Feltgen Nicolas, Bertelmann Thomas, Bretag Mirko, Pfeiffer Sebastian, Hilgers Reinhard, Callizo Josep, Goldammer Lena, Bemme Sebastian, Hoerauf Hans
Department of Ophthalmology, University Medical Centre, Robert-Koch-Straße 40, 37075, Goettingen, Germany.
Department of Ophthalmology, Carl-Thiem-Klinikum gGmbH, Cottbus, Germany.
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2017 May;255(5):923-934. doi: 10.1007/s00417-017-3589-x. Epub 2017 Jan 19.
To evaluate prospectively the efficacy and safety of a fixed bimonthly ranibizumab treatment regimen (RABIMO) in eyes with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) and to compare these results with a pro re nata (PRN) treatment scheme.
This was a 12-month, phase IV, single center, randomised, non-inferiority study. Following three initial monthly injections, patients were randomised to receive either ranibizumab bimonthly (RABIMO group) or ranibizumab PRN (PRN group) (n = 20 each). Main outcome measures were best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), number of injections, and adverse events (AEs).
BCVA [median (interquartile range, IQR)] increased significantly in both groups after 12 months [RABIMO group +8.5 (14); PRN group +6.5 (16) ETDRS letters] when compared to baseline (p < 0.0001; p = 0.0085). At month 12, the RABIMO treatment regimen was non-inferior to the PRN scheme (∆BCVA = 3.5 ETDRS letters; p < 0.0001). CRT was significantly reduced in both groups after the 12-month study period (p < 0.0001 each), with no significant difference between groups (p = 0.6772). Number of overall injections [median (IQR)] was 8 (0) in the RABIMO versus 4 (5) in the PRN group (p = 0.0037). Three patients in the RABIMO group received one additional unscheduled injection. We observed no significant differences between groups in the number of patients with reported SAEs/AEs (RABIMO group n = 6/15; PRN group n = 7/13) (p = 0.7357/p = 0.4902).
We found no evidence of significant functional or anatomical differences between the RABIMO and PRN treatment regimens. However, the RABIMO group's number of injections was twice as high as the PRN group's (protocol-driven). In light of potential side effects, the fixed bimonthly treatment regimen might not be advisable for routine clinical care, but it might be a worthwhile treatment option if monthly monitoring is not possible. Eudra-CT number: 2009-017324-11.
前瞻性评估固定每两个月一次的雷珠单抗治疗方案(RABIMO)用于治疗新生血管性年龄相关性黄斑变性(nAMD)眼睛的疗效和安全性,并将这些结果与按需(PRN)治疗方案进行比较。
这是一项为期12个月的IV期单中心随机非劣效性研究。在最初每月注射三次后,患者被随机分为接受每两个月一次的雷珠单抗治疗(RABIMO组)或雷珠单抗按需治疗(PRN组)(每组n = 20)。主要观察指标为最佳矫正视力(BCVA)、中心视网膜厚度(CRT)、注射次数和不良事件(AE)。
与基线相比,两组在12个月后BCVA[中位数(四分位间距,IQR)]均显著提高[RABIMO组提高8.5(14);PRN组提高6.5(16)ETDRS字母](p < 0.0001;p = 0.0085)。在第12个月时,RABIMO治疗方案不劣于PRN方案(∆BCVA = 3.5 ETDRS字母;p < 0.0001)。在为期12个月的研究期后,两组的CRT均显著降低(每组p < 0.0001),组间无显著差异(p = 0.6772)。RABIMO组的总注射次数[中位数(IQR)]为8(0)次,而PRN组为4(5)次(p = 0.0037)。RABIMO组有3名患者额外接受了一次非计划内注射。我们观察到,报告有严重不良事件/不良事件的患者数量在两组之间无显著差异(RABIMO组n = 6/15;PRN组n = 7/13)(p = 0.7357/p = 0.4902)。
我们没有发现RABIMO和PRN治疗方案之间存在显著功能或解剖学差异的证据。然而,RABIMO组的注射次数是PRN组的两倍(由方案驱动)。鉴于潜在的副作用,固定每两个月一次的治疗方案可能不适用于常规临床护理,但如果无法进行每月监测,它可能是一个值得考虑的治疗选择。欧盟临床试验编号:2009-017324-11。