The effect of intravitreal bevacizumab (Avastin®) on ocular pulse amplitude in neovascular age-related macular degeneration

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of intravitreal (IVT) bevacizumab in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) on global choroidal hemodynamics, as measured by ocular pulse amplitude (OPA). METHODS: This was a two-center prospective study (Sheba Medical Center, Israel, and University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium). AMD patients who required IVT bevacizumab (1.25 mg/0.05 mL; first or repeated) were examined three times: at days 0 (prior to injection), 7 (±3), and 28 (±7) postinjection. At each visit, OPAs of both eyes were measured using the Pascal dynamic contour tonometer (DCT). A paired t-test between preoperative and postoperative OPA was conducted. Pearson correlation was used to evaluate the influence of various measured parameters on DCT-OPA. RESULTS: A total of 38 neovascular AMD patients were recruited, and 30 patients were included in the final analysis (18 females and 12 males; age 78.8 ± 5.82 years [mean ± standard deviation]). A good correlation was found throughout the study between the DCT-intraocular pressure (IOP) and Goldmann IOP and between DCT-IOP and DCT-OPA. No change in OPA of bevacizumab-treated eyes was found between the visits (2.24 ± 0.73, 2.2 ± 0.86, and 2.23 ± 0.73 mm Hg at visits 1, 2, and 3, respectively; paired t-test: P = 0.77 between visits 1 and 2, P = 0.98 between visits 1 and 3). No correlations were found between DCT-OPA and age, heart rate, systemic blood pressure, axial length, keratometry readings, and central corneal thickness. CONCLUSIONS: OPA, an indirect measure of global choroidal hemodynamics, remains unchanged following IVT off-label bevacizumab. This finding adds to the growing evidence regarding the safety profile of bevacizumab in AMD treatment.status: publishe

Treatment of steroid-induced elevated intraocular pressure with anecortave acetate: a randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: The present study is the first randomized clinical trial designed to evaluate the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering effect of anecortave acetate (AA) administered at 3 doses (3, 15, or 30 mg) as an anterior juxtascleral depot (AJD) in patients experiencing elevated IOP due to corticosteroid therapy. METHODS: This was a double-masked, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter, parallel group trial. Eligible patients had an IOP of at least 24 mmHg and an IOP increase of at least 10 mmHg relative to their IOP before treatment with steroids. A target IOP was established for each patient at baseline. Patients were randomized to 1 of the 4 treatment groups: vehicle, 3 mg AA, 15 mg AA, or 30 mg AA. All patients then received a 0.5 mL AJD of the assigned treatment. Patients returned for scheduled examination visits at weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, months 3, 4, 5, and 6. IOP was measured at each visit as well as best corrected visual acuity (logMAR), ocular motility, eyelid responsiveness, slit lamp examination, and assessment of any adverse events. In addition, at baseline and at exit, a dilated fundus examination was carried out and the lens was examined using LOCS II criteria. RESULTS: Seventy patients were randomized to treatment. At week 4, eyes in the vehicle group showed a 3.4 mmHg (9.1%) decrease from baseline. Reductions for the 3 mg AA (3.1 mmHg, 10.7%) and the 30 mg AA groups (5.4 mmHg, 16.6%) were not significantly different than for vehicle control. However, IOP for the 15 mg AA group at week 4 was reduced 11.5 mmHg (31.3%) from baseline, which was statistically significant (P=0.0487). The mean time to treatment failure was 32.2, 38.9, 56.3, and 32.6 days for the vehicle, 3 mg AA, 15 mg AA, and 30 mg AA groups, respectively. Adverse events were assessed at each post-treatment visit. There were no serious adverse events that were determined to be related to the test article or its administration. CONCLUSIONS: AA can be of benefit to some patients requiring treatment with corticosteroids, but suffering from the side effect of elevated IOP

Uveal Melanoma: A European Network to Face the Many Challenges of a Rare Cancer

Uveal melanoma (UM) is the most frequent primary ocular cancer in adults, accounting for 5% of all melanomas. Despite effective treatments for the primary tumour, up to 50% of UM patients will develop metastasis, leading to a very poor prognosis and a median overall survival of 6 to 12 months, with no major improvements in the last 30 years. There is no standard oncological treatment available for metastatic UM patients, and BRAF/MEK and immune checkpoint inhibitors show disappointing results when compared to cutaneous melanoma (CM). Recent advances in biology, however, identified specific gene and chromosome alterations, potentially permitting an actively tailored surveillance strategy, and dedicated clinical studies. Being a rare cancer, UM patients have to overcome issues such as identifying referral centres, having access to information, and partnering with oncologists for specific management strategies and research priorities. Here, we describe how the EUropean Rare Adult solid CAacer Network (EURACAN) will help in addressing these challenges and accelerating international collaborations to enhance the development of innovative treatments in UM

Adalimumab for prevention of uveitic flare in patients with inactive non-infectious uveitis controlled by corticosteroids (VISUAL II):a multicentre, double-masked, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial

Background Non-infectious uveitis is a potentially sight-threatening ocular disorder caused by chronic inflammation and its complications. Therapeutic success is limited by systemic adverse effects associated with long-term corticosteroid and immunomodulator use if topical medication is not sufficient to control the inflammation. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of adalimumab in patients with inactive, non-infectious uveitis controlled by systemic corticosteroids. Methods We did this multicentre, double-masked, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial at 62 study sites in 21 countries in the USA, Canada, Europe, Israel, Australia, and Latin America. Patients (aged >= 18 years) with inactive, non-infectious intermediate, posterior, or panuveitic uveitis controlled by 10-35 mg/day of prednisone were randomly assigned (1: 1), via an interactive voice and web response system with a block size of four, to receive either subcutaneous adalimumab (loading dose 80 mg; biweekly dose 40 mg) or placebo, with a mandatory prednisone taper from week 2. Randomisation was stratified by baseline immunosuppressant treatment. Sponsor personnel with direct oversight of the conduct and management of the study, investigators, study site personnel, and patients were masked to treatment allocation. The primary efficacy endpoint was time to treatment failure, a multicomponent endpoint encompassing new active inflammatory chorioretinal or inflammatory retinal vascular lesions, anterior chamber cell grade, vitreous haze grade, and visual acuity. Analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01124838. Findings Between Aug 10, 2010, and May 14, 2015, we randomly assigned 229 patients to receive placebo (n=114) or adalimumab (n=115); 226 patients comprised the intention-to-treat population. Median follow-up time was 155 days (IQR 77-357) in the placebo group and 245 days (119-564) in the adalimumab group. Treatment failure occurred in 61 (55%) of 111 patients in the placebo group compared with 45 (39%) of 115 patients in the adalimumab group. Time to treatment failure was significantly improved in the adalimumab group compared with the placebo group (median not estimated [>18 months] vs 8.3 months; hazard ratio 0.57, 95% CI 0.39-0.84; p=0.004). The 40th percentile for time to treatment failure was 4.8 months in the placebo group and 10.2 months in the adalimumab group. No patients in either group had opportunistic infections (excluding oral candidiasis and tuberculosis). No malignancies were reported in the placebo group whereas one (1%) patient in the adalimumab group reported non-serious squamous cell carcinoma. The most common adverse events were arthralgia (12 [11%] patients in the placebo group and 27 [23%] patients in the adalimumab group), nasopharyngitis (16 [17%] and eight [16%] patients, respectively), and headache (17 [15%] patients in each group). Interpretation Adalimumab significantly lowered the risk of uveitic flare or loss of visual acuity upon corticosteroid withdrawal in patients with inactive, non-infectious intermediate, posterior, or panuveitic uveitis controlled by systemic corticosteroids. No new safety signals were observed and the rate of adverse events was similar between groups. These findings suggest that adalimumab is well tolerated and could be an effective treatment option in this patient population. An open-label extension study (NCT01148225) is ongoing to provide long-term safety data for adalimumab in patients with non-infectious uveitis

Guidance on noncorticosteroid systemic immunomodulatory therapy in noninfectious uveitis: fundamentals of care for uveitis (focus) initiative

Topic: An international, expert-led consensus initiative to develop systematic, evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of noninfectious uveitis in the era of biologics. Clinical Relevance: The availability of biologic agents for the treatment of human eye disease has altered practice patterns for the management of noninfectious uveitis. Current guidelines are insufficient to assure optimal use of noncorticosteroid systemic immunomodulatory agents. Methods: An international expert steering committee comprising 9 uveitis specialists (including both ophthalmologists and rheumatologists) identified clinical questions and, together with 6 bibliographic fellows trained in uveitis, conducted a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol systematic reviewof the literature (English language studies from January 1996 through June 2016; Medline [OVID], the Central Cochrane library, EMBASE,CINAHL,SCOPUS,BIOSIS, andWeb of Science). Publications included randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective studies with sufficient follow-up, case series with 15 cases or more, peer-reviewed articles, and hand-searched conference abstracts from key conferences. The proposed statements were circulated among 130 international uveitis experts for review.Atotal of 44 globally representativegroupmembersmet in late 2016 to refine these guidelines using a modified Delphi technique and assigned Oxford levels of evidence. Results: In total, 10 questions were addressed resulting in 21 evidence-based guidance statements covering the following topics: when to start noncorticosteroid immunomodulatory therapy, including both biologic and nonbiologic agents; what data to collect before treatment; when to modify or withdraw treatment; how to select agents based on individual efficacy and safety profiles; and evidence in specific uveitic conditions. Shared decision-making, communication among providers and safety monitoring also were addressed as part of the recommendations. Pharmacoeconomic considerations were not addressed. Conclusions: Consensus guidelines were developed based on published literature, expert opinion, and practical experience to bridge the gap between clinical needs and medical evidence to support the treatment of patients with noninfectious uveitis with noncorticosteroid immunomodulatory agents

Erratum to: Methods for evaluating medical tests and biomarkers

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s41512-016-0001-y.]

Evidence synthesis to inform model-based cost-effectiveness evaluations of diagnostic tests: a methodological systematic review of health technology assessments

Background: Evaluations of diagnostic tests are challenging because of the indirect nature of their impact on patient outcomes. Model-based health economic evaluations of tests allow different types of evidence from various sources to be incorporated and enable cost-effectiveness estimates to be made beyond the duration of available study data. To parameterize a health-economic model fully, all the ways a test impacts on patient health must be quantified, including but not limited to diagnostic test accuracy. Methods: We assessed all UK NIHR HTA reports published May 2009-July 2015. Reports were included if they evaluated a diagnostic test, included a model-based health economic evaluation and included a systematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy. From each eligible report we extracted information on the following topics: 1) what evidence aside from test accuracy was searched for and synthesised, 2) which methods were used to synthesise test accuracy evidence and how did the results inform the economic model, 3) how/whether threshold effects were explored, 4) how the potential dependency between multiple tests in a pathway was accounted for, and 5) for evaluations of tests targeted at the primary care setting, how evidence from differing healthcare settings was incorporated. Results: The bivariate or HSROC model was implemented in 20/22 reports that met all inclusion criteria. Test accuracy data for health economic modelling was obtained from meta-analyses completely in four reports, partially in fourteen reports and not at all in four reports. Only 2/7 reports that used a quantitative test gave clear threshold recommendations. All 22 reports explored the effect of uncertainty in accuracy parameters but most of those that used multiple tests did not allow for dependence between test results. 7/22 tests were potentially suitable for primary care but the majority found limited evidence on test accuracy in primary care settings. Conclusions: The uptake of appropriate meta-analysis methods for synthesising evidence on diagnostic test accuracy in UK NIHR HTAs has improved in recent years. Future research should focus on other evidence requirements for cost-effectiveness assessment, threshold effects for quantitative tests and the impact of multiple diagnostic tests

Erratum to: Methods for evaluating medical tests and biomarkers

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s41512-016-0001-y.]