Reticular Pseudodrusen: Interreader Agreement of Evaluation on OCT Imaging in Age-Related Macular Degeneration

Purpose: To determine the interreader agreement for reticular pseudodrusen (RPD) assessment on combined infrared reflectance (IR) and OCT imaging in the early stages of age-related macular degeneration across a range of different criteria to define their presence. Design: Interreader agreement study. Participants: Twelve readers from 6 reading centers. Methods: All readers evaluated 100 eyes from individuals with bilateral large drusen for the following: (1) the presence of RPD across a range of different criteria and (2) the number of Stage 2 or 3 RPD lesions (from 0 to ≥ 5 lesions) on an entire OCT volume scan and on a selected OCT B-scan. Supportive information was available from the corresponding IR image. Main Outcome Measures: Interreader agreement, as assessed by Gwet’s first-order agreement coefficient (AC1). Results: When evaluating an entire OCT volume scan, there was substantial interreader agreement for the presence of any RPD, any or ≥ 5 Stage 2 or 3 lesions, and ≥ 5 definite lesions on en face IR images corresponding to Stage 2 or 3 lesions (AC1 = 0.60–0.72). On selected OCT B-scans, there was also moderate-to-substantial agreement for the presence of any RPD, any or ≥ 5 Stage 2 or 3 lesions (AC1 = 0.58–0.65) and increasing levels of agreement with increasing RPD stage (AC1 = 0.08, 0.56, 0.78, and 0.99 for the presence of any Stage 1, 2, 3, and 4 lesions, respectively). There was substantial agreement regarding the number of Stage 2 or 3 lesions on an entire OCT volume scan (AC1 = 0.68), but only fair agreement for this evaluation on selected B-scans (AC1 = 0.30). Conclusions: There was generally substantial or near-substantial—but not near-perfect—agreement for assessing the presence of RPD on entire OCT volume scans or selected B-scans across a range of differing RPD criteria. These findings underscore how interreader variability would likely contribute to the variability of findings related to the clinical associations of RPD. The low levels of agreement for assessing RPD number on OCT B-scans underscore the likely challenges of quantifying RPD extent with manual grading. Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references

Sparsentan in patients with IgA nephropathy: a prespecified interim analysis from a randomised, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial

Background: Sparsentan is a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin and angiotensin receptor antagonist being examined in an ongoing phase 3 trial in adults with IgA nephropathy. We report the prespecified interim analysis of the primary proteinuria efficacy endpoint, and safety. Methods: PROTECT is an international, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled study, being conducted in 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries. The study examines sparsentan versus irbesartan in adults (aged ≥18 years) with biopsy-proven IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of 1·0 g/day or higher despite maximised renin-angiotensin system inhibitor treatment for at least 12 weeks. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive sparsentan 400 mg once daily or irbesartan 300 mg once daily, stratified by estimated glomerular filtration rate at screening (30 to 1·75 g/day). The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 36 in urine protein-creatinine ratio based on a 24-h urine sample, assessed using mixed model repeated measures. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were safety endpoints. All endpoints were examined in all participants who received at least one dose of randomised treatment. The study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850. Findings: Between Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 404 participants were randomly assigned to sparsentan (n=202) or irbesartan (n=202) and received treatment. At week 36, the geometric least squares mean percent change from baseline in urine protein-creatinine ratio was statistically significantly greater in the sparsentan group (-49·8%) than the irbesartan group (-15·1%), resulting in a between-group relative reduction of 41% (least squares mean ratio=0·59; 95% CI 0·51-0·69; p<0·0001). TEAEs with sparsentan were similar to irbesartan. There were no cases of severe oedema, heart failure, hepatotoxicity, or oedema-related discontinuations. Bodyweight changes from baseline were not different between the sparsentan and irbesartan groups. Interpretation: Once-daily treatment with sparsentan produced meaningful reduction in proteinuria compared with irbesartan in adults with IgA nephropathy. Safety of sparsentan was similar to irbesartan. Future analyses after completion of the 2-year double-blind period will show whether these beneficial effects translate into a long-term nephroprotective potential of sparsentan. Funding: Travere Therapeutics