Search

Aim. The prospective, noninterventional OCEAN study assessed the safety of intravitreal ranibizumab injections for treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration, diabetic macular edema, and retinal vein occlusion under real-world conditions in Germany. Methods. Adults receiving ≥1 ranibizumab (0.5 mg) injections were recruited by 369 ophthalmologists and followed for 24 months. Information on adverse events (AEs) was reported by the treating physician or detected by the data management team. Collected information included observed AE, AE start and end date, intensity, causal relationship, outcome, severity, suspected drug, and actions taken. Results. 2,687 AEs were reported for 1,176 of the 5,781 patients who had received a total of 32,621 injections: 27.4% nonserious AEs, 30.3% serious AEs, 27.3% nonserious adverse drug reactions (ADRs), and 15.0% serious ADRs. Most patients reported no AEs (79.7%) or only 1 AE (10.3%). AEs were most commonly reported in the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) System Organ Class (SOC) Eye disorders (9.4% of patients) and General disorders and administration site conditions (5.8%). The most frequent AEs by MedDRA preferred term (PT) were visual acuity reduced (3.5% of patients), intraocular pressure increased (2.5%), and drug ineffective (2.1%). AEs occurred most frequently after 3 or 4 injections (1,129 of 2,687 AEs). The proportion of AEs in the SOC Eye disorders decreased slightly with increasing number of injections, from 39.8% of events after 1 or 2 injections to 29.1% after 5 or more injections. Rates of the most frequently reported PTs did not show any consistent increase with increasing number of injections. A decrease in overall AE rates was observed over the study course. Conclusions. The results did not raise any new safety concerns for ranibizumab. The findings allow conclusions to be drawn on how pharmacovigilance data can be collected even more effectively in real-world studies to facilitate discussion on benefit-risk ratio.

To compare the efficacy and safety of the European labels of ranibizumab 0.5 mg vs dexamethasone 0.7 mg in patients with macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO).Phase IIIb, multicenter, double-masked, randomized clinical trial.Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive either monthly ranibizumab followed by pro re nata (PRN) treatment (n = 124) or 1 sustained-release dexamethasone implant followed by PRN sham injections (n = 119). Main outcomes were mean average change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline to month 1 through month 6, mean change in BCVA, and adverse events (AEs).Of 243 patients, 185 (76.1%) completed the study. No difference was observed in BCVA between ranibizumab and dexamethasone at months 1 and 2. From month 3 to month 6, there was significant difference in BCVA gains in favor of ranibizumab. At month 6, mean average BCVA gain was significantly higher with ranibizumab than with dexamethasone (12.86 vs 2.96 letters; difference 9.91 letters, 95% confidence interval [6.51-13.30]; P.0001). Mean injection number of ranibizumab was 4.52. Ocular AEs were reported in more patients in the dexamethasone than in the ranibizumab group (86.6% vs 55.6%).Using the European labels, similar efficacy was observed for ranibizumab and dexamethasone at months 1 and 2. However, ranibizumab maintained its efficacy throughout the study, whereas dexamethasone declined from month 3 onward. The main limitation of the study was that dexamethasone patients received only a single treatment during the 6-month study. In clinical practice, dexamethasone retreatment may be required earlier than 6 months. Safety findings were similar to those previously reported.

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.