Search

Purpose The COMRADE studies are the first randomized controlled head-to-head trials comparing the efficacy and safety of intravitreal ranibizumab versus dexamethasone (DEX) in patients with macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO). The COMRADE extension trial was designed to provide additional 6-month data of patients who completed the core studies. Methods In this open-label, phase IV study patients who completed the COMRADE core studies were prospectively enrolled. Overall, 92 branch RVO (BRVO) patients (ranibizumab 52, DEX 40) and 83 central RVO (CRVO) patients (ranibizumab 61, DEX 22) were treated, and 94.6% of BRVO patients and 97.6% of CRVO patients completed the extension study. Patients were assigned to the same treatment group as in the core studies. Patients were monitored monthly and received either 0.5 mg ranibizumab or a 0.7 mg DEX implant as needed. Results Over the course of the extension, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of the study eye occurred in 55.8% of BRVO patients on ranibizumab and in 62.5% of those on DEX. Among CRVO patients, 65.5% in the ranibizumab group and 59.1% in the DEX group developed TEAEs. Overall, elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) was more frequent with DEX than ranibizumab treatment. Mean average change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in BRVO patients was significantly better for ranibizumab than DEX (p = 0.0249). The CRVO results were consistent with BRVO's, although not significant (p = 0.1119). Conclusion When used according to the European labels, ranibizumab revealed a better ocular safety profile and produced greater average BCVA gains than DEX. By the end of the additional 6-month study period, this difference in BCVA was more pronounced in BRVO as in CRVO patients. The main limitation of the COMRADE studies was that DEX patients received only a single intravitreal treatment during the first 6 months, which is presumably not adequate. However, frequent DEX implants could lead to more steroid-related side effects, especially to an increased intraocular pressure.

Purpose: To compare the efficacy and safety of ranibizumab 0.5 mg versus dexamethasone 0.7 mg according to their European labels in macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) in a 6-month, phase IIIb, randomized trial. Methods: Patients received eithermonthly ranibizumabfor 3 months followed byPro re nata (PRN) treatment (n = 126) or a sustained-release dexamethasone implant followedbyPRNshaminjections (n = 118).Mainoutcomesweremeanaveragechange in best-corrected visual acuity(BCVA)frombaseline tomonth1throughmonth6,mean changes inBCVAand foveal centre point thickness (FCPT), and adverse events (AEs). Results: There was no difference in BCVA gains between the treatments prior to month 3. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) gain with dexamethasone declined thereafter. From month 3 to month 6, mean BCVA change from baseline was significantly higher with ranibizumab than with dexamethasone [raw means (standard deviation):+16.2 ( 11) letters versus+9.3 ( 10.1) letters].Atmonth 6, the difference in BCVA gains from baseline was +17.3 letters in the ranibizumab versus +9.2 letters in the dexamethasone group. Patients in the ranibizumab group received a mean of 2.94 loading injections and 1.74 PRN retreatment injections, while those in the dexamethasone group received a single loading injection. Elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) and AEs were more frequent with dexamethasone than ranibizumab treatment. Conclusion: Ranibizumab PRN resulted in greater visual acuity (VA) gains in macular oedema following BRVO compared with single-dose dexamethasone over a 6-month study period, observed from month 3, when administered according to their European label. In clinical practice, retreatment with dexamethasone may be required prior to this point.