ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To compare different doses and dosing regimens of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) Trap-Eye with laser photocoagulation in eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN: Randomized, double-masked, multicenter, phase 2 clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Diabetic patients (n = 221) with center-involved DME. METHODS: Participants were assigned randomly to 1 of 5 treatment regimens: VEGF Trap-Eye 0.5 mg every 4 weeks (0.5q4); 2 mg every 4 weeks (2q4); 2 mg every 8 weeks after 3 initial monthly doses (2q8); or 2 mg dosing as needed after 3 initial monthly doses (2PRN), or macular laser photocoagulation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 24 weeks (the primary end point) and at 52 weeks, proportion of eyes that gained 15 letters or more in Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) BCVA, and mean changes in central retinal thickness (CRT) from baseline. RESULTS: As previously reported, mean improvements in BCVA in the VEGF Trap-Eye groups at week 24 were 8.6, 11.4, 8.5, and 10.3 letters for 0.5q4, 2q4, 2q8, and 2PRN regimens, respectively, versus 2.5 letters for the laser group (P ≤ 0.0085 versus laser). Mean improvements in BCVA in the VEGF Trap-Eye groups at week 52 were 11.0, 13.1, 9.7, and 12.0 letters for 0.5q4, 2q4, 2q8, and 2PRN regimens, respectively, versus -1.3 letters for the laser group (P ≤ 0.0001 versus laser). Proportions of eyes with gains in BCVA of 15 or more ETDRS letters at week 52 in the VEGF Trap-Eye groups were 40.9%, 45.5%, 23.8%, and 42.2% versus 11.4% for laser (P = 0.0031, P = 0.0007, P = 0.1608, and P = 0.0016, respectively, versus laser). Mean reductions in CRT in the VEGF Trap-Eye groups at week 52 were -165.4 µm, -227.4 µm, -187.8 µm, and -180.3 µm versus -58.4 µm for laser (P < 0.0001 versus laser). Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Trap-Eye generally was well tolerated. The most frequent ocular adverse events with VEGF Trap-Eye were conjunctival hemorrhage, eye pain, ocular hyperemia, and increased intraocular pressure, whereas common systemic adverse events included hypertension, nausea, and congestive heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: Significant gains in BCVA from baseline achieved at week 24 were maintained or improved at week 52 in all VEGF Trap-Eye groups. Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Trap-Eye warrants further investigation for the treatment of DME.
Subject(s)
Diabetic Retinopathy/therapy , Laser Coagulation , Macular Edema/therapy , Recombinant Fusion Proteins/administration & dosage , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/complications , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/complications , Diabetic Retinopathy/drug therapy , Diabetic Retinopathy/physiopathology , Diabetic Retinopathy/surgery , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Macular Edema/drug therapy , Macular Edema/physiopathology , Macular Edema/surgery , Male , Middle Aged , Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor , Recombinant Fusion Proteins/therapeutic use , Retreatment , Treatment Outcome , Visual Acuity/physiologyABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To determine whether different doses and dosing regimens of intravitreal vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) Trap-Eye are superior to focal/grid photocoagulation in eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, double-masked, phase 2 clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 221 diabetic patients with clinically significant macular edema involving the central macula. METHODS: Patients were assigned to 1 of 5 treatment regimens: 0.5 mg VEGF Trap-Eye every 4 weeks; 2 mg VEGF Trap-Eye every 4 weeks; 2 mg VEGF Trap-Eye for 3 initial monthly doses and then every 8 weeks; 2 mg VEGF Trap-Eye for 3 initial monthly doses and then on an as-needed (PRN) basis; or macular laser photocoagulation. Assessments were completed at baseline and every 4 weeks thereafter. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean change in visual acuity and central retinal thickness (CRT) at 24 weeks. RESULTS: Patients in the 4 VEGF Trap-Eye groups experienced mean visual acuity benefits ranging from +8.5 to +11.4 Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters versus only +2.5 letters in the laser group (P ≤ 0.0085 for each VEGF Trap-Eye group vs. laser). Gains from baseline of 0+, 10+, and 15+ letters were seen in up to 93%, 64%, and 34% of VEGF Trap-Eye groups versus up to 68%, 32%, and 21% in the laser group, respectively. Mean reductions in CRT in the 4 VEGF Trap-Eye groups ranged from -127.3 to -194.5 µm compared with only -67.9 µm in the laser group (P = 0.0066 for each VEGF Trap-Eye group vs. laser). VEGF Trap-Eye was generally well tolerated. Ocular adverse events in patients treated with VEGF Trap-Eye were generally consistent with those seen with other intravitreal anti-VEGF agents. CONCLUSIONS: Intravitreal VEGF Trap-Eye produced a statistically significant and clinically relevant improvement in visual acuity when compared with macular laser photocoagulation in patients with DME.
