149 0.005 mg, 3 received 0.022 mg and 6 received 0.13 mg. Baseline ocular characteristics were balanced between subjects at each dose level. There were no DLTs or ocular SAEs, and all subjects completed the study. Six subjects experienced a total of 10 AEs in the study eye; 1 case of mild anterior chamber inflammation was deemed related to THR-149 and/or the injection procedure. Mean change from Baseline in BCVA was +7.5 Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters on Day 14, and +6.4 ETDRS letters by Month 3. CST was variable, and mean CST change from baseline was +30.0 µm at Month 3. There were no clinically meaningful changes in imaging parameters. Conclusions: THR-149 was safe and well tolerated; preliminary efficacy in terms of BCVA improvement was observed. Translational Relevance: This work bridges the gap between basic research and clinical care by providing first in human safety and preliminary efficacy data, supporting the further investigation of THR-149 as a potential treatment for DME.

A Phase 1, Open-Label, Dose-Escalation Trial to Investigate Safety and Tolerability of Single Intravitreous Injections of ICON-1 Targeting Tissue Factor in Wet AMD.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This phase 1 study evaluated the safety and tolerability of single intravitreous injections (IVIs) of ICON-1 (Iconic Therapeutics, South San Francisco, CA) in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). ICON-1 is a modified factor VIIa protein linked with the Fc portion of a human immunoglobulin G1. The molecule binds tissue factor overexpressed on choroidal neovascularization (CNV) in AMD. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Open-label, interventional, dose-escalation trial in 18 patients with CNV due to AMD, with six patients per dose cohort. Patients received a single IVI of ICON-1 at baseline in one of three escalating doses: 60 µg, 150 µg, or 300 µg. Standard anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment was allowed at the investigator's discretion at least 2 weeks after the ICON-1 injection; patients were followed up to 24 weeks. Dose escalation was based on the absence of significant safety events. At each study visit, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), ophthalmic examination (intraocular pressure, slit-lamp, and dilated fundus examination), and ophthalmic imaging (color fundus photography, fluorescein angiography, and optical coherence tomography) assessments were performed. The systemic pharmacokinetics of ICON-1 and presence of anti-ICON-1 antibodies were also assessed. RESULTS: ICON-1 was safe and well-tolerated up to the highest dose administered, which was 300 µg. Commonly reported adverse events were considered related to the IVI procedure or to the underlying nAMD. No significant systemic levels of ICON-1 or anti-ICON-1 antibodies were detected. Preliminary evidence of biological activity (improved BCVA, reduced central retinal thickness, decreased CNV size, and leakage) was most evident with the 300 µg dose at 1 to 2 weeks after the single ICON-1 injection. CONCLUSION: Intravitreous administration of ICON-1 in single doses up to 300 µg in eyes with neovascular AMD was safe and well-tolerated. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2018;49:336-345.].

Panretinal Photocoagulation vs Intravitreous Ranibizumab for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) is the standard treatment for reducing severe visual loss from proliferative diabetic retinopathy. However, PRP can damage the retina, resulting in peripheral vision loss or worsening diabetic macular edema (DME). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the noninferiority of intravitreous ranibizumab compared with PRP for visual acuity outcomes in patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized clinical trial conducted at 55 US sites among 305 adults with proliferative diabetic retinopathy enrolled between February and December 2012 (mean age, 52 years; 44% female; 52% white). Both eyes were enrolled for 89 participants (1 eye to each study group), with a total of 394 study eyes. The final 2-year visit was completed in January 2015. INTERVENTIONS: Individual eyes were randomly assigned to receive PRP treatment, completed in 1 to 3 visits (n = 203 eyes), or ranibizumab, 0.5 mg, by intravitreous injection at baseline and as frequently as every 4 weeks based on a structured re-treatment protocol (n = 191 eyes). Eyes in both treatment groups could receive ranibizumab for DME. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was mean visual acuity change at 2 years (5-letter noninferiority margin; intention-to-treat analysis). Secondary outcomes included visual acuity area under the curve, peripheral visual field loss, vitrectomy, DME development, and retinal neovascularization. RESULTS: Mean visual acuity letter improvement at 2 years was +2.8 in the ranibizumab group vs +0.2 in the PRP group (difference, +2.2; 95% CI, -0.5 to +5.0; P < .001 for noninferiority). The mean treatment group difference in visual acuity area under the curve over 2 years was +4.2 (95% CI, +3.0 to +5.4; P < .001). Mean peripheral visual field sensitivity loss was worse (-23 dB vs -422 dB; difference, 372 dB; 95% CI, 213-531 dB; P < .001), vitrectomy was more frequent (15% vs 4%; difference, 9%; 95% CI, 4%-15%; P < .001), and DME development was more frequent (28% vs 9%; difference, 19%; 95% CI, 10%-28%; P < .001) in the PRP group vs the ranibizumab group, respectively. Eyes without active or regressed neovascularization at 2 years were not significantly different (35% in the ranibizumab group vs 30% in the PRP group; difference, 3%; 95% CI, -7% to 12%; P = .58). One eye in the ranibizumab group developed endophthalmitis. No significant differences between groups in rates of major cardiovascular events were identified. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among eyes with proliferative diabetic retinopathy, treatment with ranibizumab resulted in visual acuity that was noninferior to (not worse than) PRP treatment at 2 years. Although longer-term follow-up is needed, ranibizumab may be a reasonable treatment alternative, at least through 2 years, for patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01489189.

RANIBIZUMAB PLUS PROMPT OR DEFERRED LASER FOR DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA IN EYES WITH VITRECTOMY BEFORE ANTI-VASCULAR ENDOTHELIAL GROWTH FACTOR THERAPY.

BACKGROUND: The approach to managing diabetic macular edema in eyes with previous vitrectomy is based on limited evidence. Therefore, an exploratory post hoc assessment of 3-year data from eyes with and without vitrectomy before randomization in a DRCR.net trial that evaluated ranibizumab + prompt or deferred laser for diabetic macular edema is presented. METHODS: Visual acuity and optical coherence tomography outcomes were compared between eyes with and without previous vitrectomy. RESULTS: At baseline, eyes with previous vitrectomy (n = 25) had longer duration of diabetes, worse visual acuity, less thickened central subfield measurements on optical coherence tomography and were more apt to have worse diabetic retinopathy severity level or previous treatment for macular edema or cataract surgery than eyes without a history of vitrectomy (n = 335). Analyses adjusted for these baseline imbalances did not identify substantial differences between eyes with and without previous vitrectomy at each annual visit through 3 years for the favorable visual acuity, optical coherence tomography central subfield thickness, or volume outcomes, although optical coherence tomography improvement appeared slower in vitrectomy eyes during the first year. CONCLUSION: This study provides little evidence that the beneficial clinical outcomes for patients with center-involved diabetic macular edema treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor are affected in the long term by previous vitrectomy.

Treatment of diabetic macular edema with a designed ankyrin repeat protein that binds vascular endothelial growth factor: a phase I/II study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and bioactivity of MP0112, a designed ankyrin repeat protein (DARPin) that specifically binds vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). DARPins are a novel class of proteins selected for specific, high-affinity binding to a target protein. DESIGN: Phase I/II, open-label, multicenter dose-escalation trial. METHODS: After a single intravitreal injection of MP0112, the main outcomes were safety assessments, aqueous MP0112 levels, change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and foveal thickness measured by optical coherence tomography. Six cohorts were planned, but only 3 were enrolled (0.04, 0.15, 0.4 mg), because a maximally tolerated dose of 1.0 mg was identified in a parallel age-related macular degeneration trial. RESULTS: Median aqueous concentration of MP0112 was 555 nM 1 week and >10 nM in 3 of 4 patients 12 weeks post injection of 0.4 mg. Median BCVA improvement at week 12 was 4, 6, and 10 letters in cohorts 1, 2, and 3. Ocular inflammation was observed in 11 patients (61%) and was severe in 1. High-resolution chromatography separated proinflammatory impurities from MP0112, resulting in a new formulation. CONCLUSIONS: A single intraocular injection of 0.4 mg MP0112 resulted in levels above the half-maximal inhibitory concentration and neutralization of VEGF in aqueous humor for 8-12 weeks. Despite inflammation in several patients, there was prolonged edema reduction and improvement in vision in several patients. The source of the inflammation was eliminated from a new preparation that is being tested in an ongoing clinical trial.

Retinal thickness in people with diabetes and minimal or no diabetic retinopathy: Heidelberg Spectralis optical coherence tomography.

PURPOSE: To evaluate macular thickness in people with diabetes but minimal or no retinopathy using Heidelberg Spectralis optical coherence tomography (OCT). METHODS: In a multicenter, cross-sectional study of mean retinal thickness, on Spectralis OCT in the nine standard OCT subfields, spanning a zone with 6-mm diameter, center point, and total retinal volume were evaluated. Central subfield (CSF) thickness was evaluated for association with demographic and clinical factors. Stratus OCT scans also were performed on each participant. RESULTS: The analysis included 122 eyes (122 participants) with diabetes and no (n = 103) or minimal diabetic retinopathy (n = 19) and no macular retinal thickening on clinical exam. Average CSF thickness was 270 ± 24 µm. Central subfield thickness was significantly greater in males relative to females (mean 278 ± 23 µm vs. 262 ± 22 µm, P < 0.001). After adjusting for gender, no additional factors were found to be significantly associated with CSF thickness (P > 0.10). Mean Stratus OCT CSF thickness was 199 ± 24 µm. CONCLUSIONS: Mean CSF thickness is approximately 70 µm thicker when measured with Heidelberg Spectralis OCT as compared with Stratus OCT among individuals with diabetes in the absence of retinopathy or with minimal nonproliferative retinopathy and a normal macular architecture. CSF thickness values ≥ 320 µm for males and 305 µm for females (~2 SDs above the average for this normative cohort) are proposed as gender-specific thickness levels to have reasonable certainty that diabetic macular edema involving the CSF is present using Spectralis measurements.

Reproducibility of macular thickness and volume using Zeiss optical coherence tomography in patients with diabetic macular edema.

PURPOSE: To evaluate optical coherence tomography (OCT) reproducibility in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN: Prospective 1-day observational study. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred twelve eyes of 107 patients with DME involving the macular center by clinical examination and OCT central subfield thickness of > or =225 microm. METHODS: Retinal thickness was measured with the OCT3 system, and scans were evaluated by a reading center. Reproducibility of retinal thickness measurements was assessed, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for a change in thickness were estimated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reproducibility of OCT-measured central subfield thickness. RESULTS: Reproducibility was better for central subfield thickness than for center point thickness (half-width of the 95% CI for absolute change, 38 microm vs. 50 microm, and for relative change, 11% vs. 17%, respectively; P<0.001). The median absolute difference between replicate measurements of the central subfield was 7 microm (2%). Half-widths of the 95% CI for a change in central subfield thickness were 22, 23, 33, and 56 microm for scans with central subfield thicknesses of <200, 200 to <250, 250 to <400, and > or =400 microm, respectively. When expressed as percentage differences between 2 measurements, half-widths of the 95% CI for a change in central subfield thickness were 10%, 10%, 10%, and 13% for scans with central subfield thicknesses of <200, 200 to <250, 250 to <400, and > or =400 microm, respectively. We were unable to identify an effect on reproducibility of central subfield measurements with respect to the presence of cystoid abnormalities, subretinal fluid, vitreomacular traction, or reduced visual acuity. Reproducibility was better when both scans had a standard deviation (SD) of the center point of <10.0% (half-width of the 95% CI for change, 33 microm vs. 56 microm; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Reproducibility is better for central subfield thickness measurements than for center point measurements, and variability is less with retinal thickness when expressed as a percent change than when expressed as an absolute change. A change in central subfield thickness exceeding 11% is likely to be real. Scans with an SD of the center point of > or =10.0% are less reproducible and should be viewed with caution when assessing the validity of an observed change in retinal thickness in patients with DME.