ANTIHYPERTENSIVE EFFICACY OF OLMESARTAN MEDOXOMIL, A NEW ANGIOTENSIN II RECEPTOR ANTAGONIST, AS ASSESSED BY AMBULATORY BLOOD PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS

Olmesartan medoxomil is a new angiotensin II receptor blocker. In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, the efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil was assessed in 334 patients with moderate to severe essential hypertension. Patients were randomized to receive placebo; 5, 20, or 80 mg olmesartan medoxomil q.d.; or 2,5, 10, or 40 mg olmesartan medoxomil b.i.d. Ambulatory and cuff blood pressure were measured prior to and after 8 weeks of treatment. Treatment with olmesartan medoxomil resulted in a significant placebo-adjusted reduction of mean 24-hour ambulatory diastolic blood pressure of 9,6 mm Hg, 12,2 mm Hg, and 10,6 mm Hg in the 5-, 20-, and 80-mg q.d. groups, respectively. Corresponding reductions in mean ambulatory systolic blood pressure were 14,5 mm Hg, 16,5 mm Hg, and 15,4 mm Hg. Similar reductions of diastolic and systolic blood pressure were seen with b.i.d. dosing. The diastolic trough-to-peak ratios of the q.d. doses of olmesartan medoxomil ranged from 57% to 70%, indicating 24-hour effectiveness. The safety profile of olmesartan medoxomil was similar to that of placebo. Olmesartan medoxomil appears to be a safe and effective once-a-day treatment for hypertension

Dual Antagonism of PDGF and VEGF in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Phase IIb, Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose: To assess the safety and efficacy of E10030 (Fovista; Ophthotech, New York, NY), a plateletderived growth factor (PDGF) antagonist, administered in combination with the antievascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agent ranibizumab (Lucentis; Roche, Basel, Switzerland) compared with ranibizumab monotherapy in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).Design: Phase IIb global, multicenter, randomized, prospective, double-masked, controlled superiority trial.Participants: Four hundred forty-nine patients with treatment-naive nAMD.Methods: Participants were randomized in a 1: 1: 1 ratio to 1 of the following 3 intravitreal treatment groups: E10030 0.3 mg in combination with ranibizumab 0.5 mg, E10030 1.5 mg in combination with ranibizumab 0.5 mg, and sham in combination with ranibizumab 0.5 mg (anti-VEGF monotherapy). Drugs were administered monthly in each of the groups for a total duration of 24 weeks.Main Outcome Measures: The prespecified primary end point was the mean change in visual acuity (VA; Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy [ETDRS] letters) from baseline to 24 weeks.Results: No significant safety issues were observed in any treatment group. The E10030 (1.5 mg) combination therapy regimen met the prespecified primary end point of superiority in mean VA gain compared with anti-VEGF monotherapy (10.6 compared with 6.5 ETDRS letters at week 24; P = 0.019). A dose-response relationship was evident at each measured time point commencing at 4 weeks. Visual acuity outcomes favored the E10030 1.5 mg combination therapy group regardless of baseline VA, lesion size, or central subfield thickness on optical coherence tomography. All clinically relevant treatment end points of visual benefit (>= 15 ETDRS letter gain, final VA >= 20/40 or >= 20/25) and visual loss (>= 1 ETDRS line loss, >= 2 ETDRS line loss, final VA >= 20/125 or >= 20/200) favored the E10030 1.5 mg combination group.Conclusions: In this phase IIb clinical trial, a 62% relative benefit from baseline was noted in the E10030 1.5 mg combination therapy group compared with the anti-VEGF monotherapy group. A favorable safety and efficacy profile of E10030 combination therapy for nAMD was evident across multiple clinically relevant end points. This highly powered study provides strong rationale for a confirmatory phase III clinical trial. Ophthalmology 2017; 124: 224-234 (C) 2016 by the American Academy of Ophthalmolog

Bilateral visual improvement with unilateral gene therapy injection for Leber hereditary optic neuropathy

REVERSE is a randomized, double-masked, sham-controlled, multicenter, phase 3 clinical trial that evaluated the efficacy of a single intravitreal injection of rAAV2/2-ND4 in subjects with visual loss from Leber hereditary optic neuropathy (LHON). A total of 37 subjects carrying the m.11778G>A (MT-ND4) mutation and with duration of vision loss between 6 to 12 months were treated. Each subject's right eye was randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to treatment with rAAV2/2-ND4 (GS010) or sham injection. The left eye received the treatment not allocated to the right eye. Unexpectedly, sustained visual improvement was observed in both eyes over the 96-week follow-up period. At week 96, rAAV2/2-ND4-treated eyes showed a mean improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of −0.308 LogMAR (+15 ETDRS letters). A mean improvement of −0.259 LogMAR (+13 ETDRS letters) was observed in the sham-treated eyes. Consequently, the primary end point, defined as the difference in the change in BCVA from baseline to week 48 between the two treatment groups, was not met (P= 0.894). At week 96, 25 subjects (68%) had a clinically relevant recovery in BCVA from baseline in at least one eye, and 29 subjects (78%) had an improvement in vision in both eyes. A nonhuman primate study was conducted to investigate this bilateral improvement. Evidence of transfer of viral vector DNA from the injected eye to the anterior segment, retina, and optic nerve of the contralateral noninjected eye supports a plausible mechanistic explanation for the unexpected bilateral improvement in visual function after unilateral injection

A phase 2/3, multicenter, randomized, double-masked, 2-year trial of pegaptanib sodium for the treatment of diabetic macular edema.

Item does not contain fulltextPURPOSE: To confirm the safety and compare the efficacy of intravitreal pegaptanib sodium 0.3 mg versus sham injections in subjects with diabetic macular edema (DME) involving the center of the macula associated with vision loss not due to ischemia. DESIGN: Randomized (1:1), sham-controlled, multicenter, parallel-group trial. PARTICIPANTS: Subjects with DME. INTERVENTION: Subjects received pegaptanib 0.3 mg or sham injections every 6 weeks in year 1 (total = 9 injections) and could receive focal/grid photocoagulation beginning at week 18. During year 2, subjects received injections as often as every 6 weeks per prespecified criteria. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion gaining >/= 10 letters of visual acuity (VA) from baseline to year 1. Safety was monitored throughout. RESULTS: In all, 260 (pegaptanib, n = 133; sham, n = 127) and 207 (pegaptanib, n = 107; sham, n = 100) subjects were included in years 1 and 2 intent-to-treat analyses, respectively. A total of 49 of the 133 (36.8%) subjects from the pegaptanib group and 25 of the 127 (19.7%) from the sham group experienced a VA improvement of >/= 10 letters at week 54 compared with baseline (odds ratio [OR], 2.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-4.30; P = 0.0047). For pegaptanib-treated subjects, change in mean VA from baseline by visit was superior (P<0.05) to sham at weeks 6, 24, 30, 36, 42, 54, 78, 84, 90, 96, and 102. At week 102, pegaptanib-treated subjects gained, on average, 6.1 letters versus 1.3 letters for sham (P<0.01). Fewer pegaptanib- than sham-treated subjects received focal/grid laser treatment (week 54, 31/133 [23.3%] vs 53/127 [41.7%], respectively, P = 0.002; week 102, 27/107 [25.2%] vs 45/100 [45.0%], respectively, P = 0.003). The pegaptanib treatment group showed significantly better results on the National Eye Institute-Visual Functioning Questionnaire than sham for subscales important in this population. Pegaptanib was well tolerated; the frequencies of discontinuations, adverse events, treatment-related adverse events, and serious adverse events were comparable in the pegaptanib and sham groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with DME derive clinical benefit from treatment with the selective vascular endothelial growth factor antagonist pegaptanib 0.3 mg. These findings indicate that intravitreal pegaptanib is effective in the treatment of DME and, taken together with prior study data, support a positive safety profile in this population. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references