Efficacy of Intravitreal Pegcetacoplan vs Avacincaptad Pegol in Patients With Geographic Atrophy.

IF 0.8 Q4 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Paul Hahn, David Eichenbaum, Dilsher S Dhoot, Charles C Wykoff, Michael A Klufas, Michele Intorcia, Daniel Jones, Sujata P Sarda, Priyanka Bobbili, Rose Chang, Maryaline Catillon, Chunyi Xu, Kirthana Sarathy, Mei Sheng Duh, Caroline R Baumal, Varun Chaudhary
{"title":"Efficacy of Intravitreal Pegcetacoplan vs Avacincaptad Pegol in Patients With Geographic Atrophy.","authors":"Paul Hahn, David Eichenbaum, Dilsher S Dhoot, Charles C Wykoff, Michael A Klufas, Michele Intorcia, Daniel Jones, Sujata P Sarda, Priyanka Bobbili, Rose Chang, Maryaline Catillon, Chunyi Xu, Kirthana Sarathy, Mei Sheng Duh, Caroline R Baumal, Varun Chaudhary","doi":"10.1177/24741264251379842","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Purpose:</b> To evaluate the efficacy of intravitreal (IVT) pegcetacoplan monthly vs avacincaptad pegol monthly (primary analysis), and pegcetacoplan every other month vs avacincaptad pegol monthly (secondary analysis), for geographic atrophy (GA). <b>Methods:</b> Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) were conducted across global phase 3 trials using individual patient data from 2 pegcetacoplan trials (OAKS, NCT03525613; DERBY, NCT03525600) and published aggregate data from the avacincaptad pegol GATHER2 trial (NCT04435366). GATHER2 inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to the OAKS and DERBY individual patient data. Key baseline variables were balanced using propensity score weighting. GA lesion growth at month 12 was assessed. Results from the MAIC were combined using meta-analysis. <b>Results:</b> The primary analysis included 103 patients from OAKS and 102 patients from DERBY who met the GATHER2 inclusion and exclusion criteria, and 447 patients from GATHER2. In OAKS vs GATHER2, the adjusted difference in GA lesion growth at month 12 between pegcetacoplan monthly and avacincaptad pegol was -0.716 mm<sup>2</sup> (95% CI, -1.385 to -0.046; <i>P</i> = .04), statistically favoring pegcetacoplan monthly. In DERBY vs GATHER2, the adjusted difference was -0.234 mm<sup>2</sup> (95% CI, -1.354 to 0.885; <i>P</i> = .68), directionally favoring pegcetacoplan monthly. After meta-analysis, the pooled effect for pegcetacoplan monthly vs avacincaptad pegol was -0.589 mm<sup>2</sup> (95% CI, -1.164 to -0.014; <i>P</i> = 0.04), statistically favoring pegcetacoplan monthly. A numerically greater reduction in GA lesion growth was observed with pegcetacoplan every other month vs avacincaptad pegol monthly (95% CI, -1.130 to -0.300; <i>P</i> = .25). <b>Conclusions:</b> Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons support a greater reduction in GA growth with pegcetacoplan monthly vs avacincaptad pegol monthly and no significant difference between pegcetacoplan every other month and avacincaptad pegol monthly.</p>","PeriodicalId":17919,"journal":{"name":"Journal of VitreoRetinal Diseases","volume":" ","pages":"24741264251379842"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12534827/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of VitreoRetinal Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/24741264251379842","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of intravitreal (IVT) pegcetacoplan monthly vs avacincaptad pegol monthly (primary analysis), and pegcetacoplan every other month vs avacincaptad pegol monthly (secondary analysis), for geographic atrophy (GA). Methods: Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) were conducted across global phase 3 trials using individual patient data from 2 pegcetacoplan trials (OAKS, NCT03525613; DERBY, NCT03525600) and published aggregate data from the avacincaptad pegol GATHER2 trial (NCT04435366). GATHER2 inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to the OAKS and DERBY individual patient data. Key baseline variables were balanced using propensity score weighting. GA lesion growth at month 12 was assessed. Results from the MAIC were combined using meta-analysis. Results: The primary analysis included 103 patients from OAKS and 102 patients from DERBY who met the GATHER2 inclusion and exclusion criteria, and 447 patients from GATHER2. In OAKS vs GATHER2, the adjusted difference in GA lesion growth at month 12 between pegcetacoplan monthly and avacincaptad pegol was -0.716 mm2 (95% CI, -1.385 to -0.046; P = .04), statistically favoring pegcetacoplan monthly. In DERBY vs GATHER2, the adjusted difference was -0.234 mm2 (95% CI, -1.354 to 0.885; P = .68), directionally favoring pegcetacoplan monthly. After meta-analysis, the pooled effect for pegcetacoplan monthly vs avacincaptad pegol was -0.589 mm2 (95% CI, -1.164 to -0.014; P = 0.04), statistically favoring pegcetacoplan monthly. A numerically greater reduction in GA lesion growth was observed with pegcetacoplan every other month vs avacincaptad pegol monthly (95% CI, -1.130 to -0.300; P = .25). Conclusions: Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons support a greater reduction in GA growth with pegcetacoplan monthly vs avacincaptad pegol monthly and no significant difference between pegcetacoplan every other month and avacincaptad pegol monthly.

玻璃体腔内注射佩格达普兰与无脑佩格尔治疗地理性萎缩的疗效比较。
目的:评价玻璃体内注射(IVT) pegcetacoplan每月与avacincaptad pegol每月(初步分析)、pegcetacoplan每隔一个月与avacincaptad pegol每月(二次分析)治疗地理性萎缩(GA)的疗效。方法:采用来自2项pegcetacoplan试验(OAKS, NCT03525613; DERBY, NCT03525600)的个体患者数据,对全球3期试验进行匹配调整间接比较(MAIC),并公布了来自avacincaptad pegol GATHER2试验(NCT04435366)的汇总数据。GATHER2纳入和排除标准应用于OAKS和DERBY个体患者数据。使用倾向得分加权平衡关键基线变量。评估12个月时GA病变的生长情况。MAIC的结果使用meta分析进行合并。结果:初步分析包括103例OAKS患者和102例DERBY患者符合GATHER2纳入和排除标准,447例GATHER2患者。在OAKS与GATHER2的对比中,经校正后的第12个月GA病变生长差值为-0.716 mm2 (95% CI, -1.385至-0.046;P =。04),统计上每月都支持pegcetacoplan。在DERBY与GATHER2中,调整后的差异为-0.234 mm2 (95% CI, -1.354 ~ 0.885; P =。68),定向地每月支持pegcetacoplan。荟萃分析后,pegcetacoplan每月与avacincaptad pegol的合并效应为-0.589 mm2 (95% CI, -1.164至-0.014;P = 0.04),统计学上有利于pegcetacoplan每月。每隔一个月使用pegcetacoplan与每月使用pegol相比,GA病变生长减少的数值更大(95% CI, -1.130至-0.300;P = 0.25)。结论:经匹配调整的间接比较支持每月使用pegcetacoplan比每月使用avaccap pegol更能减少GA生长,并且每隔一个月使用pegcetacoplan和每月使用avaccap pegol之间没有显著差异。
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
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信