Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Department of Ophthalmology, King's College Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2020 Aug 1;138(8):835-842. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2020.2309.
Although anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment offers better outcomes than the natural history of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (ARMD), a less burdensome, less expensive, and more durable treatment is needed.
To assess the efficacy and safety of epimacular brachytherapy (EMB) for chronic, active, neovascular ARMD.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Macular Epiretinal Brachytherapy vs Ranibizumab (Lucentis) Only Treatment (MERLOT) pivotal device trial was conducted at 24 National Health Service hospitals across the UK. Patients who had neovascular ARMD and received intravitreal ranibizumab were enrolled between November 10, 2009, and January 30, 2012. Eligible patients were randomized 2:1 and were stratified by lens status and angiographic lesion type to receive either EMB plus as-needed ranibizumab or as-needed ranibizumab monotherapy. Participants were followed up monthly for 24 months and then assessed at a final visit at month 36. Masking of participants and clinicians was not possible, but best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and imaging were analyzed by masked assessors. Analysis followed the intent-to-treat approach.
Pars plana vitrectomy with 24 Gy EMB plus as-needed ranibizumab vs as-needed ranibizumab monotherapy.
Coprimary outcomes were the number of as-needed ranibizumab injections and the mean change in Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) BCVA with a noninferiority margin of -5 ETDRS letters. Secondary outcomes were the percentage of participants losing fewer than 15 ETDRS letters and gaining 0 or more or 15 or more ETDRS letters and the mean change in angiographic total lesion size, choroidal neovascularization size, and foveal thickness on optical coherence tomography.
Of 363 participants, 329 (90.6%) completed 24 months of follow-up (222 participants in the EMB group and 107 in the ranibizumab group). The mean (SD) age of the combined groups was 76.5 (7.4) years. The mean (SD) number of ranibizumab injections was 9.3 (6.7) in the EMB group and 8.3 (4.5) in the ranibizumab group, with a difference of 1.0 injection (95% CI, -0.3 to 2.3; P = .13). The mean (SD) BCVA change was -11.2 (15.7) ETDRS letters in the EMB group and -1.4 (10.9) ETDRS letters in the ranibizumab group, with a difference of 9.8 ETDRS letters (95% CI, -6.7 to -12.9). In the EMB group, 65.6% of participants (160 of 244) lost fewer than 15 ETDRS letters vs 86.6% (103 of 119) in the ranibizumab group, with a difference of 21% (95% CI, 12.4%-29.5%; P < .001). Microvascular abnormalities occurred in 20 of 207 eyes (9.7%) in the EMB group and 1 of 97 eyes (1.0%) in the ranibizumab group. These abnormalities occurred outside the foveal center, and there were no unexpected safety concerns.
The MERLOT trial found that despite the acceptable safety of EMB, it did not reduce the number of ranibizumab injections and was associated with worse visual acuity than anti-VEGF treatment alone; these results do not support EMB use as an adjunct treatment for chronic, active neovascular ARMD.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01006538.
尽管抗血管内皮生长因子(VEGF)治疗比新生血管性年龄相关性黄斑变性(ARMD)的自然病程提供更好的结果,但需要一种负担更小、成本更低、更持久的治疗方法。
评估黄斑内眼膜光凝术(EMB)治疗慢性、活动性、新生血管性 ARMD 的疗效和安全性。
设计、地点和参与者:Macular Epiretinal Brachytherapy vs Ranibizumab(Lucentis)Only Treatment(MERLOT)关键设备试验在英国 24 家国家卫生服务医院进行。招募了患有新生血管性 ARMD 并接受玻璃体内雷珠单抗治疗的患者,入组时间为 2009 年 11 月 10 日至 2012 年 1 月 30 日。符合条件的患者以 2:1 的比例随机分组,并根据晶状体状态和血管造影病变类型分层,接受 EMB 加按需雷珠单抗或按需雷珠单抗单药治疗。参与者每月随访 24 个月,然后在第 36 个月进行最终随访。对参与者和临床医生进行了不可盲法,但最佳矫正视力(BCVA)和影像学分析由盲法评估员进行。分析遵循意向治疗方法。
行标准的玻璃体切除术联合 24Gy 的 EMB 加按需雷珠单抗或按需雷珠单抗单药治疗。
主要结局是按需雷珠单抗注射的数量和早期治疗糖尿病视网膜病变研究(ETDRS)BCVA 的平均变化,非劣效性边缘为-5 ETDRS 字母。次要结局是丧失少于 15 个 ETDRS 字母的参与者比例,以及增加 0 个或更多、15 个或更多 ETDRS 字母的参与者比例,以及血管造影总病变大小、脉络膜新生血管大小和光学相干断层扫描中心凹厚度的平均变化。
363 名参与者中,329 名(90.6%)完成了 24 个月的随访(EMB 组 222 名,雷珠单抗组 107 名)。联合组的平均(SD)年龄为 76.5(7.4)岁。EMB 组的平均(SD)雷珠单抗注射次数为 9.3(6.7)次,雷珠单抗组为 8.3(4.5)次,差异为 1.0 次(95% CI,-0.3 至 2.3;P = .13)。EMB 组的平均(SD)BCVA 变化为-11.2(15.7)个 ETDRS 字母,雷珠单抗组为-1.4(10.9)个 ETDRS 字母,差异为 9.8 个 ETDRS 字母(95% CI,-6.7 至 -12.9)。在 EMB 组中,244 名参与者中有 65.6%(160 名)丧失少于 15 个 ETDRS 字母,而雷珠单抗组中 86.6%(103 名),差异为 21%(95% CI,12.4%-29.5%;P < .001)。EMB 组中有 20 只眼(9.7%)出现微血管异常,雷珠单抗组中有 1 只眼(1.0%)出现微血管异常。这些异常发生在中心凹外,没有出现意外的安全性问题。
MERLOT 试验发现,尽管 EMB 具有可接受的安全性,但它并没有减少雷珠单抗的注射次数,并且与单独使用抗 VEGF 治疗相比,视力更差;这些结果不支持 EMB 作为慢性、活动性新生血管性 ARMD 的辅助治疗方法。
ClinicalTrials.gov 标识符:NCT01006538。