Efficacy, Safety, and Injection Frequency with Novel Aflibercept 8 mg in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Comparison with Existing Anti-VEGF Regimens Using a Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Ophthalmology and Therapy Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-24 DOI:10.1007/s40123-025-01098-y
Piotr Wojciechowski, Marlena Wdowiak, Malgorzata Panek, Izabella Lunk, Joao Carrasco, Xin Zhang, Olivia Wu, Jean-François Korobelnik, Paolo Lanzetta
{"title":"Efficacy, Safety, and Injection Frequency with Novel Aflibercept 8 mg in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Comparison with Existing Anti-VEGF Regimens Using a Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Piotr Wojciechowski, Marlena Wdowiak, Malgorzata Panek, Izabella Lunk, Joao Carrasco, Xin Zhang, Olivia Wu, Jean-François Korobelnik, Paolo Lanzetta","doi":"10.1007/s40123-025-01098-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Aflibercept 8 mg administered in extended dosing intervals has shown non-inferior visual gains and comparable safety profile to aflibercept 2 mg in the PULSAR pivotal randomized clinical trial and has the potential to reduce the treatment burden of treating neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). This study aimed at gathering robust evidence to assess the comparative efficacy, safety, and treatment burden of aflibercept 8 mg against other anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents as ranibizumab, brolucizumab, faricimab, and bevacizumab in patients with nAMD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted, targeting clinical trials of anti-VEGF agents in patients with nAMD. The results of the SLR were included in a network meta-analysis (NMA) comparing aflibercept 8 mg to other anti-VEGF treatments in nAMD, considering a 1-year time horizon. Treatment efficacy was assessed based on the change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline, the proportion of patients gaining or losing 15 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters and changes in anatomical outcomes measured as change in central retinal thickness (CRT) or central subfield thickness (CST). Safety was assessed considering the incidence of ocular and non-ocular adverse events. Treatment burden was defined as the mean number of intravitreal injections over the study period.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The base-case NMA involving 21 studies did not show significant differences between aflibercept 8 mg and comparators regarding BCVA change from baseline and proportion of patients with a gain or loss of ≥ 15 letters. On the anatomical endpoints, aflibercept 8 mg was associated with statistically significant improvement in CRT/CST change from baseline compared with ranibizumab in fixed and pro re nata regimens. No significant differences were identified versus the other anti-VEGF. The analysis of the safety outcomes did not identify any significant differences between aflibercept 8 mg and any of the comparators. During the first year of treatment, patients treated with aflibercept 8 mg (following 12- or 16-week injection intervals) received on average 5.9 and 5.1 injections, respectively. For the same period, patients treated with faricimab received from 6.2 to 6.7 injections, patients treated with ranibizumab from 7.62 to 12.14 injections, and patients treated with aflibercept 2 mg up to 7.67 injections.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Aflibercept 8 mg demonstrates a comparable efficacy and safety to currently available anti-VEGF treatments for nAMD, with the potential added benefit of requiring fewer injections. These results suggest that aflibercept 8 mg could be a favourable treatment option for nAMD, achieving sustained disease control while alleviating the burden of injections on patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers.</p>","PeriodicalId":19623,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmology and Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"733-753"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11920537/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmology and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-025-01098-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Aflibercept 8 mg administered in extended dosing intervals has shown non-inferior visual gains and comparable safety profile to aflibercept 2 mg in the PULSAR pivotal randomized clinical trial and has the potential to reduce the treatment burden of treating neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). This study aimed at gathering robust evidence to assess the comparative efficacy, safety, and treatment burden of aflibercept 8 mg against other anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents as ranibizumab, brolucizumab, faricimab, and bevacizumab in patients with nAMD.

Methods: A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted, targeting clinical trials of anti-VEGF agents in patients with nAMD. The results of the SLR were included in a network meta-analysis (NMA) comparing aflibercept 8 mg to other anti-VEGF treatments in nAMD, considering a 1-year time horizon. Treatment efficacy was assessed based on the change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline, the proportion of patients gaining or losing 15 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters and changes in anatomical outcomes measured as change in central retinal thickness (CRT) or central subfield thickness (CST). Safety was assessed considering the incidence of ocular and non-ocular adverse events. Treatment burden was defined as the mean number of intravitreal injections over the study period.

Results: The base-case NMA involving 21 studies did not show significant differences between aflibercept 8 mg and comparators regarding BCVA change from baseline and proportion of patients with a gain or loss of ≥ 15 letters. On the anatomical endpoints, aflibercept 8 mg was associated with statistically significant improvement in CRT/CST change from baseline compared with ranibizumab in fixed and pro re nata regimens. No significant differences were identified versus the other anti-VEGF. The analysis of the safety outcomes did not identify any significant differences between aflibercept 8 mg and any of the comparators. During the first year of treatment, patients treated with aflibercept 8 mg (following 12- or 16-week injection intervals) received on average 5.9 and 5.1 injections, respectively. For the same period, patients treated with faricimab received from 6.2 to 6.7 injections, patients treated with ranibizumab from 7.62 to 12.14 injections, and patients treated with aflibercept 2 mg up to 7.67 injections.

Conclusion: Aflibercept 8 mg demonstrates a comparable efficacy and safety to currently available anti-VEGF treatments for nAMD, with the potential added benefit of requiring fewer injections. These results suggest that aflibercept 8 mg could be a favourable treatment option for nAMD, achieving sustained disease control while alleviating the burden of injections on patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers.

新型afliberept 8mg治疗新生血管性年龄相关性黄斑变性的疗效、安全性和注射频率:与现有抗vegf方案的贝叶斯网络meta分析比较
在PULSAR关键随机临床试验中,延长给药间隔的阿非利西普8mg与阿非利西普2mg相比显示出非次等的视力改善和相当的安全性,并且有可能减少治疗新生血管性年龄相关性黄斑变性(nAMD)的治疗负担。本研究旨在收集有力的证据来评估afliberceept 8mg与其他抗血管内皮生长因子(VEGF)药物(如雷尼单抗、brolucizumab、faricimab和bevacizumab)在nAMD患者中的比较疗效、安全性和治疗负担。方法:采用系统文献综述(SLR),针对抗vegf药物在nAMD患者中的临床试验。SLR的结果被纳入网络荟萃分析(NMA),将afliberept 8mg与其他抗vegf治疗在nAMD中进行比较,考虑1年的时间范围。治疗效果的评估基于基线最佳矫正视力(BCVA)的变化,获得或失去15个早期治疗糖尿病视网膜病变研究(ETDRS)字母的患者比例,以及中心视网膜厚度(CRT)或中心亚场厚度(CST)测量的解剖结果的变化。安全性评估考虑眼部和非眼部不良事件的发生率。治疗负担定义为研究期间玻璃体内注射的平均次数。结果:涉及21项研究的基本病例NMA未显示阿非利西普8 mg与比较组在BCVA基线变化和患者增加或减少≥15个字母的比例方面存在显著差异。在解剖学终点上,与雷尼单抗相比,在固定和自然方案中,阿非利赛普8mg与基线时CRT/CST变化的统计学显著改善相关。与其他抗vegf相比,未发现显著差异。安全性结果的分析没有发现阿伯西普8mg和任何比较药之间有任何显著差异。在治疗的第一年,接受阿非利西贝8mg(注射间隔为12周或16周)治疗的患者平均分别接受5.9和5.1次注射。同一时期,接受法利昔单抗治疗的患者接受6.2至6.7次注射,接受雷尼单抗治疗的患者接受7.62至12.14次注射,接受阿非利西普2 mg注射的患者接受7.67次注射。结论:afliberept 8mg与目前可用的抗vegf治疗nAMD具有相当的疗效和安全性,并且需要更少的注射量。这些结果表明,阿非利西普8mg可能是nAMD的有利治疗选择,实现持续的疾病控制,同时减轻患者、护理人员和医疗保健提供者的注射负担。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ophthalmology and Therapy
Ophthalmology and Therapy OPHTHALMOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
3.00%
发文量
157
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Aims and Scope Ophthalmology and Therapy is an international, open access, peer-reviewed (single-blind), and rapid publication journal. The scope of the journal is broad and will consider all scientifically sound research from preclinical, clinical (all phases), observational, real-world, and health outcomes research around the use of ophthalmological therapies, devices, and surgical techniques. The journal is of interest to a broad audience of pharmaceutical and healthcare professionals and publishes original research, reviews, case reports/series, trial protocols and short communications such as commentaries and editorials. Ophthalmology and Therapy will consider all scientifically sound research be it positive, confirmatory or negative data. Submissions are welcomed whether they relate to an international and/or a country-specific audience, something that is crucially important when researchers are trying to target more specific patient populations. This inclusive approach allows the journal to assist in the dissemination of quality research, which may be considered of insufficient interest by other journals. Rapid Publication The journal’s publication timelines aim for a rapid peer review of 2 weeks. If an article is accepted it will be published 3–4 weeks from acceptance. The rapid timelines are achieved through the combination of a dedicated in-house editorial team, who manage article workflow, and an extensive Editorial and Advisory Board who assist with peer review. This allows the journal to support the rapid dissemination of research, whilst still providing robust peer review. Combined with the journal’s open access model this allows for the rapid, efficient communication of the latest research and reviews, fostering the advancement of ophthalmic therapies. Open Access All articles published by Ophthalmology and Therapy are open access. Personal Service The journal’s dedicated in-house editorial team offer a personal “concierge service” meaning authors will always have an editorial contact able to update them on the status of their manuscript. The editorial team check all manuscripts to ensure that articles conform to the most recent COPE, GPP and ICMJE publishing guidelines. This supports the publication of ethically sound and transparent research. Digital Features and Plain Language Summaries Ophthalmology and Therapy offers a range of additional features designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. Each article is accompanied by key summary points, giving a time-efficient overview of the content to a wide readership. Articles may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand the scientific content and overall implications of the article. The journal also provides the option to include various types of digital features including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations. All additional features are peer reviewed to the same high standard as the article itself. If you consider that your paper would benefit from the inclusion of a digital feature, please let us know. Our editorial team are able to create high-quality slide decks and infographics in-house, and video abstracts through our partner Research Square, and would be happy to assist in any way we can. For further information about digital features, please contact the journal editor (see ‘Contact the Journal’ for email address), and see the ‘Guidelines for digital features and plain language summaries’ document under ‘Submission guidelines’. For examples of digital features please visit our showcase page https://springerhealthcare.com/expertise/publishing-digital-features/ Publication Fees Upon acceptance of an article, authors will be required to pay the mandatory Rapid Service Fee of €5250/$6000/£4300. The journal will consider fee discounts and waivers for developing countries and this is decided on a case by case basis. Peer Review Process Upon submission, manuscripts are assessed by the editorial team to ensure they fit within the aims and scope of the journal and are also checked for plagiarism. All suitable submissions are then subject to a comprehensive single-blind peer review. Reviewers are selected based on their relevant expertise and publication history in the subject area. The journal has an extensive pool of editorial and advisory board members who have been selected to assist with peer review based on the afore-mentioned criteria. At least two extensive reviews are required to make the editorial decision, with the exception of some article types such as Commentaries, Editorials, and Letters which are generally reviewed by one member of the Editorial Board. Where reviewer recommendations are conflicted, the editorial board will be contacted for further advice and a presiding decision. Manuscripts are then either accepted, rejected or authors are required to make major or minor revisions (both reviewer comments and editorial comments may need to be addressed). Once a revised manuscript is re-submitted, it is assessed along with the responses to reviewer comments and if it has been adequately revised it will be accepted for publication. Accepted manuscripts are then copyedited and typeset by the production team before online publication. Appeals against decisions following peer review are considered on a case-by-case basis and should be sent to the journal editor. Preprints We encourage posting of preprints of primary research manuscripts on preprint servers, authors’ or institutional websites, and open communications between researchers whether on community preprint servers or preprint commenting platforms. Posting of preprints is not considered prior publication and will not jeopardize consideration in our journals. Authors should disclose details of preprint posting during the submission process or at any other point during consideration in one of our journals. Once the manuscript is published, it is the author’s responsibility to ensure that the preprint record is updated with a publication reference, including the DOI and a URL link to the published version of the article on the journal website. Please follow the link for further information on preprint sharing: https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/journal-author/journal-author-helpdesk/submission/1302#c16721550 Copyright Ophthalmology and Therapy''s content is published open access under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License, which allows users to read, copy, distribute, and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited. The author assigns the exclusive right to any commercial use of the article to Springer. For more information about the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License, click here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0. Contact For more information about the journal, including pre-submission enquiries, please contact christopher.vautrinot@springer.com.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信