Effect of Oral Valproic Acid vs Placebo for Vision Loss in Patients With Autosomal Dominant Retinitis Pigmentosa: A Randomized Phase 2 Multicenter Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial.

Importance: There are no approved drug treatments for autosomal dominant retinitis pigmentosa, a relentlessly progressive cause of adult and childhood blindness. Objectives: To evaluate the potential efficacy and assess the safety of orally administered valproic acid (VPA) in the treatment of autosomal dominant retinitis pigmentosa. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, phase 2, prospective, interventional, placebo-controlled, double-masked randomized clinical trial. The study took place in 6 US academic retinal degeneration centers. Individuals with genetically characterized autosomal dominant retinitis pigmentosa were randomly assigned to receive treatment or placebo for 12 months. Analyses were intention-to-treat. Interventions: Oral VPA 500 mg to 1000 mg daily for 12 months or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was determined prior to study initiation as the change in visual field area (assessed by the III4e isopter, semiautomated kinetic perimetry) between baseline and month 12. Results: The mean (SD) age of the 90 participants was 50.4 (11.6) years. Forty-four (48.9%) were women, 87 (96.7%) were white, and 79 (87.8%) were non-Hispanic. Seventy-nine participants (87.8%) completed the study (42 [95.5%] received placebo and 37 [80.4%] received VPA). Forty-two (46.7%) had a rhodopsin mutation. Most adverse events were mild, although 7 serious adverse events unrelated to VPA were reported. The difference between the VPA and placebo arms for mean change in the primary outcome was -150.43 degree2 (95% CI, -290.5 to -10.03; P = .035). Conclusions and Relevance: This negative value indicates that the VPA arm had worse outcomes than the placebo group. This study brings to light the key methodological considerations that should be applied to the rigorous evaluation of treatments for these conditions. This study does not provide support for the use of VPA in the treatment of autosomal dominant retinitis pigmentosa. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01233609.

Intravitreous bevacizumab in the treatment of macular edema from branch retinal vein occlusion and hemisphere retinal vein occlusion (an AOS thesis).

PURPOSE: To compare intravitreous bevacizumab to other current treatments of branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) and hemisphere retinal vein occlusion (HRVO) with consideration to visual outcome, cost, convenience, and risk of treatment. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review from a large referral retina practice. The data comprise 56 patients with BRVO and HRVO treated by intravitreous bevacizumab, with and without intravitreous triamcinolone acetonide. Initial visual acuities at the time of first bevacizumab injection, best acuities through the follow-up time, final acuity at last visit before review, initial macular thickness, and final macular thickness were measured. Changes in vision and thickness were calculated, as were the percentage of eyes improving, stabilizing, and worsening. RESULTS: The data were compared to composite data derived from several current treatments of BRVO. The subgroup of 39 eyes that received only bevacizumab without triamcinolone acetonide had the most improvement in vision. The median change in visual acuity was 1.5 lines (P = .012) over a mean follow-up of 8.8 months. Twenty-three eyes (59%) improved visually, with 20 eyes (51%) improving 2 or more lines. These results are similar to those for eyes that received argon grid laser and chorioretinal anastomosis, but are worse than in eyes that received arteriovenous adventitial sheathotomy, macular decompression surgery, and intravitreous triamcinolone acetonide. CONCLUSIONS: Visual benefit from intravitreous bevacizumab compares well against laser treatments for BRVO and HRVO but not as well opposed to surgical techniques and intravitreous triamcinolone acetonide. Intravitreous bevacizumab injection has a risk, cost, and convenience profile that is favorable.

Verteporfin therapy of subfoveal choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration: meta-analysis of 2-year safety results in three randomized clinical trials: Treatment Of Age-Related Macular Degeneration With Photodynamic Therapy and Verteporfin In Photodynamic Therapy Study Report no. 4.

PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate the detailed safety profile of photodynamic therapy with verteporfin in patients with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV) caused by age-related macular degeneration (ARMD) from the combined analysis of three multicenter, double-masked, placebo-controlled, randomized 24-month clinical trials of similar design (TAP Investigation Studies A and B and the VIP ARMD Trial), and to clarify the adverse reaction information in the current verteporfin product prescription information approved in the United States. METHODS: Nine hundred forty-eight patients were randomly assigned to verteporfin or placebo. Treatment was administered as described in previous reports. All general entry criteria were similar, so systemic safety results were combined for this analysis. Entry criteria for CNV lesion composition and visual acuity in the two TAP Investigation trials was different from those used in the VIP ARMD trial, so ocular safety results for the treated eye were not combined. RESULTS: The percentage of patients who experienced at least one ocular or nonocular adverse event, regardless of relationship to therapy, was similar between the verteporfin and placebo groups (92.3 and 89.1%, respectively, P = 0.114). The overall incidence of study eye adverse events was not significantly different between verteporfin and placebo. The only clinically relevant ocular adverse events reported with higher incidence after verteporfin compared with placebo were visual disturbances (22.1 versus 15.5% in TAP [P = 0.054] and 41.7 and 22.8% in VIP [P < 0.001]). Acute severe visual acuity decrease (defined as a visual acuity letter score decrease of at least 20, equivalent to at least four-line decrease, within 7 days of therapy) occurred in 3 patients treated with verteporfin in the TAP Investigation (0.7%) and 11 in the VIP ARMD trial (4.9%). Systemic adverse events with increased incidence after verteporfin compared with placebo, most of which were transient and mild or moderate, were injection site reactions (13.1 versus 5.6%; P < 0.001), photosensitivity reactions (2.4 versus 0.3%; P = 0.016), and infusion-related back pain (2.4 versus 0%; P = 0.004). No clinically relevant difference was observed between the verteporfin and placebo groups in any other adverse event. CONCLUSION: In 948 ARMD patients, verteporfin therapy had an overall safety profile similar to that for placebo, with a few exceptions. Visual disturbances, including acute severe visual acuity decrease, did not affect the net vision outcome benefits associated with treatment that has been reported previously. This detailed safety profile of verteporfin therapy clarifies the adverse reaction information in the current verteporfin product prescription information.

Verteporfin therapy for subfoveal choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration: three-year results of an open-label extension of 2 randomized clinical trials--TAP Report no. 5.

OBJECTIVE: To report vision and safety outcomes from an extension of a 2-year investigation evaluating verteporfin photodynamic therapy in patients with age-related macular degeneration with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV). DESIGN AND SETTING: Open-label extension of selected patients from 2 multicenter, double-masked, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials, the Treatment of Age-Related Macular Degeneration With Photodynamic Therapy (TAP) Investigation, at 22 ophthalmology practices in Europe and North America. PARTICIPANTS: Patients enrolled in the TAP Investigation and followed up for at least 24 months in whom verteporfin therapy to CNV might reduce the risk of further vision loss. METHODS: Before receiving verteporfin therapy in the extension, eligible patients signed a written informed consent form accompanied by an oral consent process approved by local institutional review boards. Methods were similar to those described for 1- and 2-year results, with follow-up examinations beyond 2 years continuing at 3-month intervals with a few exceptions, including that extension patients with fluorescein leakage from CNV were to receive open-label verteporfin therapy irrespective of their original treatment assignment. RESULTS: Of 402 patients in the verteporfin group, 351 (87.3%) completed the month 24 examination; 320 (91.2%) of these enrolled in the extension study. The enrolled participants included 124 (78.0%) of the 159 verteporfin-treated patients with lesions composed of predominantly classic CNV at baseline, of whom 105 (84.7%) completed the month 36 examination. Verteporfin-treated patients with this lesion composition at baseline who participated in the extension study, with or without a month 36 examination, appeared more likely to have a younger age, better level of visual acuity, absence of fluorescein leakage from classic CNV, or no progression of classic CNV beyond the baseline boundaries of the lesion at the month 24 examination compared with those who did not enroll in the extension. For the 105 patients with a predominantly classic baseline lesion composition who completed the month 36 examination, an average of 1.3 treatments were given from the month 24 examination up to, but not including, the month 36 examination. A letter score loss in the study eye of at least 15 from baseline for these patients occurred in 39 (37.5%) at the month 24 examination compared with 44 (41.9%) of these patients at the month 36 examination. Visual acuity changed little from the month 24 examination (mean, -1.9 lines) to the month 36 examination (mean, -2.0 lines) for these eyes. Verteporfin-treated patients had little change in the mean visual acuity lost and few or no additional instances of infusion-related back pain or photosensitivity reactions from month 24 to month 36. Two patients originally assigned to placebo had acute severe vision decrease within 7 days after verteporfin treatment during the extension. One patient originally assigned to verteporfin had acute severe vision decrease after verteporfin treatment of the fellow eye during the extension. CONCLUSIONS: Vision outcomes for verteporfin-treated patients with predominantly classic lesions at baseline remained relatively stable from month 24 to month 36, although only approximately one third of the verteporfin-treated patients originally enrolled with this lesion composition had a month 36 examination. From these results, the TAP Study Group identified no safety concerns to preclude repeating photodynamic therapy with verteporfin. Additional treatment was judged likely to reduce the risk of further vision loss. Caution appears warranted in the absence of comparison with an untreated group during the extension and since not all patients in the TAP Investigation participated in the TAP Extension.