Efficacy, durability, and safety of intravitreal faricimab up to every 16 weeks for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (TENAYA and LUCERNE): two randomised, double-masked, phase 3, non-inferiority trials

Background: Faricimab is a bispecific antibody that acts through dual inhibition of both angiopoietin-2 and vascular endothelial growth factor A. We report primary results of two phase 3 trials evaluating intravitreal faricimab with extension up to every 16 weeks for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). Methods: TENAYA and LUCERNE were randomised, double-masked, non-inferiority trials across 271 sites worldwide. Treatment-naive patients with nAMD aged 50 years or older were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravitreal faricimab 6·0 mg up to every 16 weeks, based on protocol-defined disease activity assessments at weeks 20 and 24, or aflibercept 2·0 mg every 8 weeks. Randomisation was performed through an interactive voice or web-based response system using a stratified permuted block randomisation method. Patients, investigators, those assessing outcomes, and the funder were masked to group assignments. The primary endpoint was mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline averaged over weeks 40, 44, and 48 (prespecified non-inferiority margin of four letters), in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses included patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (TENAYA NCT03823287 and LUCERNE NCT03823300). Findings: Across the two trials, 1329 patients were randomly assigned between Feb 19 and Nov 19, 2019 (TENAYA n=334 faricimab and n=337 aflibercept), and between March 11 and Nov 1, 2019 (LUCERNE n=331 faricimab and n=327 aflibercept). BCVA change from baseline with faricimab was non-inferior to aflibercept in both TENAYA (adjusted mean change 5·8 letters [95% CI 4·6 to 7·1] and 5·1 letters [3·9 to 6·4]; treatment difference 0·7 letters [-1·1 to 2·5]) and LUCERNE (6·6 letters [5·3 to 7·8] and 6·6 letters [5·3 to 7·8]; treatment difference 0·0 letters [-1·7 to 1·8]). Rates of ocular adverse events were comparable between faricimab and aflibercept (TENAYA n=121 [36·3%] vs n=128 [38·1%], and LUCERNE n=133 [40·2%] vs n=118 [36·2%]). Interpretation: Visual benefits with faricimab given at up to 16-week intervals demonstrates its potential to meaningfully extend the time between treatments with sustained efficacy, thereby reducing treatment burden in patients with nAMD

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field