Systematic Review of Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration Disease Activity Criteria Use to Shorten, Maintain or Extend Treatment Intervals with Anti-VEGF in Clinical Trials: Implications for Clinical Practice

Introduction: Clinical trials in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) using anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (ant-VEGF) injections use disease activity (DA) criteria to shorten, maintain or increase the interval between injections. Differences in these DA criteria may contribute to differences in the proportions of patients with macular fluid at key time points or achieving extended dosing intervals in these trials. We identified, collated and evaluated DA criteria from pivotal anti-VEGF nAMD trials to understand how differences impact on these studies and real-world visual acuity and extending dosing outcomes. Methods: This was a systematic review of literature on Pubmed for randomised clinical trials in nAMD using a proactive treatment regimen. We excluded case reports, review articles and studies on fewer than 50 participants. Results: Twelve clinical trials (LUCAS, VIEW, TREX-AMD, FLUID, TREND, RIVAL, ALTAIR, CANTREAT, ARIES, TREX-Conbercept, HAWK & HARRIER, TENAYA & LUCERNE) investigating anti-VEGF treatment of nAMD were identified according to our search strategy. Different studies utilised a different combination of DA criteria. Specifically, six trials included visual acuity change; four included macular thickness change; one included visual acuity change if associated with macular thickness change; one with qualitative optical coherence tomography (OCT) features; four with qualitative OCT features if also associated with visual acuity change; 10 with macular haemorrhage and five with other fluorescein angiographic features. Conclusion: Different clinical trials use different DA criteria when altering the interval between anti-VEGF injections. This makes it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions about secondary outcomes such as proportion of patients treated at extended dosing intervals or proportions of eyes with persistent subretinal or intraretinal fluid. Standardising DA criteria in clinical trials and preferentially using those easily applied in a real-world setting would lead to results more achievable in real-world settings and for a meaningful comparison of treatment durability

Agreement Between Spectral-Domain and Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography Retinal Thickness Measurements in Macular and Retinal Disease

INTRODUCTION: To assess inter-device agreement in optical coherence tomography-derived retinal thickness measurements in patients with known macular conditions between spectral-domain and swept-source optical coherence tomography (OCT). METHODS: Two hundred seventy-two subjects were included in the study. They consisted of 91 male (33.5%) and 181 female (66.5%) subjects, and 132 left (48.5%) and 140 right (51.5%) eyes. Each subject underwent spectral-domain OCT (SD-OCT, Spectralis, Heidelberg Engineering; RTVue XR Avanti XR HD, Optovue) and swept-source OCT (SS-OCT; DRI-OCT-1, Atlantis, Topcon) in a single imaging session performed by the same clinical trial-certified technician. The comparison of retinal thickness reproducibility between devices was performed using Bland-Altman analyses and across the entire data set using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: The ICC of the retinal thickness measurements (95% confidence interval) made using all three OCT instruments was 0.81 (0.77-0.84). The mean difference in mean retinal thickness between Spectralis SD-OCT and Topcon SS-OCT was 59.1 μm (95% limit of agreement [LoA] -21.7 to 139.8 μm). The mean difference in mean retinal thickness between Optovue SD-OCT and Topcon SS-OCT was 21.8 μm (95% LoA -34.7  to 78.3 μm). CONCLUSIONS: Retinal layer thickness measurements vary between SS-OCT and SD-OCT devices. We describe inter-device agreement in retinal thickness between SS-OCT and SD-OCT in patients with macular conditions. Clinicians should be aware of the differences in retinal thickness values when imaging patients using different OCT devices and should consider using the same OCT device model in order to monitor clinical change. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT02828215)

Repeatability of swept-source optical coherence tomography retinal and choroidal thickness measurements in neovascular age-related macular degeneration

BACKGROUND: The aim was to determine the intrasession repeatability of swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT)-derived retinal and choroidal thickness measurements in eyes with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). METHODS: A prospective study consisting of patients with active nAMD enrolled in the Distance of Choroid Study at Moorfields Eye Hospital, London. Patients underwent three 12×9 mm macular raster scans using the deep range imaging (DRI) OCT-1 SS-OCT (Topcon) device in a single imaging session. Retinal and choroidal thicknesses were calculated for the ETDRS macular subfields. Repeatability was calculated according to methods described by Bland and Altman. RESULTS: 39 eyes of 39 patients with nAMD were included with a mean (±SD) age of 73.9 (±7.2) years. The mean (±SD) retinal thickness of the central macular subfield was 225.7 μm (±12.4 μm). The repeatability this subfield, expressed as a percentage of the mean central macular subfield thickness, was 23.2%. The percentage repeatability of the other macular subfields ranged from 13.2% to 28.7%. The intrasession coefficient of repeatability of choroidal thickness of the central macular subfield was 57.2 μm with a mean choroidal thickness (±SD) of 181 μm (±15.8 μm). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that a change >23.2% of retinal thickness and 57.2 μm choroidal thickness in the central macular subfield is required to distinguish true clinical change from measurement variability when using the DRI OCT-1 device to manage patients with nAMD

Biomarkers of macular neovascularisation activity using optical coherence tomography angiography in treated stable neovascular age related macular degeneration

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to describe features of disease activity in patients with treated stable macular neovascularisation (MNV) in neovascular age related macular degeneration (nAMD) using optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA). METHODS: Thirty-two eyes of 32 patients with nAMD were included in this prospective, observational study. These patients were undergoing treatment with aflibercept on a treat-and-extend regimen attending an extension to a 12-week treatment interval. RESULTS: All subjects had no macular haemorrhage and no structural OCT markers of active MNV activity at the index 12-week treatment extension visit. 31/32 OCTA images were gradeable without significant imaging artefact. The mean MNV size was 3.6mm2 ± 4.6mm2 and 27 (87.1%) had detectable MNV blood flow. 29/31 (93.5%) subjects had MNV with mature phenotypes including 10 non-specific, 10 tangle and 3 deadtree phenotypes. MNV halo and MNV central feeder vessel were noted in 18 (58.1%) and 19 (61.3%) of subjects respectively; only 1 (3.2%) subject was noted to have a MNV capillary fringe. CONCLUSIONS: MNV blood flow is still detectable using OCTA in the majority of subjects in this study with treated stable MNV. OCTA features associated included MNV mature phenotype, MNV feeder vessel, MNV halo and absence of capillary fringe

Variations in Treatment Delivery for Patients with Neovascular AMD in the UK: Results from an Ophthalmology Trainee Clinical Research Network Study

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to determine treatment delivery patterns for patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) across the UK through an ophthalmology trainee research network delivered observational study. METHODS: Data were collected via an online tool by potential research collaborators identified by the Ophthalmology Trainee Clinical Trial Network (OCTN). Collaborators were asked to comment on periprocedural practices of treatment of nAMD in their eye unit including treatment location and injectors, clinical assessment and routine observation in patients undergoing intravitreal treatment. RESULTS: Data were available from 26 units around the United Kingdom. Survey methodology refinement was approximately 3 months, and the average response time was 4.9 ± 2.4 days. The majority of responders confirmed that treatment was undertaken as a "one-stop" service (n = 15, 58%), delivered in a clean room (n = 23, 88%). In the majority of units, doctors administered injections (n = 24, 92%), but significant treatment was also given by nurse injectors (n = 21, 81%). All collaborators reported that patients underwent visual acuity testing and optical coherence tomography imaging at all visits, but other imaging including fundus fluorescein angiography (FFA) did not take place in all cases (n = 17, 65%) and only at baseline visit. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate the feasibility of conducting ophthalmology trainee led and delivered observational studies. Our results show that FFA is not routinely used in the diagnosis of nAMD in the units sampled; most injections are carried out in a clean room, and ophthalmic nurses delivering injections is a highly prevalent model of care in the UK

Human leukocyte antigen alleles associate with COVID-19 vaccine immunogenicity and risk of breakthrough infection

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine immunogenicity varies between individuals, and immune responses correlate with vaccine efficacy. Using data from 1,076 participants enrolled in ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine efficacy trials in the United Kingdom, we found that inter-individual variation in normalized antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 spike and its receptor-binding domain (RBD) at 28 days after first vaccination shows genome-wide significant association with major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II alleles. The most statistically significant association with higher levels of anti-RBD antibody was HLA-DQB1*06 (P = 3.2 × 10−9), which we replicated in 1,677 additional vaccinees. Individuals carrying HLA-DQB1*06 alleles were less likely to experience PCR-confirmed breakthrough infection during the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 virus and subsequent Alpha variant waves compared to non-carriers (hazard ratio = 0.63, 0.42–0.93, P = 0.02). We identified a distinct spike-derived peptide that is predicted to bind differentially to HLA-DQB1*06 compared to other similar alleles, and we found evidence of increased spike-specific memory B cell responses in HLA-DQB1*06 carriers at 84 days after first vaccination. Our results demonstrate association of HLA type with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine antibody response and risk of breakthrough infection, with implications for future vaccine design and implementation

Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca