Ranibizumab versus laser therapy for the treatment of very low birthweight infants with retinopathy of prematurity (RAINBOW): five-year outcomes of a randomised trial.

Background: Concerns remain over the long-term safety of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors to treat retinopathy of prematurity (ROP). RAINBOW is an open label randomised trial comparing intravitreal ranibizumab (in 0.2 mg and 0.1 mg doses) with laser therapy in very low birthweight infants (<1500 g) with ROP. Methods: Of 201 infants completing RAINBOW, 180 were enrolled in the RAINBOW Extension Study. At 5 years, children underwent ophthalmic, development and health assessments. The primary outcome was visual acuity in the better-seeing eye. The study is registered with ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT02640664. Findings: Between 16-6-2016 and 21-4-2022, 156 children (87%) were evaluated at 5 years. Of 32 children with no acuity test result, 25 had a preferential looking test, for 4 children investigators reported low vision for each eye, and in 3 further children no vision measurement was obtained. 124 children completed the acuity assessment, the least square mean (95% CI) letter score in the better seeing eye was similar in the three trial arms-66.8 (62.9-70.7) following ranibizumab 0.2 mg, 64.6 (60.6-68.5) following ranibizumab 0.1 mg and 62.1 (57.8-66.4) following laser therapy; differences in means: ranibizumab 0.2 mg v laser: 4.7 (95% CI: -1.1, 10.5); 0.1 mg v laser: 2.5 (-3.4, 8.3); 0.2 mg v 0.1 mg: 2.2 (-3.3, 7.8). High myopia (worse than -5 dioptres) in at least one eye occurred in 4/52 (8%) children following ranibizumab 0.2 mg, 8/55 (15%) following ranibizumab 0.1 mg and 11/45 (24%) following laser therapy (0.2 mg versus laser: odds ratio: 3.99 (1.16-13.72)). Ocular and systemic secondary outcomes and adverse events were distributed similarly in each trial arm. Interpretation: 5-year outcomes confirm the findings of the original RAINBOW trial and a planned interim analysis at 2 years, including a reduced frequency of high myopia following ranibizumab treatment. No effects of treatment on non-ocular outcomes were detected. Funding: Novartis Pharma AG.

Amblyopia-A novel virtual round table to explore the caregiver perspective.

PURPOSE: A survey aimed to capture the caregiver's perspective on the impact of amblyopia and its treatment on the child and family, as well as caregivers' views on the design and feasibility of clinical trials investigating dichoptic binocular therapies for amblyopia. METHODS: Parents of amblyopic children, patient advocates and healthcare professionals took part in a moderated, structured discussion on a novel virtual advisory-board platform. RESULTS: Seven parents of children with amblyopia, two patient organisation representatives, one ophthalmologist and one optometrist participated in the survey. A total of 645 posts were entered on the platform over a 14-day period in September 2021. There was widespread agreement that the management of amblyopia poses more of a burden on the child and family than the condition itself, with treatment burden accentuated when treatment is unsuccessful. Parents expressed uncertainty and frustration in relation to the duration of patching, success of patching and alternative treatment options, and felt there was inadequate readily available, easy-to-understand information on the condition. Parents reported that a new treatment for amblyopia, such as dichoptic binocular therapy using video games, should be safe, non-invasive and engaging compared with an eye patch. Treating at home, potentially for a shorter treatment duration, and with an entertaining game were the main reasons parents would join a clinical study with this type of novel therapy. However, due to a limited critical period treatment window, parents would feel more comfortable joining a clinical trial if traditional therapies were offered in conjunction with those under investigation. CONCLUSION: Patient perspectives and the role of caregivers in the acceptance of any interventional treatments are increasingly recognised. Understanding how amblyopia and its treatment impacts a child and family should be an important premise to guide therapy and evaluate treatment value, both in clinical trials and in routine medical practice.

Time Course of Retinopathy of Prematurity Regression and Reactivation After Treatment with Ranibizumab or Laser in the RAINBOW Trial.

PURPOSE: To study the time course of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) regression and reactivation after treatment with intravitreal ranibizumab or laser in the ranibizumab compared with laser therapy for the treatment of infants born prematurely with ROP trial. DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of a randomized, clinical trial. SUBJECTS: A total of 225 infants (448 eyes) were randomized to ranibizumab 0.2 mg (n = 74, 148 eyes), ranibizumab 0.1 mg (n = 77, 152 eyes), and laser (n = 74, 148 eyes). METHODS: Features of disease regression were measured using time-to-event analysis per eye, corrected for within-subject association. Analyses of disease reactivation and additional treatments were descriptive. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Median time to regression of plus disease, stage 3 ROP, aggressive posterior (AP)-ROP to 24-week follow-up and disease reactivation and first additional treatment to 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: The median times to regression after ranibizumab 0.2 mg vs. laser were as follows: plus disease, 4 vs. 16 days (P < 0.001); stage 3 ROP, 8 vs. 16 days (P = 0.004); and AP-ROP, 7.3 vs. 22 days (P = 0.03). Results for ranibizumab 0.1 mg were similar to those for 0.2 mg, with a median of 4, 9, and 8 days, respectively. Additional treatments were given in 34 (25%) of 138 eyes after laser and 40 (27%) of 146 and 42 (28%) of 152 eyes after 0.2 mg and 0.1 mg ranibizumab, respectively. Incomplete disease regression requiring additional treatment occurred in 30 (22%) of 138 eyes after laser after a median interval of 15 days compared with 11 (8%) of 146 and 9 (6%) of 152 after 0.2 mg and 0.1 mg ranibizumab after a median interval of 21 and 13 days, respectively. Retinopathy of prematurity reactivation requiring additional treatment occurred in 3 (2%) of 138 eyes after laser after a median interval of 43 days compared with 22 (15%) of 146 and 26 (17%) of 152 after 0.2 and 0.1 mg ranibizumab after a median interval of 53.5 (maximum, 105) and 54.5 days (maximum, 128), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Intravitreal 0.2 or 0.1 mg ranibizumab induced a faster regression of plus disease, stage 3 ROP, and AP-ROP than laser did. Ranibizumab was associated with fewer additional treatments for incomplete disease regression but more for disease reactivation.

2-year outcomes of ranibizumab versus laser therapy for the treatment of very low birthweight infants with retinopathy of prematurity (RAINBOW extension study): prospective follow-up of an open label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Intravitreal injection of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors is increasingly used to treat retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) in the absence of evidence about long-term efficacy or safety. In this prespecified interim analysis of the RAINBOW extension study, we aimed to prospectively assess outcomes at age 2 years. METHODS: RAINBOW was an open-label, randomised trial that compared intravitreal ranibizumab (at 0·1 mg and 0·2 mg doses) with laser therapy for the treatment of ROP in very low birthweight infants (<1500 g). Families of the 201 infants that completed the RAINBOW core study were approached for consent to enter the extension study, which evaluates treatment outcomes prospectively through to 5 years of age. At age 20-28 months corrected for prematurity, participants had ophthalmic, development, and health assessments. The primary outcome was the absence of structural ocular abnormalities; secondary outcomes included vision-related quality of life (reported by parents using the Children's Visual Function Questionnaire), development (assessed with the Mullen Scales of Early Learning), motor function, and health status. Investigator-determined ocular and non-ocular serious and other adverse events were recorded. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02640664. FINDINGS: Between June 16, 2016, and Jan 22, 2018, 180 infants were enrolled in the RAINBOW extension study, and 153 (85%) were evaluated at 20-28 months of age. No child developed new ocular structural abnormalities. Structural abnormalities were present in one (2%) of 56 infants in the ranibizumab 0·2 mg group, one (2%) of 51 infants in the 0·1 mg group, and four (9%) of 44 infants in the laser therapy group. The odds ratio of no structural abnormality was 5·68 (95% CI 0·60-54·0; p=0·10) for ranibizumab 0·2 mg versus laser therapy, 4·82 (0·52-45·0; p=0·14) for ranibizumab 0·1 mg versus laser therapy, and 1·21 (0·07-20; p=0·90) for ranibizumab 0·2 mg vs 0·1 mg. High myopia (-5 dioptres or worse) was less frequent after 0·2 mg ranibizumab (five [5%] of 110 eyes) than with laser therapy (16 [20%] of 82; odds ratio 0·19, 95% CI 0·05-0·69; p=0·012). Composite vision-related quality of life scores seemed higher among the ranibizumab 0·2 mg group (mean 84, 95% CI 80-88) compared with laser therapy (77, 72-83; p=0·063). Mullen Scales T-scores for visual reception, receptive and expressive language were distributed similarly between the three trial groups and there were similar proportions of infants with motor and hearing problems among treatment groups. The proportion of infants with respiratory symptoms and Z scores of standing height, weight, and head circumference were similarly distributed in the treatment groups. There were no adverse events considered by the investigator to be related to the study intervention. INTERPRETATION: 2-year outcomes following ranibizumab 0·2 mg for the treatment of ROP confirm the ocular outcomes of the original RAINBOW trial and show reduced high myopia, with possibly better vision-related quality of life. This treatment did not appear to affect non-ocular infant development. FUNDING: Novartis Pharma AG.

Two different treatment regimens of ranibizumab 0.5 mg for neovascular age-related macular degeneration with or without polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy in Chinese patients: results from the Phase IV, randomized, DRAGON study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of monthly and pro re nata (PRN, guided by visual acuity stabilization and disease activity criteria) ranibizumab regimens in Chinese patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) and polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV). METHODS: This double-masked study randomized nAMD patients (1:1) to ranibizumab monthly from baseline to Month (M) 11 to a PRN regimen from M12 to M23 (monthly group, n = 167) versus ranibizumab three monthly doses followed by a PRN regimen up to M23 (PRN group, n = 166). Subgroups were assessed based on the presence/absence of PCV (indicated by indocyanine green angiography). RESULTS: Of 334 randomized patients, 41.7% had PCV at baseline. Mean average best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) change from M3 to M4 through M12 was 3.3 letters with monthly and 1.7 letters with PRN (mean difference: 1.6; 95% CI: -2.95, -0.20, primary end-point). Mean change in BCVA from baseline (monthly/PRN, 53.8/53.7) to M12 and M24 was 12.3 and 11.3 letters in monthly and 9.6 and 9.3 letters in PRN group. Corresponding values for patients with PCV/without PCV were 12.7/12.1 letters (M12) and 12.3/10.6 letters (M24) in monthly and 9.4/9.4 letters (M12) and 9.7/8.7 letters (M24) in PRN groups. The mean number of injections was 11.4 (monthly) and 8.2 (PRN) from Day 1 to M11 and 4.8 (monthly) and 5.0 (PRN) from M12 to M23. No new safety findings were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The study results support the use of either ranibizumab monthly or PRN regimens in Chinese patients with nAMD, regardless of presence of PCV.

Efficacy and Safety of Ranibizumab in Asian Patients with Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion: Results from the Randomized BLOSSOM Study.

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy and safety profile of intravitreal ranibizumab 0.5 mg in Asian patients with visual impairment due to macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). DESIGN: A 12-month, phase III, double-masked study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 283 patients with BRVO. METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years were randomized (2:1) to receive ranibizumab 0.5 mg or sham. The ranibizumab group received a minimum of 3 monthly intravitreal injections until stable maximal visual acuity (VA) was achieved followed by an individualized VA stabilization criteria-driven pro re nata (PRN) regimen. Patients in the sham group received sham injections up to month 5 and could receive ranibizumab 0.5 mg PRN from month 6. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean average change in best-corrected VA (BCVA) from baseline to month 1 through month 6 and safety up to month 12. RESULTS: At baseline, patients' mean (standard deviation [SD]) BCVA and central subfield thickness (CSFT) were 57.4 (11.7) letters and 525 (193.4) µm, respectively. Compared with sham, ranibizumab treatment resulted in superior VA gains. The least squares (LS) mean average change in BCVA from baseline to month 1 to month 6 in ranibizumab and sham groups was +12.5 and +5.0 letters, respectively (LS mean difference between ranibizumab vs. sham: +7.5 letters [95% confidence interval, 5.5-9.5], 1-sided P < 0.001). The LS mean change from baseline at month 12 in the ranibizumab versus sham groups in BCVA was +16.4 (14.9-17.8) versus +11.4 (9.3-13.5) letters and in CSFT was -280.0 (-291.6 to -268.4) versus -269.7 (-286.2 to -253.1) µm. The mean (SD) number of injections over 12 months was 7.0 (2.55) in the ranibizumab group and 3.6 (1.60) in the sham with ranibizumab group. No new safety findings were reported. CONCLUSIONS: In Asian patients with BRVO, individualized PRN ranibizumab treatment was statistically superior to sham at month 6 and led to early visual gains that were maintained up to 12 months. Results from the sham group indicate the importance of early treatment in achieving optimal visual outcomes in BRVO. The safety of ranibizumab in this study was consistent with the well-established safety profile of ranibizumab.

Feasibility of a novel remote daily monitoring system for age-related macular degeneration using mobile handheld devices: results of a pilot study.

PURPOSE: This pilot study evaluated the feasibility of the Health Management Tool (HMT), a novel computing system using mobile handheld devices, to remotely monitor retinal visual function daily in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration treated with ranibizumab. METHODS: Patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration in at least 1 eye (newly diagnosed or successfully treated < 1 year) and eligible for ranibizumab therapy were enrolled in this 16-week, prospective, open-label, single-arm study. Patients performed a shape discrimination hyperacuity test (myVisionTrack [mVT]) daily on the HMT device (iPhone 3GS) remotely and at all clinic visits. Data entered into HMT devices were collected in the HMT database, which also sent reminders for patients to take mVT. RESULTS: Among 160 patients from 24 U.S. centers enrolled in the study (103 [64%] ≥ 75 years of age), 84.7% on average complied with daily mVT testing and ≈ 98.9% complied with at least weekly mVT testing. The HMT database successfully uploaded more than 17,000 mVT assessment values and sent more than 9,000 reminders. CONCLUSION: Elderly patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration were willing and able to comply with daily self-testing of retinal visual function using mobile handheld devices in this novel system of remote vision monitoring.

Verteporfin plus ranibizumab for choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration: twelve-month MONT BLANC study results.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of same-day verteporfin photodynamic therapy (PDT) and intravitreal ranibizumab combination treatment versus ranibizumab monotherapy in neovascular age-related macular degeneration. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, double-masked, randomized, active-controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: We included 255 patients with all types of active subfoveal choroidal neovascularization. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to as-needed (pro re nata; PRN) combination (standard-fluence verteporfin 6 mg/m(2) PDT and ranibizumab 0.5 mg) or PRN ranibizumab monotherapy (sham infusion [5% dextrose] PDT and ranibizumab 0.5 mg). Patients received 3 consecutive monthly injections followed by PRN retreatments based on protocol-specific retreatment criteria. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline to month 12, and the proportion of patients with treatment-free interval ≥3 months at any timepoint after month 2. RESULTS: The mean change in BCVA at month 12 was +2.5 and +4.4 letters in the combination and monotherapy groups, respectively (P = 0.0048; difference: -1.9 letters [95% confidence interval, -5.76 to 1.86], for having achieved noninferiority with a margin of 7 letters). The proportion of patients with a treatment-free interval of ≥3 months at any timepoint after month 2 was high, but did not show a clinically relevant difference between the treatment groups. Secondary efficacy endpoints included the mean number of ranibizumab retreatments after month 2 (1.9 and 2.2 with combination and monotherapy, respectively [P = 0.1373]). The time to first ranibizumab retreatment after month 2 was delayed by 34 days (about 1 monthly visit) with combination (month 6) versus monotherapy (month 5). At month 12, mean ± standard error central retinal thickness decreased by 115.3±9.04 µm in the combination group and 107.7±11.02 µm in the monotherapy group. The mean number of verteporfin/sham PDT treatments was comparable in the 2 groups (combination, 1.7; monotherapy, 1.9). The safety profiles of the 2 groups were comparable, with a low incidence of ocular serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The combination PRN treatment regimen with verteporfin PDT and ranibizumab was effective in achieving BCVA gain comparable with ranibizumab monotherapy; however, the study did not show benefits with respect to reducing the number of ranibizumab retreatment over 12 months. The combination therapy was well tolerated.

Verteporfin plus ranibizumab for choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration: twelve-month results of the DENALI study.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate noninferiority of ranibizumab in combination with verteporfin photodynamic therapy (PDT) versus ranibizumab monotherapy in patients with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization secondary to age-related macular degeneration (AMD). DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, double-masked, randomized, phase IIIb clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred twenty-one patients randomized to receive either ranibizumab 0.5 mg monotherapy (n = 112), standard fluence (SF) verteporfin PDT combination therapy (n = 104), or reduced fluence (RF) verteporfin PDT combination therapy (n = 105). METHODS: Ranibizumab was administered monthly in the monotherapy group. In both combination therapy groups, ranibizumab was initiated with 3 consecutive monthly injections, followed by retreatment as needed (pro re nata) with monthly monitoring. All patients were evaluated monthly for 12 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline at month 12 and proportion of patients randomized to either combination therapy with a ranibizumab treatment-free interval of 3 months or longer. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-six patients (89.1%) completed the 12-month study. Mean BCVA change at month 12 was +5.3 and +4.4 letters with verteporfin SF (n = 103) or verteporfin RF (n = 105) plus ranibizumab, respectively, compared with +8.1 letters with ranibizumab monotherapy (n = 110; adjusted 97.5% confidence interval [CI], (-7.90 to infinity); P = 0.0666; and 97.5% CI, (-8.51 to infinity); P = 0.1178; for combination regimens vs. monotherapy, respectively). Noninferiority of either combination regimen to monthly ranibizumab monotherapy was not demonstrated (primary end point). A ranibizumab treatment-free interval of 3 months or longer was achieved in 92.6% and 83.5% of the patients randomized to verteporfin SF or verteporfin RF groups, respectively, with a mean of 5.1 and 5.7 ranibizumab injections, respectively, and patients in the ranibizumab monotherapy arm received 10.5 injections. At month 12, mean central retinal thickness decreased by 151.7 µm and 140.9 µm for the verteporfin SF and RF groups, respectively, and by 172.2 µm with ranibizumab monotherapy. Safety and tolerability of all 3 regimens were similar to and consistent with previous studies in neovascular AMD. The number of ocular serious adverse events was low and occurred largely as single cases. CONCLUSIONS: Ranibizumab monotherapy or combined with verteporfin PDT improved BCVA at month 12; however, noninferiority (7-letter margin) of combination regimens to ranibizumab monotherapy was not demonstrated. Verteporfin RF did not confer clinical benefits over verteporfin SF. All treatments were well tolerated.

EVEREST study: efficacy and safety of verteporfin photodynamic therapy in combination with ranibizumab or alone versus ranibizumab monotherapy in patients with symptomatic macular polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy.

PURPOSE: To assess the effects of verteporfin photodynamic therapy (PDT) combined with ranibizumab or alone versus ranibizumab monotherapy in patients with symptomatic macular polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-masked, primarily indocyanine green angiography-guided trial, 61 Asian patients were randomized to verteporfin PDT (standard fluence), ranibizumab 0.5 mg, or the combination. Patients were administered with verteporfin PDT/placebo and initiated with three consecutive monthly ranibizumab/sham injections starting Day 1, and re-treated (Months 3-5) as per predefined criteria. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with indocyanine green angiography-assessed complete regression of polyps at Month 6. Secondary endpoints included mean change in best-corrected visual acuity at Month 6 and safety. RESULTS: At Month 6, verteporfin combined with ranibizumab or alone was superior to ranibizumab monotherapy in achieving complete polyp regression (77.8% and 71.4% vs. 28.6%; P < 0.01); mean change ± standard deviation in best-corrected visual acuity (letters) was 10.9 ± 10.9 (verteporfin PDT + ranibizumab), 7.5 ± 10.6 (verteporfin PDT), and 9.2 ± 12.4 (ranibizumab). There were no new safety findings with either drug used alone or in combination. CONCLUSION: Verteporfin PDT combined with ranibizumab 0.5 mg or alone was superior to ranibizumab monotherapy in achieving complete regression of polyps in this 6-month study in patients with symptomatic macular polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy. All treatments were well tolerated over 6 months.

Effect of adjunctive diclofenac with verteporfin therapy to treat choroidal neovascularization due to age-related macular degeneration: phase II study.

BACKGROUND: To determine short-term effects of topical diclofenac administered in conjunction with verteporfin therapy for predominantly classic subfoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV) due to age-related macular degeneration (AMD). METHODS: Randomized, multicenter (14), prospective, placebo-controlled, double-masked clinical trial. Patients (n=61) were randomly assigned to treatment with diclofenac sodium ophthalmic solution 0.1% or placebo and followed for 12 weeks. Patients instilled diclofenac or placebo two drops four times daily, 2-4 days before verteporfin treatment until 2 weeks after treatment, then two drops twice daily for 10 weeks. This exploratory study was not powered to detect differences between treatment groups. Statistical analyses were conducted solely to aid interpretation of results. RESULTS: In diclofenac-treated eyes, mean changes in visual acuity letter score from baseline in the diclofenac and placebo groups were +1.8 letters and -1.0 at week 1 (P=0.505 between groups). Mean visual acuity letter scores decreased in both groups at all subsequent visits, with a mean change at 12 weeks of -7.4 with diclofenac and -2.6 with placebo (P=0.213). Percentages of eyes with stable or improved vision (change or=5 letters) were similar in the diclofenac and placebo groups at all study visits. No significant between-group differences in changes from baseline in lesion area, greatest linear dimension (GLD), fluorescein leakage, or retinal thickness were detected. CONCLUSION: In patients with predominantly classic subfoveal CNV due to AMD, administration of topical diclofenac with verteporfin therapy was associated with similar vision outcomes to placebo plus verteporfin therapy.