Efficacy and Treatment Burden of Intravitreal Aflibercept Versus Intravitreal Ranibizumab Treat-and-Extend Regimens at 2
- PDF / 736,508 Bytes
- 15 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 68 Downloads / 218 Views
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Efficacy and Treatment Burden of Intravitreal Aflibercept Versus Intravitreal Ranibizumab Treat-andExtend Regimens at 2 Years: Network Meta-Analysis Incorporating Individual Patient Data Meta-Regression and Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison Masahito Ohji . Paolo Lanzetta . Jean-Francois Korobelnik . Piotr Wojciechowski . Vanessa Taieb . Celine Deschaseaux . Daniel Janer . Claudia Tuckmantel Received: February 13, 2020 Ó The Author(s) 2020
ABSTRACT Purpose: To compare visual outcomes and treatment burden between intravitreally administered aflibercept (IVT-AFL) and ranibizumab (RBZ) treat-and-extend (T&E) regimens in patients with wet age-related macular degeneration (wAMD) at 2 years. Methods: A systematic literature review was Enhanced Digital Features To view digital features for this article go to https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare. 11967852. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325020-01298-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. M. Ohji Department of Ophthalmology, Shiga University of Medical Science, Otsu, Japan P. Lanzetta Department of Medicine, University of Udine, Udine, Italy J.-F. Korobelnik ISPED, Centre INSERM U897-EpidemiologieBiostatistique, Universite´ de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France J.-F. Korobelnik INSERM, ISPED, Chu de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France J.-F. Korobelnik Service d’Ophtalmologie, Chu de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France
carried out in Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL in October 2018. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) and/or individual patient data meta-regression was used to connect ALTAIR (assessing IVT-AFL T&E) with other studies, adjusting for between-trial differences in baseline visual acuity and age or baseline visual acuity, age, and polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV) status. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the results, including direct MAIC between IVT-AFL T&E (ALTAIR) and RBZ T&E (CANTREAT and TREX-AMD trials). Results: Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (ALTAIR, VIEW 1 and 2, CATT, CANTREAT, and TREX) were included in the analysis. IVT-AFL T&E was assessed in one study, P. Wojciechowski Creativ-Ceutical, Krako´w, Poland V. Taieb Creativ-Ceutical, London, UK C. Deschaseaux (&) D. Janer Bayer Consumer Care AG, Basel, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected] C. Tuckmantel Bayer AG, Wuppertal, Germany
Adv Ther
ALTAIR (n = 255), while RBZ T&E was assessed in two trials (n = 327). At 2 years, the median difference (95% credibility interval) between IVT-AFL T&E and RBZ T&E regarding the numbers of Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters gained was not significant (M1: - 2.29 [- 8.10, 3.58]; M2: - 0.55 [- 6.34, 5.29]). IVT-AFL T&E was associated with significantly fewer injections than RBZ-T&E (M1: - 6.12 [- 7.60, - 4.65]; M2: - 5.93 [- 7.42, - 4.45]). Results of the sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main scenarios. Conclusion: Patients with wAMD receiving an IVT-AFL T&E regimen achieve
Data Loading...
