- Email: [email protected]
A Multicountry Comparison of Real-World Management and Outcomes of Polypoidal Choroidal Vasculopathy
Accepted Manuscript A multi-country comparison of real world management and outcomes of polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy – Fight Retinal Blindness! Cohort Kelvin Yi Chong Teo, David M. Squirrell, Vuong Nguyen, Gayatri Banerjee, Amy Cohn, Daniel Barthelmes, Chui Ming Gemmy Cheung, Mark Gillies PII:
S2468-6530(18)30314-2
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oret.2018.11.003
Reference:
ORET 427
To appear in:
Ophthalmology Retina
Received Date: 20 April 2018 Revised Date:
31 October 2018
Accepted Date: 1 November 2018
Please cite this article as: Chong Teo K.Y., Squirrell D.M, Nguyen V., Banerjee G., Cohn A., Barthelmes D., Gemmy Cheung C.M. & Gillies M., A multi-country comparison of real world management and outcomes of polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy – Fight Retinal Blindness! Cohort, Ophthalmology Retina (2018), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oret.2018.11.003. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1
Title: A multi-country comparison of real world management and outcomes of polypoidal
2
choroidal vasculopathy – Fight Retinal Blindness! Cohort
3 4
Running head: Comparison of PCV subtype in the FRB cohort
RI PT
5
Authors and affiliations: Kelvin Yi Chong Teo1,2,3, David M Squirrell4, Vuong Nguyen5,
7
Gayatri Banerjee5,6, Amy Cohn7, Daniel Barthelmes8, Chui Ming Gemmy Cheung1,2,9.10,
8
Mark Gillies4
9
SC
6
1 Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore
11
2 Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore
12
3 Sydney Eye Hospital Foundation, Sydney Eye Hospital, Sydney, Australia
13
4 Department of Ophthalmology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
14
5 The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
15
6 Nepean Valley Eye Surgeons, Australia
16
7 Centre For Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital
17
8 University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
18
9 Department of Ophthalmology, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of
19
Singapore, Singapore
20
10 Ophthalmology Academic Clinical Program, Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School,
21
Singapore
22 23 24 25
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Financial Support: The FRB! project has been supported by grants from the Royal Australian NZ College of Ophthalmologists’ Eye Foundation (2007 -2009), the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia (NHMRC 2010-2012), the Macular Diseases Foundation, Novartis and Bayer. These supporting organizations had no role in the design or conduct of the research.
33
data for this analysis
34
Correspondence to:
35
Dr. Kelvin Yi Chong Teo
36
The Save Sight Institute,
37
Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
38
Singapore Eye Research Institute
39
Singapore National Eye Centre
40
11 Third Hospital Avenue, Singapore 168751
41
Phone: (65) 69881460, Fax: (65) 62263995
42
Email: [email protected]
47 48 49 50 51 52 53
EP
46
SC
Original Manuscript not previously presented
Conflict of Interest: no conflicting relationship exists for any author
AC C
45
M AN U
TE D
43 44
RI PT
Conflict of interest: Gillies and Barthelmes are inventors of the software used to collect the
Financial Support: None
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 54 55 56 57
RI PT
58 59 Abstract
61
Objective:
62
To compare the 12-month real-world visual and disease activity outcomes of eyes with
63
polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV), treated with a combination of photodynamic
64
therapy and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections [The combination
65
group] versus those eyes treated with anti-VEGF monotherapy alone with rescue PDT being
66
used as required [The monotherapy group].
67
Design: Database comparative observational study
68
Participants: Eyes with PCV as graded in Fight Retinal Blindness! database from Australia,
69
New Zealand, Singapore and Switzerland.
70
Methods:
71
Clinical information from a multi-site, international registry of nAMD was analysed with
72
intention-to-treat approach.
73
Results: There were 41 and 152 eyes that received combination therapy and anti-VEGF
74
monotherapy respectively. All anti-VEGF agents were pooled, and bevacizumab comprised
75
of 66.1% of injections administered. The adjusted mean (CI) change in visual acuity between
76
the combination group and monotherapy group at 12 months was +16.9 (10.6 - 23.3) letters
77
and +8.2 (5.2 – 11.3) letters respectively (p=0.02). Proportion of inactive lesions and mean
78
(CI) time to inactivity was 85.3% and 80.7 (62.8- 98.5) days in the combination group
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
60
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT compared to 76.8% and 150.4 (132.8 – 168.0) days in the monotherapy group (p=0.01). The
80
mean number of injections (CI) of anti-VEGF between the combination and monotherapy
81
group was 4.3 (3.6 – 5.2) and 6.4 (5.9 – 6.9) respectively (p=0.01).
82
Conclusions:
83
The real-world outcomes for treatment of PCV showed larger gains in vision, higher
84
proportion of inactive lesions, quicker time to inactivity and fewer injections administered in
85
the combination group compared to the monotherapy group. These findings are consistent
86
with current evidence reporting the advantages of combination therapy for PCV.
SC
RI PT
79
87
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
88
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 89 Introduction
91
Age related macular degeneration (AMD) is one of the leading causes of blindness
92
worldwide.1 In its exudative or wet form, the presence of a choroidal neovascular network
93
(CNV) results in an exudative maculopathy and rapid vision loss. Intravitreal injections of
94
anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents have become the mainstay
95
treatment for CNV in AMD and can produce good outcomes in all CNV subtypes.1-3
96
Polypoidal choroidal neovascularization (PCV) is a particular subtype of neovascular AMD
97
characterized by polypoidal lesions arising from terminal ends of branching vascular
98
networks which are best diagnosed on indocyanine green angiography (ICGA).4 50-80% of
99
large serosanguinous maculopathy in neovascular AMD can be attributed to PCV5,6, which
M AN U
SC
RI PT
90
may also be accompanied by extensive subretinal or sub-retinal pigment epithelium (sub-
101
RPE) haemorrhage, often resulting in acute and severe vision loss. Compared to the typical
102
subtypes of CNV in AMD, the PCV subtype has a predilection for pigmented races,
103
occurring in 22-62% of AMD amongst Asians7-11 compared to 5-20% in Caucasians12,13 and
104
also tends to afflict younger patients.
EP
105
TE D
100
There is currently no consensus on the best treatment for PCV. Early studies reported that
107
despite being a subtype of CNV in AMD, PCV did not seem to respond as well to anti-VEGF
108
monotherapy14-16, while results from recent randomised controlled trials (RCT) reported an
109
improvement in visual outcomes with anti-VEGF therapy.10,17 The combination of a vaso-
110
occlusive treatment like photodynamic therapy with verteporfin (PDT) in combination with
111
an anti-VEGF injection in PCV is an attractive treatment strategy as it potentially targets both
112
the polypoidal lesion as well as the branching vascular network components of the PCV. The
113
EVEREST II trial reported that the use of PDT in combination with ranibizumab treatment
AC C
106
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT was more effective than ranibizumab monotherapy in treating PCV. It reported superior
115
visual acuity gains (8.3 vs 5.1 letters, p=0.013) and polyp closure rates (69.3% vs 34.7%,
116
p<0.001) in patients treated with combination therapy as compared to ranibizumab
117
monotherapy.18 The PLANET study, on the other hand, demonstrated that aflibercept
118
monotherapy resulted in visual gains of 10.7 letters, with no additional benefit from rescue
119
PDT.19
RI PT
114
120
These two randomized controlled trials currently represent the best evidence for the treatment
122
of PCV. In our study, we aimed to use multi-site observational data from the FRB! registry,
123
to compare the 12-month real-world treatment outcomes of combination PDT and anti-VEGF
124
therapy with anti-VEGF monotherapy in treatment naive eyes with PCV.
M AN U
SC
121
125
AC C
EP
TE D
126
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Methods
128
We performed an observational study of the outcomes of treatment-naïve eyes diagnosed
129
with PCV in routine clinical practice tracked in the Fight Retinal Blindness! (FRB!)
130
database.20 Briefly, the FRB! system collects data from each clinical visit including the
131
visual acuity (VA), lesion subtype (predominantly classic (PC), minimally classic (MC),
132
occult (OC) and PCV), greatest linear diameter of the lesion, lesion activity, treatment
133
administered and any ocular adverse events. Visual acuity recorded was whichever reading
134
was best: uncorrected, corrected or pinhole. Visual acuity scores were expressed as the
135
number of letters read on a logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) VA
136
chart. Treating physicians determined all management decisions including frequency of
137
visits and treatment modality, thereby reflecting real-world practice. Institutional ethics
138
approval was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committees of the University of
139
Sydney, the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, the Royal Australian and New Zealand
140
College of Ophthalmologists, the University Hospital, Zurich, and Singhealth, Singapore.
141
The research described adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. Practitioners
142
located in Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland and Singapore contributed the data for the
143
study. This paper followed the STROBE checklist items for reporting observational study
144
data.21
SC
M AN U
TE D
EP
AC C
145
RI PT
127
146
Patient Selection and Groups
147
Patients included in the analysis were treatment naïve for neovascular AMD and had lesion
148
type graded in the FRB! system as “PCV”. Patients entered in the database after the July 2016
149
was excluded from the study to allow for at least 12 months of potential follow-up. PCV was
150
diagnosed by each individual treating physician based on ICGA.
151
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 152 We compared the outcomes of eyes that received initial PDT as performed by the treating
154
physician (within the first 90 days) in combination with anti-VEGF therapy, the “combination
155
group”, with those that received anti-VEGF monotherapy, the “monotherapy” group. The
156
criteria and scheduling of treatment reflected real-world practice where, due to clinical or
157
logistical constraints, initial PDT treatment may have been administered within the first 3
158
monthly anti-VEGF injections rather than at the first visit. Within the cohorts studied,
159
bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept were used to treat PCV and the different anti-
160
VEGF agents were combined for the analysis. The monotherapy group also included eyes
161
that received rescue PDT (from 90 days after the first visit), since it was likely that the
162
practitioner had originally planned to treat these eyes with anti-VEGF monotherapy. The
163
observations in these eyes in which PDT was deferred were censored immediately before the
164
application of rescue PDT and carried forward as part of the monotherapy group.
165
Eyes were “non-completers” if they did not complete 12 months of follow-up. The primary
166
analysis was performed based on the principle of intention-to-treat (ITT). All eyes were
167
considered for final analysis with the last observation carried forward (LOCF) method used
168
for non-completers.
SC
M AN U
TE D
EP
AC C
169
RI PT
153
170
Study Measurements
171
Patient age (years), sex, VA in logMAR letters and lesion size (micrometres) were recorded
172
at the time of first treatment. All treatments were recorded, along with VA, lesion activity,
173
and ocular adverse events at each visit. Lesion activity status was graded by the treating
174
physician based on findings from clinical examination, optical coherence tomography, or dye
175
angiography, alone or in combination, at each visit.
176
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Outcome Measurements
178
The primary study outcome was the mean change in VA of each group over 12 months after
179
initiating treatment. Secondary visual outcomes were the final vision at 12 months, the
180
proportion of eyes with 15 letter loss or gain and the proportion of eyes with VA better than
181
6/12. Secondary outcomes include the proportion of eyes that achieved CNV inactivity and
182
time to inactivity of the CNV lesion. Additional secondary outcomes included the mean
183
number of treatments administered over 12 months . In two sub group analyses within the
184
monotherapy group, the outcomes of individual anti-VEGF agents were performed and we
185
also described the outcomes of these eyes that underwent rescue PDT in combination with
186
anti-VEGF therapy.
M AN U
SC
RI PT
177
187 Statistical Analysis
189
Descriptive data are presented as mean (SD), median (25th and 75th percentiles, Q1 and Q3)
190
or number (percentage). Statistical test such as Student’s t-test, Wilcoxon rank sum, and
191
Fisher’s tests was used where appropriate to compare baseline characteristics between the
192
anti-VEGF monotherapy and initial PDT in combination with anti-VEGF therapy groups.
193
Locally weighted scatterplot smoothing (LOESS) curves were used to analyse VA throughout
194
the follow-up for different treatment groups and eyes with varying starting vision. ITT
195
analysis was performed and mean change in VA between treatment groups at 12 months were
196
assessed by mixed-effects regression models with the therapy group as the main predictor
197
variable. Adjusted means were used to assess the change in VA from baseline to 12 months
198
after adjusting for age, baseline VA, lesion size, and country. A logistic regression model
199
adjusted for age, baseline VA, and lesion size and country was used to compare the
200
proportion of eyes with 15 letter loss, 15 letter gain and VA better than 6/12 at 12 months
201
between groups.
AC C
EP
TE D
188
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 202 The number of injections was compared by a Poisson regression model adjusted for age,
204
baseline VA, lesion size, and country, with log days of follow-up included as an offset
205
variable. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis adjusted for age, baseline VA, lesion
206
size and country was used to compare the proportion of eyes that became inactive and the
207
mean time to inactivity. Kaplan-Meier curve analysis was used to display the corresponding
208
results. Appropriate models were applied to the subset analysis comparing anti-VEGF agents
209
in the monotherapy group using Holm-Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. All
210
analyses were calculated using R22 with the lme4 package for mixed-effects regression
211
analysis and the survival package for Kaplan-Meier analyses.
M AN U
SC
RI PT
203
212
AC C
EP
TE D
213
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Results
215
Study Participants
216
We identified 207 treatment- naive eyes diagnosed with PCV from 5082 neovascular AMD
217
patients captured on the FRB! database between December 1, 2010, and July 1, 2016; 152
218
eyes underwent anti-VEGF monotherapy; 41 eyes underwent initial PDT in combination with
219
anti-VEGF therapy and 14 eyes underwent focal laser in combination with anti-VEGF
220
therapy. The eyes that underwent focal laser were excluded and final statistical analyses
221
comparing the monotherapy (n=152) and combination groups (n=41) was based on 193 eyes.
222
Baseline characteristics between treatment groups are summarised in Table 1. The median
223
baseline VA (Q1, Q3) was significantly lower in the initial PDT combination group (46 [20,
224
67.3] letters) compared to the monotherapy group (60 [45.0, 70.0] letters, p=0.03). Other
225
baseline characteristics such as age, sex, and lesion size were not significantly different
226
between groups. A large proportion of eyes (patients) were non-Caucasian (60%) of which
227
most (97%) were Asian. Different ethnic distributions between treatment groups also
228
reflected the treatment patterns that varied from country to country. There was much higher
229
rate of combination therapy in the non-Caucasian group (most from Singapore where PDT
230
was used between 2009-2013) as compared to the Caucasian group, where PDT was not the
231
physicians’ initial treatment of choice and used only in cases with sub optimal response to
232
anti VEGF therapy or was presumably less accessible. In the monotherapy group,
233
Caucasians consisted of 40.8% while 55.2% were Asian. The baseline median VA (Q1, Q3)
234
was higher in Caucasians compared to Asians (64.0[54.75, 70.5] versus 54.0[39.5, 68],
235
p=0.03)
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
214
236 237
Vision Outcomes
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT The mean VA change for all eyes, including noncompleters, grouped by treatment type
239
during 12 months is shown in Figure 1. Despite the difference in baseline VA, the VA
240
improved significantly at month 12 and was similar between the combination and
241
monotherapy groups, (70 vs 67.5 letters, p=0.44). The mean VA change between
242
combination therapy and monotherapy (including the LOCF at the point of rescue PDT
243
treatment) is shown in Table 2. Mean (CI) VA increased by 14.3 (5.5 - 23.0) letters in the
244
combination group compared with 8.4 letters (5.4 – 11.3) in the monotherapy group. The
245
difference in crude VA change between treatment groups was statistically significant
246
(p=0.03), as was the difference in adjusted VA change of 8.8 letters (p = 0.03) favouring the
247
combination group. There was a higher proportion of eyes that gained 15 letters or more in
248
the combination group as compared to the monotherapy group, although the difference was
249
not statistically significant (51.2% versus 32.0%, p =0.09). The proportions of eyes that lost
250
15 or more letters in the combination and monotherapy groups were similar (8.8% versus
251
5.0% respectively, p = 0.87). There was no difference in the proportion of eyes that achieved
252
vision better than 6/12 between the combination and monotherapy groups (46.8% versus
253
55.8%, p=0.21 respectively).
SC
M AN U
TE D
EP
254
RI PT
238
The overall mean VA change over 12 months and comparison between treatment groups
256
during the 12 months stratified by baseline line vision is shown in Figures 2 and 3. Eyes
257
were stratified into 3 groups according to their presenting baseline VA: (a) “good baseline
258
vision” ≥70 letters (49 eyes); (b) “moderate baseline vision”, between 36 and 69 letters (97
259
eyes); and (c) “low baseline vision”, ≤ 35 letters (42 eyes). The largest gains in vision (mean
260
[CI]) were seen in eyes that started in the low baseline vision band (20.9 [12.6 – 29.2]
261
letters). Eyes in the combination group gained 28.6 [11.7 - 45.4] letters versus 17.0 [7.4 –
262
26.6] letters in the monotherapy group (p = 0.22) in this band. In the good vision band, there
AC C
255
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT appeared to be a slight loss in vision in the monotherapy group compared to the combination
264
group, where there was a modest gain over 12 months (-0.3 [-4.7 – 4.2] letters versus 4.2 [1.1
265
– 7.3] letters respectively, p=0.09). In the moderate vision band, the gains in vision were
266
similar between groups (11.4 [0.3 – 22.6] letters versus 10.1 [6.8 – 13.3] letters respectively,
267
p = 0.81).
RI PT
263
268 269 Lesion Activity
271
A Kaplan-Meier survival curve representing the proportion of eyes achieving inactivity
272
between groups is shown in Figure 4. More eyes were graded as inactive over a shorter
273
period in the combination group than in the monotherapy group. The proportion of eyes
274
graded as inactive and time to inactivity between groups during the 12-month period is
275
shown in Table 2. In the combination group, 85.3% of eyes were eventually graded inactive
276
compared to 76.8% in the monotherapy group (p = 0.01). Eyes in the combination group also
277
became inactive more quickly than those in the monotherapy group (mean [CI] 80.7 [62.8-
278
98.5] days versus 150.4 [132.8 – 168.0] days to first grading of inactivity, p = 0.01).
M AN U
TE D
281
Injection Outcomes and Treatment Requirements
282
Over the first 12 months, the combination group received fewer injections mean [CI] (4.3
283
[3.6-5.2]) than the monotherapy group (6.4 [5.9 – 6.9], p = 0.01). The total number of anti-
284
VEGF injections administered was 161 in the combination group (n=41) versus 698 in the
285
monotherapy group (n=152) over 12 months. Most anti-VEGF injections administered were
286
bevacizumab ([70.8% [114 injections] in the combination group and 65.0% [454 injections]
287
in the monotherapy group). Ranibizumab was given in 8.6% (14 injections) of the
AC C
280
EP
279
SC
270
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT combination group and 18.3% (128 injections) of the monotherapy group while aflibercept
289
was used in 20.4% (33 injections) in the combination group and 16.7% (116 injections) in the
290
monotherapy. A subset analysis of outcomes of the different agents in the monotherapy
291
group showed no significant difference in visual acuity outcomes, however the number of
292
eyes treated exclusively with ranibizumab (n=16) and aflibercept (n=13) were small. (Table
293
4).
RI PT
288
294
Outcomes of Eyes in Monotherapy Group requiring Rescue PDT
296
Twelve eyes among the 152 patients in the monotherapy group received PDT after at least 90
297
days of treatment with anti-VEGF therapy. Based on ITT, these 12 eyes were included in the
298
monotherapy arm for the main analysis. Since the timing and criteria for adding PDT after
299
initial monotherapy were not standardized, this subgroup was considered to be receiving anti-
300
VEGF monotherapy with rescue PDT. The mean [CI] VA of this subgroup increased from
301
54.0 [42.0 – 65.8] letters to 58.6 [46.3 – 70.0] letters (+4.3 [-10.9 – 19.5] letters, p=0.57) at
302
12 months. The mean [CI] time to treatment with PDT was 225.2 [178.2 – 272.3] days and
303
the average number of anti-VEGF injections until PDT was performed was 5.2 [4.5 – 6.1].
304
The mean [CI] time to the first grading of lesion inactivity was 281.7 [216.0 – 347.5] days.
305
There was no significant difference between the VA at time of PDT compared to final VA at
306
12 months (7.2 [-6.1 – 20.5] letters, p= 0.26).
M AN U
TE D
EP
AC C
307
SC
295
308
Non-completion Rate
309
The proportion of eyes that did not complete the 12-month study was similar for the
310
combination therapy and monotherapy groups (17.0% versus 11.8%, p = 0.37), as was the
311
mean time to last visit for non-completers between the 2 groups (184.9 [103.5 – 266.2] days
312
versus 202.8 [172.1 – 233.7) days, p= 0.63). The mean VA change from baseline to the
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT LOCF for non-completers also did not differ significantly between the combination therapy
314
and monotherapy groups (22.6 [3.5-41.6] letters versus 12.7 [2.8 – 22.5] letters, p = 0.43).
315
Reasons were given for discontinuation and loss of follow up in only 6 of the 22 dropouts.
316
These included changing of practitioner (3), patient declining further treatment (2) and
317
further treatment deemed futile (1).
RI PT
313
318 319
SC
320
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
321
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Discussion
323
This study compared the real-world outcomes over 12 months for the treatment of PCV with
324
either initial PDT in combination with anti-VEGF therapy or anti-VEGF monotherapy,
325
including a small number that received “rescue” treatment with PDT, with observations from
326
the FRB! database. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, including visual acuity, the
327
combination group gained more letters (+14.3) at 12 months, the primary outcome, than those
328
receiving monotherapy (+8.4). These findings are consistent with a recent meta-analysis, a
329
RCT18 and several smaller non-randomised comparative studies23-26 which have all reported
330
better vision outcomes using PDT in combination with anti-VEGF therapy.
SC
RI PT
322
M AN U
331
The baseline VA was significantly lower in the combination group in the present study,
333
possibly because clinicians used PDT in cases deemed more advanced. Other reasons for this
334
difference may be that Asian patients present later and since the proportion of patients
335
receiving PDT was predominately Asian, this resulted in an overall lower baseline VA within
336
the combination group. The Asian patients within the monotherapy group also had lower
337
baseline visual acuity than the Caucasians. It is generally acknowledged that eyes with worse
338
vision gain more vision after starting treatment27,28, however the difference in visual acuity
339
outcomes between the 2 groups in the present study was still statistically significant after
340
adjusting for baseline VA. Overall we also found much larger visual acuity gains in both
341
groups in this real-world study than in the EVEREST-II study despite the use of bevacizumab
342
in most of our cohort rather than ranibizumab. This is likely due to the much lower starting
343
vision in our study than in the EVEREST-II rather than different efficacy of the 2 agents.18
AC C
EP
TE D
332
344 345
The anatomical response to combination therapy appeared to be better than monotherapy,
346
with a higher proportion of CNV lesions being graded as inactive within a shorter period.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Several other studies have also reported better anatomical outcomes with combination
348
therapy for PCV29,30. PCV-specific trials like the EVEREST-II and PLANET studies used
349
several metrics for the measure of anatomical outcomes including ICGA confirmed polyp
350
regression/closure (a PCV specific outcome) and disease inactivity based on presence of fluid
351
on OCT and clinical exam (a more generic outcome).31,32
352
As the assessment of PCV regression is a disease-specific measure requiring the use of
353
ICGA, these data were not captured by the FRB! system. Instead, our study used the grading
354
of inactivity as a marker of anatomical response. Disease acitivty in the FRB! system is
355
defined as the presence of intraretinal or subretinal fluid or haemorrhage that is attributable to
356
activity of the neovascular lesion as determined by the treating ophthalmologist. This could
357
be based on clinical examination or imaging (optical coherence tomography, or dye
358
angiography, alone or in combination). This definition is similar to the disease activity
359
crtieria in the EVEREST II and PLANET studies. The proportion graded as inactive in the
360
combination group (85.3% at month 12) of our study was similar to the EVEREST-II (79.5%
361
at month 11) but different when comparing the monotherapy group (76.8% inactive at 12
362
months in the FRB monotherapy group versus 50.0% inactive in the EVEREST-II
363
monotherapy group). This proportion of inactivity in the FRB monotherapy group was more
364
similar to the proportion of inactive eyes (defined by the absence of fluid on OCT) in the
365
PLANET study (81.7% in the aflibercept monotherapy group and 88.9% in the aflibercept
366
plus active PDT group. Our reported disease activity outcome is broadly consistent with
367
PCV RCTs and reflects the real-world nature of the study where treatment may be guided by
368
lesion activity as noted clinically or on OCT rather than on dye angiography which may be
369
difficult to obtain regularly.
370
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
347
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT An increasing concern in the era of anti-VEGF therapy is the burden of repeated injections.
372
We found that in eyes in the combination group received fewer anti-VEGF injections than in
373
the monotherapy group. This has also been observed in several other studies33,34, including
374
the EVEREST II study.18 Direct closure of the lesion with PDT may result in reduced VEGF
375
levels, thereby reducing the overall anti-VEGF treatment burden. In the present study, about
376
2 injections were saved with the administration of PDT with a mean number of 1.23 PDT
377
treatments applied over 12 months. While savings of anti-VEGF injections are noted, this
378
result must take into account cost considerations specific to different healthcare jurisdictions
379
and remuneration models and are largely dependent on subsidies and funding for each
380
treatment type.
M AN U
SC
RI PT
371
381
Analysis of these observational data was carried out using the principle of ITT and including
383
data from patients that discontinued their treatment. Noncompleters gained more letters than
384
completers at their final visit, however this was not statistically significant. This could be
385
because there was only a small number of noncompleters and a large variability in the letter
386
change in vision within groups. Nonetheless, this result suggests that the reasons for
387
discontinuation from FRB! were likely to be independent of treatment regimen or visual
388
outcome. (Table 3)
390
EP
AC C
389
TE D
382
Results of eyes within the monotherapy group that received rescue PDT should be
391
interpreted with caution, as the indication and timing for rescue PDT was highly variable.
392
The concept of ITT was also applied in the analysis of these patients. In this small group, the
393
physicians’ initial management intention was for monotherapy, hence their outcomes just
394
prior to rescue PDT were carried forward into the monotherapy group. The reasons for
395
applying rescue PDT were not captured by the FRB! system, however presumably it reflected
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT a suboptimal response of anti-VEGF monotherapy in terms of visual outcome or treatment
397
burden. We found no difference in the mean visual acuity prior to rescue PDT and the 12-
398
month vision of monotherapy eyes that did not receive rescue PDT (61.7 [52.3 – 70.0] letters
399
versus 63.3 [59.3 – 67.3] letters, p=0.63). This suggests that both explanations are plausible
400
in the cohort of patients we studied.
RI PT
396
401 402
We acknowledge the lower internal validity of observational studies, where there is a lack of standardised treatment and study protocols, compared with RCTs. One potential
404
weakness of the present study is the inter-observer variability of the grading of lesion
405
inactivity, which was based on decisions made by unmasked individual treating physicians.
406
However, this effect is likely to have been consistent across the multiple sites and physicians
407
were included in this study. Whilst care should be taken when comparing our results with
408
those of RCTs, large observational studies such as this may provide a truer reflection of real
409
world outcomes.
M AN U
TE D
410
SC
403
As the present analysis was a comparison of 2 treatment strategies, we have attempted to mitigate some of the shortcomings inherent in observational studies by correcting for
412
baseline characteristics and inter-practice effects in the regression model to minimize bias.
413
Despite analysing a large cohort of AMD patients, there was a relatively low prevalence of
414
PCV in the FRB! database, especially in the Caucasian population. A possible explanation
415
for this could be a high false negative rate in diagnosing PCV, especially in centres that do
416
not have access to ICGA or where ICGA is not part of the standard clinical assessment and is
417
only performed if PCV is suspected. While no meaningful prevalence data can be derived
418
from this study, we still believe that cases entered as PCV are highly likely to have had the
419
condition. When polled, all clinicians involved at the very least indicated that an ICGA
420
would be performed if there was clinical or imaging suspicion of PCV, while in some
AC C
EP
411
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 421
practices dye angiography including ICGA was performed as standard in all cases of
422
neovascular AMD to rule out PCV.
423 While our results suggest that early PDT in combination with anti-VEGF therapy is
425
more efficacious than anti-VEGF monotherapy, it is important to note that most eyes were
426
treated with bevacizumab. This again reflects real world practice, where on-label anti-VEGF
427
agents may not be accessible due to cost constrains. There have been suggestions that
428
outcomes for PCV may differ when treated with different anti-VEGF agents, however there
429
has been no large head to head comparison to date.10,35-37 In our study, a subset analysis
430
based on agent type found no significant difference in visual outcomes between the 3 anti-
431
VEGF agents, however sample sizes were small for the ranibizumab and aflibercept
432
monotherapy groups. In addition, the majority of data collected was prior to 2016 where
433
aflibercept was yet to be widely available in many regions. The inactivation rates in this
434
study were much lower than reported in the recent randomized clinical trials. At 12 weeks,
435
the EVEREST-II study of ranibizumab reported disease inactivity in 73.6% and 39.3% in the
436
combination arm and the monotherapy arm respectively.18 The PLANET study of aflibercept
437
reported inactivity in 77.1-77.4% at the similar time point.38 Our study reported a lower
438
proportion of inactivity in both groups at 12 weeks (63.4% of the combination group and
439
25.1% of the monotherapy group). This lower rate of inactivation might be due to a weaker
440
effect of bevacizumab which was the main anti-VEGF agent used in our cohort.
442
SC
M AN U
TE D
EP
AC C
441
RI PT
424
Despite some of the shortcomings, this study nonetheless showcases the opportunity
443
of a system such as the FRB! registry to compare treatment patterns for different subtypes of
444
nAMD across different international practices. Unfortunately, no meaningful comparisons of
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 445
treatment strategies could be performed between ethnicities as only a small number of
446
Caucasian patients underwent combination therapy.
447 448
The main finding from this study is that combination therapy appears to give better outcomes than anti-VEGF monotherapy for the management of PCV over 12 months in
450
routine clinical practice. While all anti-VEGF agents were theoretically available,
451
bevacizumab was the agent that was most commonly used. Although this study lacks the
452
robust criteria of a RCT, the results reflect real world practice and outcomes. It is
453
encouraging to note that the results reported here are consistent with the findings from the
454
current landmark RCTs, further strengthening the evidence for the use of combination
455
therapy in the treatment of PCV.
456
M AN U
SC
RI PT
449
Acknowledgements
458
The Fight Retinal Blindness! investigators: Auckland District Health Board, New Zealand
459
(Dr D Squirrell); Cairns Eye Surgery, Queensland (Dr A Field); Canberra Hospital,
460
Australian Capital Territory (Dr C Dayajeewa, Dr J Wells); Centre for Eye Research
461
Australia, Victoria (Professor R Guymer); Eye Associates, New South Wales (Dr M Gillies);
462
Eyemedics, South Australia (Dr N Saha, Dr S Lake); Marsden Eye Specialists, New South
463
Wales (Dr J Arnold, Dr D Chan); Nepean Valley Eye Surgeons, New South Wales (Dr G
464
Banerjee); Retina Associates, New South Wales (Dr S Fraser-Bell); Retina Specialists, New
465
Zealand (Dr R Barnes); Singapore National Eye Centre , Singapore (Dr G Cheung);
466
Specialist Eye Group, Victoria (Dr A Cohn, Dr L Chow); Strathfield Retina Clinic, New
AC C
EP
TE D
457
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 467
South Wales (Dr C Lim); University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland (Dr D Barthelmes);
468
Victorian Eye Surgeons, Victoria (Dr A Cohn)
469
RI PT
470 471 472
SC
473 474
476
References
477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503
1.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
TE D
4.
EP
3.
Lim LS, Mitchell P, Seddon JM, Holz FG, Wong TY. Age-related macular degeneration. The Lancet. 2012;379(9827):1728-1738. Bressler NM. Age-related macular degeneration is the leading cause of blindness. JAMA. 2004;291(15):1900-1901. Comparison of Age-related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials Research G, Martin DF, Maguire MG, et al. Ranibizumab and bevacizumab for treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: two-year results. Ophthalmology. 2012;119(7):1388-1398. Yannuzzi LA, Sorenson J, Spaide RF, Lipson B. Idiopathic polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (IPCV). Retina. 1990;10(1):1-8. Ahuja RM, Stanga PE, Vingerling JR, Reck AC, Bird AC. Polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy in exudative and haemorrhagic pigment epithelial detachments. Br J Ophthalmol. 2000;84(5):479-484. Cackett P, Htoon H, Wong D, Yeo I. Haemorrhagic pigment epithelial detachment as a predictive feature of polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy in a Chinese population. Eye (Lond). 2010;24(5):789-792. Kuo JZ, Wong TY, Ong FS. Genetic risk, ethnic variations and pharmacogenetic biomarkers in AMD and polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy. Expert review of ophthalmology. 2014. Laude A, Cackett PD, Vithana EN, et al. Polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy and neovascular age-related macular degeneration: same or different disease? Progress in retinal and eye research. 2010;29(1):19-29. Lim LS, Cheung CMG, Wong TY. Asian age-related macular degeneration: current concepts and gaps in knowledge. The Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology. 2013;2(1):32-41. Wong CW, Wong TY, Cheung CMG. Polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy in Asians. Journal of clinical medicine. 2015;4(5):782-821.
AC C
2.
M AN U
475
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
16.
17. 18.
19.
20.
21.
22. 23.
24.
25.
26.
RI PT
15.
SC
14.
M AN U
13.
TE D
12.
Wong CW, Yanagi Y, Lee W-K, et al. Age-related macular degeneration and polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy in Asians. Progress in retinal and eye research. 2016. Coppens G, Spielberg L, Leys A. Polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy, diagnosis and management. Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol. 2011(317):39-44. Yadav S, Parry DG, Beare NAV, Pearce IA. Polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy: a common type of neovascular age-related macular degeneration in Caucasians. Br J Ophthalmol. 2017;101(10):1377-1380. Lai TY, Lee GK, Luk FO, Lam DS. Intravitreal ranibizumab with or without photodynamic therapy for the treatment of symptomatic polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy. Retina. 2011;31(8):1581-1588. Gomi F, Sawa M, Sakaguchi H, et al. Efficacy of intravitreal bevacizumab for polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008;92(1):70-73. Kang HM, Koh HJ. Long-term visual outcome and prognostic factors after intravitreal ranibizumab injections for polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;156(4):652-660. Cheung CM, Wong TY. Ranibizumab and bevacizumab for AMD. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(23):2237; author reply 2237. Koh A, Lai TYY, Takahashi K, et al. Efficacy and Safety of Ranibizumab With or Without Verteporfin Photodynamic Therapy for Polypoidal Choroidal Vasculopathy: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2017;135(11):1206-1213. Penterman EJ, Nijman HL, Saalmink K, Rasing S, van der Staak CP. [Assessing aggressive behaviour at the psychiatric emergency service with a checklist: a replication study]. Tijdschr Psychiatr. 2013;55(2):93-100. Gillies MC, Walton R, Liong J, et al. Efficient capture of high-quality data on outcomes of treatment for macular diseases: the fight retinal blindness! Project. Retina. 2014;34(1):188-195. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet. 2007;370(9596):1453-1457. R: A language and environment for statistical computing [computer program]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2017. Sakurai M, Baba T, Kitahashi M, et al. One-year results of intravitreal ranibizumab combined with reduced-fluence photodynamic therapy for polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy. Clin Ophthalmol. 2014;8:235-241. Lim JY, Lee SY, Kim JG, Lee JY, Chung H, Yoon YH. Intravitreal bevacizumab alone versus in combination with photodynamic therapy for the treatment of neovascular maculopathy in patients aged 50 years or older: 1-year results of a prospective clinical study. Acta Ophthalmol. 2012;90(1):61-67. Kang HM, Koh HJ. Two-year outcome after combination therapy for polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy: comparison with photodynamic monotherapy and antivascular endothelial growth factor monotherapy. Ophthalmologica. 2014;231(2):8693. Song MH, Ryu HW, Roh YJ. One-year results of intravitreal ranibizumab with or without photodynamic therapy for polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy. Ophthalmologica. 2011;226(3):119-126.
EP
11.
AC C
504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
585 586 587 588 589 590
32. 33.
34.
35.
36.
37. 38.
RI PT
31.
SC
30.
M AN U
29.
TE D
28.
Gillies MC, Campain A, Barthelmes D, et al. Long-Term Outcomes of Treatment of Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Data from an Observational Study. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(9):1837-1845. Writing Committee for the UKA-RMDEMRUG. The neovascular age-related macular degeneration database: multicenter study of 92 976 ranibizumab injections: report 1: visual acuity. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(5):1092-1101. Wang W, He M, Zhang X. Combined intravitreal anti-VEGF and photodynamic therapy versus photodynamic monotherapy for polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):e110667. Tang K, Si JK, Guo DD, et al. Ranibizumab alone or in combination with photodynamic therapy vs photodynamic therapy for polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Int J Ophthalmol. 2015;8(5):1056-1066. Cheung GCM, Lai TYY, Gomi F, Ruamviboonsuk P, Koh A, Lee WK. Anti-VEGF Therapy for Neovascular AMD and Polypoidal Choroidal Vasculopathy. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila). 2017;6(6):527-534. Cheung CMG, Lai TYY, Ruamviboonsuk P, et al. Polypoidal Choroidal Vasculopathy: Definition, Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, and Management. Ophthalmology. 2018. Gomi F, Oshima Y, Mori R, et al. INITIAL VERSUS DELAYED PHOTODYNAMIC THERAPY IN COMBINATION WITH RANIBIZUMAB FOR TREATMENT OF POLYPOIDAL CHOROIDAL VASCULOPATHY: The Fujisan Study. Retina. 2015;35(8):1569-1576. Akaza E, Yuzawa M, Matsumoto Y, Kashiwakura S, Fujita K, Mori R. Role of photodynamic therapy in polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy. Japanese journal of ophthalmology. 2007;51(4):270-277. Saito M, Kano M, Itagaki K, Oguchi Y, Sekiryu T. Switching to intravitreal aflibercept injection for polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy refractory to ranibizumab. Retina. 2014;34(11):2192-2201. Hata M, Oishi A, Tsujikawa A, et al. Efficacy of intravitreal injection of aflibercept in neovascular age-related macular degeneration with or without choroidal vascular hyperpermeability. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55(12):7874-7880. Cho HJ, Kim KM, Kim HS, et al. Intravitreal Aflibercept and Ranibizumab Injections for Polypoidal Choroidal Vasculopathy. Am J Ophthalmol. 2016;165:1-6. Iida T. Results of the PLANET study. 10th Asia-Pacific Vitreo-retina Society Congress; December 9, 2016, 2016; Bangkok, Thailand.
EP
27.
AC C
550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 591 592 593 594
RI PT
595 596 597
SC
598 599
M AN U
600 601 602 603
605
TE D
604
Legends
607
Figure 1: Loess regression curves over 12 months stratified by baseline vision. Most eyes
608
stayed within their own bands, except for the eyes with poor baseline vision (35 letters of
609
worse) which managed to gain enough letters to cross into the moderate vision band at the
610
end of 1 year. VA: visual acuity
AC C
611
EP
606
612 613
Figure 2: Loess regression curves over 12 months in the 2 treatment groups.
614
A larger increase in visual acuity was noted in the initial PDT in combination with anti-
615
VEGF therapy over 12 months and appeared to continue to increase throughout the 12-month
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 616
time period as compared to Vision in the monotherapy with anti-VEGF group, where the
617
increase was less over 12 months and vision appeared to plateau. VEGF: vascular
618
endothelial growth factor, PDT: photodynamic therapy
619
RI PT
620 621
Figure 3: Loess regression curves over 12 months for monotherapy with anti-VEGF and
623
initial PDT in combination with anti-VEGF therapy stratified by baseline vision. Vision
624
gains were evident in all bands for initial PDT in combination with anti-VEGF therapy group
625
with largest gains in the low vision band crossing into the moderate vision band.
626
Monotherapy with anti-VEGF group appeared to have gains in all bands except for those in
627
the good vision band where vision appeared to be lost over 12 months. VEGF: vascular
628
endothelial growth factor, PDT: photodynamic therapy
M AN U
SC
622
630
TE D
629
Figure 4. Kaplan-Meier curve representing the proportion to inactivity over time between the
632
2 treatment groups, monotherapy with anti-VEGF group and initial PDT in combination with
633
anti-VEGF therapy group. A larger proportion of eyes over a shorter time achieved inactivity
634
in the initial PDT in combination with anti-VEGF therapy compared to the monotherapy with
635
anti-VEGF group. VEGF: vascular endothelial growth factor, PDT: photodynamic therapy
AC C
636
EP
631
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 1. Comparison of index visit characteristics of eyes with PCV between different initial treatment modalities. Anti-VEGF monotherapy
Initial PDT + antiVEGF
No. of eyes, n (%)
152 (73.4)
41 (19.8)
Mean age, years (CI)
70.7 (68.9 – 72.4)
69.0 (65.3 – 72.6)
0.16§
P value*
Overall
193
RI PT
70.6 (69.1 – 72.1)
69 (61.5)
18 (43.9)
0.21+
87 (45.0)
Median Baseline VA, letters (Q1, Q3) VA better than 6/12 at baseline, n (%) Median GLD, µm (Q1, Q3)
60 (45.0, 70.0)
46 (20, 67.3)
0.03++
60 (40, 70)
41 (26.9)
9 (22.0)
0.63+
58 (25.9)
3000 (1825, 4500)
2442 (1648, 5173)
0.54++
3000 (1710, 4518)
Caucasian, n (%)
62 (40.8)
3 (7.3)
-
65 (33.7)
Non-Caucasian, n (%)
84 (55.2)
31(75.6)
-
Undisclosed, n (%)
6 (3.9)
7 (17.1)
SC
Sex, male (%)
M AN U
115 (59.6)
-
13 (6.7)
*P-value – Anti-VEGF monotherapy versus Initial PDT in combination with anti-VEGF therapy; t-test§, Fishers exact test+ and Wilcoxon rank sum test++ VEGF: vascular endothelial growth factor, PDT: photodynamic therapy, VA: visual acuity,
AC C
EP
TE D
GLD: greatest linear diameter
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 2. Comparison of outcomes between initial treatment modalities: anti-VEGF monotherapy and initial PDT in combination with anti-VEGF therapy.
Anti-VEGF monotherapy
Initial PDT + antiVEGF
No. of eyes, n (%)
152 (73.4)
41 (17.0)
Median VA at 1 year or LOCF, letters (Q1, Q3)
70.0 (60.0, 78.0)
67.5 (49.0, 75.0)
0.44+
Crude mean change in VA, letters (CI)
8.4 (5.4-11.3)
14.3 (5.5- 23.0)
0.03+
Adjusted mean change in VA, letters (CI)
8.2 (5.2 – 11.2)
16.9 (10.6 – 23.3)
0.02+++
15 letter loss, n (%)
10 (5.0)
15 letter gain, n (%)
47 (32.0)
Time to inactivity of lesion, days (CI)
Mean number of injections, n (CI) Mean number of PDT treatments, n (CI)
RI PT
SC
0.87++
21 (51.2)
0.09++
82(55.8)
22(46.8)
0.21++
150.4 (132.8 – 168.0)
80.7 (62.8 – 98.5)
0.01§
6.4 (5.9-6.9)
4.3 (3.6 -5.2)
0.01§§
-
1.23 (1.13 – 1.36)
-
112 (76.8)
35 (85.3)
0.01§
TE D
Eyes that were inactive at month 12, n (%)
3 (8.8)
M AN U
VA better than 6/12, n (%)
P-value*
P-value* – Significance for anti-VEGF monotherapy versus Initial PDT in combination with anti-VEGF therapy; calculated using Wilcoxon rank sum+, logistic++, linear+++, cox
EP
proportional hazards§ or Poisson§§ regression model correcting for age, baseline visual acuity, practice and baseline greatest linear dimension of lesion.
AC C
VEGF: vascular endothelia growth factor, PDT: photodynamic therapy, VA: visual acuity, GLD: greatest linear diameter, LOCF: last observation carried forwards, CI: confidence interval
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 3. Demographics and outcomes for non-completers Non-completers
Mean age, years (CI) Median baseline VA, letters (Q1, Q3) Median GLD at baseline, µm (Q1, Q3) Median VA at last observation, letters (Q1, Q3) Mean change in VA, letters (CI)
Initial PDT + antiVEGF
Overall 25
18 (11.8)
7 (17.0)
168
68.3 (63.8-72.8) 50 (35, 66) 3057.5 (2296, 3575)
67.2 (61.6-79.8) 50 (35.0, 57.5) 3157.5 (2974.5, 4316)
70.8 (62.0-79.8) 59 (35, 69) 2500 (1300, 3275.5)
70.6 (69.0 -72.2) 60 (40, 70) 2948 (1744, 4733)
73(60, 75)
65 (57.5, 73.5)
75 (73, 75)
15(4.3-25.7)
12.1 (-1.8-26.2)
24.2 (-2.3-50.7)
P value*
0.91§ 0.60+
overall
RI PT
No. of eyes, n (%)
completers
Anti-VEGF monotherapy
0.06+
P value*
0.52§ 0.65+ 0.86+
0.31+
70 (57, 78)
0.49+
0.40§
9.3(6.3 -12.3)
0.16++
SC
P-value* – Significance of anti-VEGF monotherapy versus Initial PDT in combination with anti-VEGF therapy; t-test§, Wilcoxon rank sum+ and linear++ regression model correcting
M AN U
for age, baseline visual acuity, country and baseline greatest linear dimension of lesion VEGF: vascular endothelia growth factor, PDT: photodynamic therapy, VA: visual acuity,
AC C
EP
TE D
GLD: greatest linear diameter, CI: confidence interval
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 4. Subset analysis of anti-VEGF treatment by single agent within the monotherapy group P value*
82 (73.8)
16 (14.4)
13 (11.7)
8 (0, 15.0)
6.5 (0, 13.0)
5 (0, 15.0)
0.22
60 (40.0, 60.0)
70 (58.5, 75.0)
68 (51.0, 70.0)
1.00
70.0 (60.0, 78.0)
75.0 (65.5, 80.0)
73.0 (67.0, 80.0)
0.17
5(6.1)
1(6.2)
0(0)
1.00
21(25.6)
1(6.2)
4(30.1)
1.00
42 (51.2)
8 (50.0)
8 (61.5)
1.00
5 (3, 6)
5(3, 7)
Ranibizumab vs. Aflibercept
5(3, 7)
1.00
Bevacizumab vs. Aflibercept
RI PT
Aflibercept
1.00
0.16
1.00
0.16
0.42
0.18
1.00
1.00
0.60
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
SC
Ranibizumab
M AN U
No. of eyes, n (%) Median change in VA, letters (CI) Median Baseline VA, letters (Q1, Q3) Median VA at 1 year or LOCF, letters (Q1, Q3) 15 letter loss, n (%) 15 letter gain, n (%) VA better than 6/12, n, (%) Median number of injections, n (Q1, Q3)
Bevacizumab vs. Ranibizumab & Aflibercept
Bevacizumab
*Holms corrected P-value for multiple comparisons
VEGF: vascular endothelia growth factor, VA: visual acuity, LOCF: last observation carried
AC C
EP
TE D
forwards, CI: confidence interval
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Title: A multi-country comparison of real world management and outcomes of polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy – Fight Retinal Blindness! Cohort Precis:
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
Photodynamic therapy in combination with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) results in better vision, higher proportion of inactivity and a lower anti-VEGF treatment burden compared to anti VEGF monotherapy in treating polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy.
S2468-6530(18)30314-2
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oret.2018.11.003
Reference:
ORET 427
To appear in:
Ophthalmology Retina
Received Date: 20 April 2018 Revised Date:
31 October 2018
Accepted Date: 1 November 2018
Please cite this article as: Chong Teo K.Y., Squirrell D.M, Nguyen V., Banerjee G., Cohn A., Barthelmes D., Gemmy Cheung C.M. & Gillies M., A multi-country comparison of real world management and outcomes of polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy – Fight Retinal Blindness! Cohort, Ophthalmology Retina (2018), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oret.2018.11.003. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1
Title: A multi-country comparison of real world management and outcomes of polypoidal
2
choroidal vasculopathy – Fight Retinal Blindness! Cohort
3 4
Running head: Comparison of PCV subtype in the FRB cohort
RI PT
5
Authors and affiliations: Kelvin Yi Chong Teo1,2,3, David M Squirrell4, Vuong Nguyen5,
7
Gayatri Banerjee5,6, Amy Cohn7, Daniel Barthelmes8, Chui Ming Gemmy Cheung1,2,9.10,
8
Mark Gillies4
9
SC
6
1 Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore
11
2 Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore
12
3 Sydney Eye Hospital Foundation, Sydney Eye Hospital, Sydney, Australia
13
4 Department of Ophthalmology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
14
5 The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
15
6 Nepean Valley Eye Surgeons, Australia
16
7 Centre For Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital
17
8 University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
18
9 Department of Ophthalmology, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of
19
Singapore, Singapore
20
10 Ophthalmology Academic Clinical Program, Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School,
21
Singapore
22 23 24 25
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Financial Support: The FRB! project has been supported by grants from the Royal Australian NZ College of Ophthalmologists’ Eye Foundation (2007 -2009), the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia (NHMRC 2010-2012), the Macular Diseases Foundation, Novartis and Bayer. These supporting organizations had no role in the design or conduct of the research.
33
data for this analysis
34
Correspondence to:
35
Dr. Kelvin Yi Chong Teo
36
The Save Sight Institute,
37
Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
38
Singapore Eye Research Institute
39
Singapore National Eye Centre
40
11 Third Hospital Avenue, Singapore 168751
41
Phone: (65) 69881460, Fax: (65) 62263995
42
Email: [email protected]
47 48 49 50 51 52 53
EP
46
SC
Original Manuscript not previously presented
Conflict of Interest: no conflicting relationship exists for any author
AC C
45
M AN U
TE D
43 44
RI PT
Conflict of interest: Gillies and Barthelmes are inventors of the software used to collect the
Financial Support: None
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 54 55 56 57
RI PT
58 59 Abstract
61
Objective:
62
To compare the 12-month real-world visual and disease activity outcomes of eyes with
63
polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV), treated with a combination of photodynamic
64
therapy and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections [The combination
65
group] versus those eyes treated with anti-VEGF monotherapy alone with rescue PDT being
66
used as required [The monotherapy group].
67
Design: Database comparative observational study
68
Participants: Eyes with PCV as graded in Fight Retinal Blindness! database from Australia,
69
New Zealand, Singapore and Switzerland.
70
Methods:
71
Clinical information from a multi-site, international registry of nAMD was analysed with
72
intention-to-treat approach.
73
Results: There were 41 and 152 eyes that received combination therapy and anti-VEGF
74
monotherapy respectively. All anti-VEGF agents were pooled, and bevacizumab comprised
75
of 66.1% of injections administered. The adjusted mean (CI) change in visual acuity between
76
the combination group and monotherapy group at 12 months was +16.9 (10.6 - 23.3) letters
77
and +8.2 (5.2 – 11.3) letters respectively (p=0.02). Proportion of inactive lesions and mean
78
(CI) time to inactivity was 85.3% and 80.7 (62.8- 98.5) days in the combination group
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
60
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT compared to 76.8% and 150.4 (132.8 – 168.0) days in the monotherapy group (p=0.01). The
80
mean number of injections (CI) of anti-VEGF between the combination and monotherapy
81
group was 4.3 (3.6 – 5.2) and 6.4 (5.9 – 6.9) respectively (p=0.01).
82
Conclusions:
83
The real-world outcomes for treatment of PCV showed larger gains in vision, higher
84
proportion of inactive lesions, quicker time to inactivity and fewer injections administered in
85
the combination group compared to the monotherapy group. These findings are consistent
86
with current evidence reporting the advantages of combination therapy for PCV.
SC
RI PT
79
87
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
88
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 89 Introduction
91
Age related macular degeneration (AMD) is one of the leading causes of blindness
92
worldwide.1 In its exudative or wet form, the presence of a choroidal neovascular network
93
(CNV) results in an exudative maculopathy and rapid vision loss. Intravitreal injections of
94
anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents have become the mainstay
95
treatment for CNV in AMD and can produce good outcomes in all CNV subtypes.1-3
96
Polypoidal choroidal neovascularization (PCV) is a particular subtype of neovascular AMD
97
characterized by polypoidal lesions arising from terminal ends of branching vascular
98
networks which are best diagnosed on indocyanine green angiography (ICGA).4 50-80% of
99
large serosanguinous maculopathy in neovascular AMD can be attributed to PCV5,6, which
M AN U
SC
RI PT
90
may also be accompanied by extensive subretinal or sub-retinal pigment epithelium (sub-
101
RPE) haemorrhage, often resulting in acute and severe vision loss. Compared to the typical
102
subtypes of CNV in AMD, the PCV subtype has a predilection for pigmented races,
103
occurring in 22-62% of AMD amongst Asians7-11 compared to 5-20% in Caucasians12,13 and
104
also tends to afflict younger patients.
EP
105
TE D
100
There is currently no consensus on the best treatment for PCV. Early studies reported that
107
despite being a subtype of CNV in AMD, PCV did not seem to respond as well to anti-VEGF
108
monotherapy14-16, while results from recent randomised controlled trials (RCT) reported an
109
improvement in visual outcomes with anti-VEGF therapy.10,17 The combination of a vaso-
110
occlusive treatment like photodynamic therapy with verteporfin (PDT) in combination with
111
an anti-VEGF injection in PCV is an attractive treatment strategy as it potentially targets both
112
the polypoidal lesion as well as the branching vascular network components of the PCV. The
113
EVEREST II trial reported that the use of PDT in combination with ranibizumab treatment
AC C
106
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT was more effective than ranibizumab monotherapy in treating PCV. It reported superior
115
visual acuity gains (8.3 vs 5.1 letters, p=0.013) and polyp closure rates (69.3% vs 34.7%,
116
p<0.001) in patients treated with combination therapy as compared to ranibizumab
117
monotherapy.18 The PLANET study, on the other hand, demonstrated that aflibercept
118
monotherapy resulted in visual gains of 10.7 letters, with no additional benefit from rescue
119
PDT.19
RI PT
114
120
These two randomized controlled trials currently represent the best evidence for the treatment
122
of PCV. In our study, we aimed to use multi-site observational data from the FRB! registry,
123
to compare the 12-month real-world treatment outcomes of combination PDT and anti-VEGF
124
therapy with anti-VEGF monotherapy in treatment naive eyes with PCV.
M AN U
SC
121
125
AC C
EP
TE D
126
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Methods
128
We performed an observational study of the outcomes of treatment-naïve eyes diagnosed
129
with PCV in routine clinical practice tracked in the Fight Retinal Blindness! (FRB!)
130
database.20 Briefly, the FRB! system collects data from each clinical visit including the
131
visual acuity (VA), lesion subtype (predominantly classic (PC), minimally classic (MC),
132
occult (OC) and PCV), greatest linear diameter of the lesion, lesion activity, treatment
133
administered and any ocular adverse events. Visual acuity recorded was whichever reading
134
was best: uncorrected, corrected or pinhole. Visual acuity scores were expressed as the
135
number of letters read on a logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) VA
136
chart. Treating physicians determined all management decisions including frequency of
137
visits and treatment modality, thereby reflecting real-world practice. Institutional ethics
138
approval was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committees of the University of
139
Sydney, the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, the Royal Australian and New Zealand
140
College of Ophthalmologists, the University Hospital, Zurich, and Singhealth, Singapore.
141
The research described adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. Practitioners
142
located in Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland and Singapore contributed the data for the
143
study. This paper followed the STROBE checklist items for reporting observational study
144
data.21
SC
M AN U
TE D
EP
AC C
145
RI PT
127
146
Patient Selection and Groups
147
Patients included in the analysis were treatment naïve for neovascular AMD and had lesion
148
type graded in the FRB! system as “PCV”. Patients entered in the database after the July 2016
149
was excluded from the study to allow for at least 12 months of potential follow-up. PCV was
150
diagnosed by each individual treating physician based on ICGA.
151
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 152 We compared the outcomes of eyes that received initial PDT as performed by the treating
154
physician (within the first 90 days) in combination with anti-VEGF therapy, the “combination
155
group”, with those that received anti-VEGF monotherapy, the “monotherapy” group. The
156
criteria and scheduling of treatment reflected real-world practice where, due to clinical or
157
logistical constraints, initial PDT treatment may have been administered within the first 3
158
monthly anti-VEGF injections rather than at the first visit. Within the cohorts studied,
159
bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept were used to treat PCV and the different anti-
160
VEGF agents were combined for the analysis. The monotherapy group also included eyes
161
that received rescue PDT (from 90 days after the first visit), since it was likely that the
162
practitioner had originally planned to treat these eyes with anti-VEGF monotherapy. The
163
observations in these eyes in which PDT was deferred were censored immediately before the
164
application of rescue PDT and carried forward as part of the monotherapy group.
165
Eyes were “non-completers” if they did not complete 12 months of follow-up. The primary
166
analysis was performed based on the principle of intention-to-treat (ITT). All eyes were
167
considered for final analysis with the last observation carried forward (LOCF) method used
168
for non-completers.
SC
M AN U
TE D
EP
AC C
169
RI PT
153
170
Study Measurements
171
Patient age (years), sex, VA in logMAR letters and lesion size (micrometres) were recorded
172
at the time of first treatment. All treatments were recorded, along with VA, lesion activity,
173
and ocular adverse events at each visit. Lesion activity status was graded by the treating
174
physician based on findings from clinical examination, optical coherence tomography, or dye
175
angiography, alone or in combination, at each visit.
176
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Outcome Measurements
178
The primary study outcome was the mean change in VA of each group over 12 months after
179
initiating treatment. Secondary visual outcomes were the final vision at 12 months, the
180
proportion of eyes with 15 letter loss or gain and the proportion of eyes with VA better than
181
6/12. Secondary outcomes include the proportion of eyes that achieved CNV inactivity and
182
time to inactivity of the CNV lesion. Additional secondary outcomes included the mean
183
number of treatments administered over 12 months . In two sub group analyses within the
184
monotherapy group, the outcomes of individual anti-VEGF agents were performed and we
185
also described the outcomes of these eyes that underwent rescue PDT in combination with
186
anti-VEGF therapy.
M AN U
SC
RI PT
177
187 Statistical Analysis
189
Descriptive data are presented as mean (SD), median (25th and 75th percentiles, Q1 and Q3)
190
or number (percentage). Statistical test such as Student’s t-test, Wilcoxon rank sum, and
191
Fisher’s tests was used where appropriate to compare baseline characteristics between the
192
anti-VEGF monotherapy and initial PDT in combination with anti-VEGF therapy groups.
193
Locally weighted scatterplot smoothing (LOESS) curves were used to analyse VA throughout
194
the follow-up for different treatment groups and eyes with varying starting vision. ITT
195
analysis was performed and mean change in VA between treatment groups at 12 months were
196
assessed by mixed-effects regression models with the therapy group as the main predictor
197
variable. Adjusted means were used to assess the change in VA from baseline to 12 months
198
after adjusting for age, baseline VA, lesion size, and country. A logistic regression model
199
adjusted for age, baseline VA, and lesion size and country was used to compare the
200
proportion of eyes with 15 letter loss, 15 letter gain and VA better than 6/12 at 12 months
201
between groups.
AC C
EP
TE D
188
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 202 The number of injections was compared by a Poisson regression model adjusted for age,
204
baseline VA, lesion size, and country, with log days of follow-up included as an offset
205
variable. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis adjusted for age, baseline VA, lesion
206
size and country was used to compare the proportion of eyes that became inactive and the
207
mean time to inactivity. Kaplan-Meier curve analysis was used to display the corresponding
208
results. Appropriate models were applied to the subset analysis comparing anti-VEGF agents
209
in the monotherapy group using Holm-Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. All
210
analyses were calculated using R22 with the lme4 package for mixed-effects regression
211
analysis and the survival package for Kaplan-Meier analyses.
M AN U
SC
RI PT
203
212
AC C
EP
TE D
213
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Results
215
Study Participants
216
We identified 207 treatment- naive eyes diagnosed with PCV from 5082 neovascular AMD
217
patients captured on the FRB! database between December 1, 2010, and July 1, 2016; 152
218
eyes underwent anti-VEGF monotherapy; 41 eyes underwent initial PDT in combination with
219
anti-VEGF therapy and 14 eyes underwent focal laser in combination with anti-VEGF
220
therapy. The eyes that underwent focal laser were excluded and final statistical analyses
221
comparing the monotherapy (n=152) and combination groups (n=41) was based on 193 eyes.
222
Baseline characteristics between treatment groups are summarised in Table 1. The median
223
baseline VA (Q1, Q3) was significantly lower in the initial PDT combination group (46 [20,
224
67.3] letters) compared to the monotherapy group (60 [45.0, 70.0] letters, p=0.03). Other
225
baseline characteristics such as age, sex, and lesion size were not significantly different
226
between groups. A large proportion of eyes (patients) were non-Caucasian (60%) of which
227
most (97%) were Asian. Different ethnic distributions between treatment groups also
228
reflected the treatment patterns that varied from country to country. There was much higher
229
rate of combination therapy in the non-Caucasian group (most from Singapore where PDT
230
was used between 2009-2013) as compared to the Caucasian group, where PDT was not the
231
physicians’ initial treatment of choice and used only in cases with sub optimal response to
232
anti VEGF therapy or was presumably less accessible. In the monotherapy group,
233
Caucasians consisted of 40.8% while 55.2% were Asian. The baseline median VA (Q1, Q3)
234
was higher in Caucasians compared to Asians (64.0[54.75, 70.5] versus 54.0[39.5, 68],
235
p=0.03)
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
214
236 237
Vision Outcomes
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT The mean VA change for all eyes, including noncompleters, grouped by treatment type
239
during 12 months is shown in Figure 1. Despite the difference in baseline VA, the VA
240
improved significantly at month 12 and was similar between the combination and
241
monotherapy groups, (70 vs 67.5 letters, p=0.44). The mean VA change between
242
combination therapy and monotherapy (including the LOCF at the point of rescue PDT
243
treatment) is shown in Table 2. Mean (CI) VA increased by 14.3 (5.5 - 23.0) letters in the
244
combination group compared with 8.4 letters (5.4 – 11.3) in the monotherapy group. The
245
difference in crude VA change between treatment groups was statistically significant
246
(p=0.03), as was the difference in adjusted VA change of 8.8 letters (p = 0.03) favouring the
247
combination group. There was a higher proportion of eyes that gained 15 letters or more in
248
the combination group as compared to the monotherapy group, although the difference was
249
not statistically significant (51.2% versus 32.0%, p =0.09). The proportions of eyes that lost
250
15 or more letters in the combination and monotherapy groups were similar (8.8% versus
251
5.0% respectively, p = 0.87). There was no difference in the proportion of eyes that achieved
252
vision better than 6/12 between the combination and monotherapy groups (46.8% versus
253
55.8%, p=0.21 respectively).
SC
M AN U
TE D
EP
254
RI PT
238
The overall mean VA change over 12 months and comparison between treatment groups
256
during the 12 months stratified by baseline line vision is shown in Figures 2 and 3. Eyes
257
were stratified into 3 groups according to their presenting baseline VA: (a) “good baseline
258
vision” ≥70 letters (49 eyes); (b) “moderate baseline vision”, between 36 and 69 letters (97
259
eyes); and (c) “low baseline vision”, ≤ 35 letters (42 eyes). The largest gains in vision (mean
260
[CI]) were seen in eyes that started in the low baseline vision band (20.9 [12.6 – 29.2]
261
letters). Eyes in the combination group gained 28.6 [11.7 - 45.4] letters versus 17.0 [7.4 –
262
26.6] letters in the monotherapy group (p = 0.22) in this band. In the good vision band, there
AC C
255
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT appeared to be a slight loss in vision in the monotherapy group compared to the combination
264
group, where there was a modest gain over 12 months (-0.3 [-4.7 – 4.2] letters versus 4.2 [1.1
265
– 7.3] letters respectively, p=0.09). In the moderate vision band, the gains in vision were
266
similar between groups (11.4 [0.3 – 22.6] letters versus 10.1 [6.8 – 13.3] letters respectively,
267
p = 0.81).
RI PT
263
268 269 Lesion Activity
271
A Kaplan-Meier survival curve representing the proportion of eyes achieving inactivity
272
between groups is shown in Figure 4. More eyes were graded as inactive over a shorter
273
period in the combination group than in the monotherapy group. The proportion of eyes
274
graded as inactive and time to inactivity between groups during the 12-month period is
275
shown in Table 2. In the combination group, 85.3% of eyes were eventually graded inactive
276
compared to 76.8% in the monotherapy group (p = 0.01). Eyes in the combination group also
277
became inactive more quickly than those in the monotherapy group (mean [CI] 80.7 [62.8-
278
98.5] days versus 150.4 [132.8 – 168.0] days to first grading of inactivity, p = 0.01).
M AN U
TE D
281
Injection Outcomes and Treatment Requirements
282
Over the first 12 months, the combination group received fewer injections mean [CI] (4.3
283
[3.6-5.2]) than the monotherapy group (6.4 [5.9 – 6.9], p = 0.01). The total number of anti-
284
VEGF injections administered was 161 in the combination group (n=41) versus 698 in the
285
monotherapy group (n=152) over 12 months. Most anti-VEGF injections administered were
286
bevacizumab ([70.8% [114 injections] in the combination group and 65.0% [454 injections]
287
in the monotherapy group). Ranibizumab was given in 8.6% (14 injections) of the
AC C
280
EP
279
SC
270
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT combination group and 18.3% (128 injections) of the monotherapy group while aflibercept
289
was used in 20.4% (33 injections) in the combination group and 16.7% (116 injections) in the
290
monotherapy. A subset analysis of outcomes of the different agents in the monotherapy
291
group showed no significant difference in visual acuity outcomes, however the number of
292
eyes treated exclusively with ranibizumab (n=16) and aflibercept (n=13) were small. (Table
293
4).
RI PT
288
294
Outcomes of Eyes in Monotherapy Group requiring Rescue PDT
296
Twelve eyes among the 152 patients in the monotherapy group received PDT after at least 90
297
days of treatment with anti-VEGF therapy. Based on ITT, these 12 eyes were included in the
298
monotherapy arm for the main analysis. Since the timing and criteria for adding PDT after
299
initial monotherapy were not standardized, this subgroup was considered to be receiving anti-
300
VEGF monotherapy with rescue PDT. The mean [CI] VA of this subgroup increased from
301
54.0 [42.0 – 65.8] letters to 58.6 [46.3 – 70.0] letters (+4.3 [-10.9 – 19.5] letters, p=0.57) at
302
12 months. The mean [CI] time to treatment with PDT was 225.2 [178.2 – 272.3] days and
303
the average number of anti-VEGF injections until PDT was performed was 5.2 [4.5 – 6.1].
304
The mean [CI] time to the first grading of lesion inactivity was 281.7 [216.0 – 347.5] days.
305
There was no significant difference between the VA at time of PDT compared to final VA at
306
12 months (7.2 [-6.1 – 20.5] letters, p= 0.26).
M AN U
TE D
EP
AC C
307
SC
295
308
Non-completion Rate
309
The proportion of eyes that did not complete the 12-month study was similar for the
310
combination therapy and monotherapy groups (17.0% versus 11.8%, p = 0.37), as was the
311
mean time to last visit for non-completers between the 2 groups (184.9 [103.5 – 266.2] days
312
versus 202.8 [172.1 – 233.7) days, p= 0.63). The mean VA change from baseline to the
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT LOCF for non-completers also did not differ significantly between the combination therapy
314
and monotherapy groups (22.6 [3.5-41.6] letters versus 12.7 [2.8 – 22.5] letters, p = 0.43).
315
Reasons were given for discontinuation and loss of follow up in only 6 of the 22 dropouts.
316
These included changing of practitioner (3), patient declining further treatment (2) and
317
further treatment deemed futile (1).
RI PT
313
318 319
SC
320
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
321
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Discussion
323
This study compared the real-world outcomes over 12 months for the treatment of PCV with
324
either initial PDT in combination with anti-VEGF therapy or anti-VEGF monotherapy,
325
including a small number that received “rescue” treatment with PDT, with observations from
326
the FRB! database. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, including visual acuity, the
327
combination group gained more letters (+14.3) at 12 months, the primary outcome, than those
328
receiving monotherapy (+8.4). These findings are consistent with a recent meta-analysis, a
329
RCT18 and several smaller non-randomised comparative studies23-26 which have all reported
330
better vision outcomes using PDT in combination with anti-VEGF therapy.
SC
RI PT
322
M AN U
331
The baseline VA was significantly lower in the combination group in the present study,
333
possibly because clinicians used PDT in cases deemed more advanced. Other reasons for this
334
difference may be that Asian patients present later and since the proportion of patients
335
receiving PDT was predominately Asian, this resulted in an overall lower baseline VA within
336
the combination group. The Asian patients within the monotherapy group also had lower
337
baseline visual acuity than the Caucasians. It is generally acknowledged that eyes with worse
338
vision gain more vision after starting treatment27,28, however the difference in visual acuity
339
outcomes between the 2 groups in the present study was still statistically significant after
340
adjusting for baseline VA. Overall we also found much larger visual acuity gains in both
341
groups in this real-world study than in the EVEREST-II study despite the use of bevacizumab
342
in most of our cohort rather than ranibizumab. This is likely due to the much lower starting
343
vision in our study than in the EVEREST-II rather than different efficacy of the 2 agents.18
AC C
EP
TE D
332
344 345
The anatomical response to combination therapy appeared to be better than monotherapy,
346
with a higher proportion of CNV lesions being graded as inactive within a shorter period.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Several other studies have also reported better anatomical outcomes with combination
348
therapy for PCV29,30. PCV-specific trials like the EVEREST-II and PLANET studies used
349
several metrics for the measure of anatomical outcomes including ICGA confirmed polyp
350
regression/closure (a PCV specific outcome) and disease inactivity based on presence of fluid
351
on OCT and clinical exam (a more generic outcome).31,32
352
As the assessment of PCV regression is a disease-specific measure requiring the use of
353
ICGA, these data were not captured by the FRB! system. Instead, our study used the grading
354
of inactivity as a marker of anatomical response. Disease acitivty in the FRB! system is
355
defined as the presence of intraretinal or subretinal fluid or haemorrhage that is attributable to
356
activity of the neovascular lesion as determined by the treating ophthalmologist. This could
357
be based on clinical examination or imaging (optical coherence tomography, or dye
358
angiography, alone or in combination). This definition is similar to the disease activity
359
crtieria in the EVEREST II and PLANET studies. The proportion graded as inactive in the
360
combination group (85.3% at month 12) of our study was similar to the EVEREST-II (79.5%
361
at month 11) but different when comparing the monotherapy group (76.8% inactive at 12
362
months in the FRB monotherapy group versus 50.0% inactive in the EVEREST-II
363
monotherapy group). This proportion of inactivity in the FRB monotherapy group was more
364
similar to the proportion of inactive eyes (defined by the absence of fluid on OCT) in the
365
PLANET study (81.7% in the aflibercept monotherapy group and 88.9% in the aflibercept
366
plus active PDT group. Our reported disease activity outcome is broadly consistent with
367
PCV RCTs and reflects the real-world nature of the study where treatment may be guided by
368
lesion activity as noted clinically or on OCT rather than on dye angiography which may be
369
difficult to obtain regularly.
370
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
347
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT An increasing concern in the era of anti-VEGF therapy is the burden of repeated injections.
372
We found that in eyes in the combination group received fewer anti-VEGF injections than in
373
the monotherapy group. This has also been observed in several other studies33,34, including
374
the EVEREST II study.18 Direct closure of the lesion with PDT may result in reduced VEGF
375
levels, thereby reducing the overall anti-VEGF treatment burden. In the present study, about
376
2 injections were saved with the administration of PDT with a mean number of 1.23 PDT
377
treatments applied over 12 months. While savings of anti-VEGF injections are noted, this
378
result must take into account cost considerations specific to different healthcare jurisdictions
379
and remuneration models and are largely dependent on subsidies and funding for each
380
treatment type.
M AN U
SC
RI PT
371
381
Analysis of these observational data was carried out using the principle of ITT and including
383
data from patients that discontinued their treatment. Noncompleters gained more letters than
384
completers at their final visit, however this was not statistically significant. This could be
385
because there was only a small number of noncompleters and a large variability in the letter
386
change in vision within groups. Nonetheless, this result suggests that the reasons for
387
discontinuation from FRB! were likely to be independent of treatment regimen or visual
388
outcome. (Table 3)
390
EP
AC C
389
TE D
382
Results of eyes within the monotherapy group that received rescue PDT should be
391
interpreted with caution, as the indication and timing for rescue PDT was highly variable.
392
The concept of ITT was also applied in the analysis of these patients. In this small group, the
393
physicians’ initial management intention was for monotherapy, hence their outcomes just
394
prior to rescue PDT were carried forward into the monotherapy group. The reasons for
395
applying rescue PDT were not captured by the FRB! system, however presumably it reflected
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT a suboptimal response of anti-VEGF monotherapy in terms of visual outcome or treatment
397
burden. We found no difference in the mean visual acuity prior to rescue PDT and the 12-
398
month vision of monotherapy eyes that did not receive rescue PDT (61.7 [52.3 – 70.0] letters
399
versus 63.3 [59.3 – 67.3] letters, p=0.63). This suggests that both explanations are plausible
400
in the cohort of patients we studied.
RI PT
396
401 402
We acknowledge the lower internal validity of observational studies, where there is a lack of standardised treatment and study protocols, compared with RCTs. One potential
404
weakness of the present study is the inter-observer variability of the grading of lesion
405
inactivity, which was based on decisions made by unmasked individual treating physicians.
406
However, this effect is likely to have been consistent across the multiple sites and physicians
407
were included in this study. Whilst care should be taken when comparing our results with
408
those of RCTs, large observational studies such as this may provide a truer reflection of real
409
world outcomes.
M AN U
TE D
410
SC
403
As the present analysis was a comparison of 2 treatment strategies, we have attempted to mitigate some of the shortcomings inherent in observational studies by correcting for
412
baseline characteristics and inter-practice effects in the regression model to minimize bias.
413
Despite analysing a large cohort of AMD patients, there was a relatively low prevalence of
414
PCV in the FRB! database, especially in the Caucasian population. A possible explanation
415
for this could be a high false negative rate in diagnosing PCV, especially in centres that do
416
not have access to ICGA or where ICGA is not part of the standard clinical assessment and is
417
only performed if PCV is suspected. While no meaningful prevalence data can be derived
418
from this study, we still believe that cases entered as PCV are highly likely to have had the
419
condition. When polled, all clinicians involved at the very least indicated that an ICGA
420
would be performed if there was clinical or imaging suspicion of PCV, while in some
AC C
EP
411
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 421
practices dye angiography including ICGA was performed as standard in all cases of
422
neovascular AMD to rule out PCV.
423 While our results suggest that early PDT in combination with anti-VEGF therapy is
425
more efficacious than anti-VEGF monotherapy, it is important to note that most eyes were
426
treated with bevacizumab. This again reflects real world practice, where on-label anti-VEGF
427
agents may not be accessible due to cost constrains. There have been suggestions that
428
outcomes for PCV may differ when treated with different anti-VEGF agents, however there
429
has been no large head to head comparison to date.10,35-37 In our study, a subset analysis
430
based on agent type found no significant difference in visual outcomes between the 3 anti-
431
VEGF agents, however sample sizes were small for the ranibizumab and aflibercept
432
monotherapy groups. In addition, the majority of data collected was prior to 2016 where
433
aflibercept was yet to be widely available in many regions. The inactivation rates in this
434
study were much lower than reported in the recent randomized clinical trials. At 12 weeks,
435
the EVEREST-II study of ranibizumab reported disease inactivity in 73.6% and 39.3% in the
436
combination arm and the monotherapy arm respectively.18 The PLANET study of aflibercept
437
reported inactivity in 77.1-77.4% at the similar time point.38 Our study reported a lower
438
proportion of inactivity in both groups at 12 weeks (63.4% of the combination group and
439
25.1% of the monotherapy group). This lower rate of inactivation might be due to a weaker
440
effect of bevacizumab which was the main anti-VEGF agent used in our cohort.
442
SC
M AN U
TE D
EP
AC C
441
RI PT
424
Despite some of the shortcomings, this study nonetheless showcases the opportunity
443
of a system such as the FRB! registry to compare treatment patterns for different subtypes of
444
nAMD across different international practices. Unfortunately, no meaningful comparisons of
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 445
treatment strategies could be performed between ethnicities as only a small number of
446
Caucasian patients underwent combination therapy.
447 448
The main finding from this study is that combination therapy appears to give better outcomes than anti-VEGF monotherapy for the management of PCV over 12 months in
450
routine clinical practice. While all anti-VEGF agents were theoretically available,
451
bevacizumab was the agent that was most commonly used. Although this study lacks the
452
robust criteria of a RCT, the results reflect real world practice and outcomes. It is
453
encouraging to note that the results reported here are consistent with the findings from the
454
current landmark RCTs, further strengthening the evidence for the use of combination
455
therapy in the treatment of PCV.
456
M AN U
SC
RI PT
449
Acknowledgements
458
The Fight Retinal Blindness! investigators: Auckland District Health Board, New Zealand
459
(Dr D Squirrell); Cairns Eye Surgery, Queensland (Dr A Field); Canberra Hospital,
460
Australian Capital Territory (Dr C Dayajeewa, Dr J Wells); Centre for Eye Research
461
Australia, Victoria (Professor R Guymer); Eye Associates, New South Wales (Dr M Gillies);
462
Eyemedics, South Australia (Dr N Saha, Dr S Lake); Marsden Eye Specialists, New South
463
Wales (Dr J Arnold, Dr D Chan); Nepean Valley Eye Surgeons, New South Wales (Dr G
464
Banerjee); Retina Associates, New South Wales (Dr S Fraser-Bell); Retina Specialists, New
465
Zealand (Dr R Barnes); Singapore National Eye Centre , Singapore (Dr G Cheung);
466
Specialist Eye Group, Victoria (Dr A Cohn, Dr L Chow); Strathfield Retina Clinic, New
AC C
EP
TE D
457
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 467
South Wales (Dr C Lim); University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland (Dr D Barthelmes);
468
Victorian Eye Surgeons, Victoria (Dr A Cohn)
469
RI PT
470 471 472
SC
473 474
476
References
477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503
1.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
TE D
4.
EP
3.
Lim LS, Mitchell P, Seddon JM, Holz FG, Wong TY. Age-related macular degeneration. The Lancet. 2012;379(9827):1728-1738. Bressler NM. Age-related macular degeneration is the leading cause of blindness. JAMA. 2004;291(15):1900-1901. Comparison of Age-related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials Research G, Martin DF, Maguire MG, et al. Ranibizumab and bevacizumab for treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: two-year results. Ophthalmology. 2012;119(7):1388-1398. Yannuzzi LA, Sorenson J, Spaide RF, Lipson B. Idiopathic polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (IPCV). Retina. 1990;10(1):1-8. Ahuja RM, Stanga PE, Vingerling JR, Reck AC, Bird AC. Polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy in exudative and haemorrhagic pigment epithelial detachments. Br J Ophthalmol. 2000;84(5):479-484. Cackett P, Htoon H, Wong D, Yeo I. Haemorrhagic pigment epithelial detachment as a predictive feature of polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy in a Chinese population. Eye (Lond). 2010;24(5):789-792. Kuo JZ, Wong TY, Ong FS. Genetic risk, ethnic variations and pharmacogenetic biomarkers in AMD and polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy. Expert review of ophthalmology. 2014. Laude A, Cackett PD, Vithana EN, et al. Polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy and neovascular age-related macular degeneration: same or different disease? Progress in retinal and eye research. 2010;29(1):19-29. Lim LS, Cheung CMG, Wong TY. Asian age-related macular degeneration: current concepts and gaps in knowledge. The Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology. 2013;2(1):32-41. Wong CW, Wong TY, Cheung CMG. Polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy in Asians. Journal of clinical medicine. 2015;4(5):782-821.
AC C
2.
M AN U
475
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
16.
17. 18.
19.
20.
21.
22. 23.
24.
25.
26.
RI PT
15.
SC
14.
M AN U
13.
TE D
12.
Wong CW, Yanagi Y, Lee W-K, et al. Age-related macular degeneration and polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy in Asians. Progress in retinal and eye research. 2016. Coppens G, Spielberg L, Leys A. Polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy, diagnosis and management. Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol. 2011(317):39-44. Yadav S, Parry DG, Beare NAV, Pearce IA. Polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy: a common type of neovascular age-related macular degeneration in Caucasians. Br J Ophthalmol. 2017;101(10):1377-1380. Lai TY, Lee GK, Luk FO, Lam DS. Intravitreal ranibizumab with or without photodynamic therapy for the treatment of symptomatic polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy. Retina. 2011;31(8):1581-1588. Gomi F, Sawa M, Sakaguchi H, et al. Efficacy of intravitreal bevacizumab for polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008;92(1):70-73. Kang HM, Koh HJ. Long-term visual outcome and prognostic factors after intravitreal ranibizumab injections for polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;156(4):652-660. Cheung CM, Wong TY. Ranibizumab and bevacizumab for AMD. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(23):2237; author reply 2237. Koh A, Lai TYY, Takahashi K, et al. Efficacy and Safety of Ranibizumab With or Without Verteporfin Photodynamic Therapy for Polypoidal Choroidal Vasculopathy: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2017;135(11):1206-1213. Penterman EJ, Nijman HL, Saalmink K, Rasing S, van der Staak CP. [Assessing aggressive behaviour at the psychiatric emergency service with a checklist: a replication study]. Tijdschr Psychiatr. 2013;55(2):93-100. Gillies MC, Walton R, Liong J, et al. Efficient capture of high-quality data on outcomes of treatment for macular diseases: the fight retinal blindness! Project. Retina. 2014;34(1):188-195. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet. 2007;370(9596):1453-1457. R: A language and environment for statistical computing [computer program]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2017. Sakurai M, Baba T, Kitahashi M, et al. One-year results of intravitreal ranibizumab combined with reduced-fluence photodynamic therapy for polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy. Clin Ophthalmol. 2014;8:235-241. Lim JY, Lee SY, Kim JG, Lee JY, Chung H, Yoon YH. Intravitreal bevacizumab alone versus in combination with photodynamic therapy for the treatment of neovascular maculopathy in patients aged 50 years or older: 1-year results of a prospective clinical study. Acta Ophthalmol. 2012;90(1):61-67. Kang HM, Koh HJ. Two-year outcome after combination therapy for polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy: comparison with photodynamic monotherapy and antivascular endothelial growth factor monotherapy. Ophthalmologica. 2014;231(2):8693. Song MH, Ryu HW, Roh YJ. One-year results of intravitreal ranibizumab with or without photodynamic therapy for polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy. Ophthalmologica. 2011;226(3):119-126.
EP
11.
AC C
504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
585 586 587 588 589 590
32. 33.
34.
35.
36.
37. 38.
RI PT
31.
SC
30.
M AN U
29.
TE D
28.
Gillies MC, Campain A, Barthelmes D, et al. Long-Term Outcomes of Treatment of Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Data from an Observational Study. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(9):1837-1845. Writing Committee for the UKA-RMDEMRUG. The neovascular age-related macular degeneration database: multicenter study of 92 976 ranibizumab injections: report 1: visual acuity. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(5):1092-1101. Wang W, He M, Zhang X. Combined intravitreal anti-VEGF and photodynamic therapy versus photodynamic monotherapy for polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):e110667. Tang K, Si JK, Guo DD, et al. Ranibizumab alone or in combination with photodynamic therapy vs photodynamic therapy for polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Int J Ophthalmol. 2015;8(5):1056-1066. Cheung GCM, Lai TYY, Gomi F, Ruamviboonsuk P, Koh A, Lee WK. Anti-VEGF Therapy for Neovascular AMD and Polypoidal Choroidal Vasculopathy. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila). 2017;6(6):527-534. Cheung CMG, Lai TYY, Ruamviboonsuk P, et al. Polypoidal Choroidal Vasculopathy: Definition, Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, and Management. Ophthalmology. 2018. Gomi F, Oshima Y, Mori R, et al. INITIAL VERSUS DELAYED PHOTODYNAMIC THERAPY IN COMBINATION WITH RANIBIZUMAB FOR TREATMENT OF POLYPOIDAL CHOROIDAL VASCULOPATHY: The Fujisan Study. Retina. 2015;35(8):1569-1576. Akaza E, Yuzawa M, Matsumoto Y, Kashiwakura S, Fujita K, Mori R. Role of photodynamic therapy in polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy. Japanese journal of ophthalmology. 2007;51(4):270-277. Saito M, Kano M, Itagaki K, Oguchi Y, Sekiryu T. Switching to intravitreal aflibercept injection for polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy refractory to ranibizumab. Retina. 2014;34(11):2192-2201. Hata M, Oishi A, Tsujikawa A, et al. Efficacy of intravitreal injection of aflibercept in neovascular age-related macular degeneration with or without choroidal vascular hyperpermeability. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55(12):7874-7880. Cho HJ, Kim KM, Kim HS, et al. Intravitreal Aflibercept and Ranibizumab Injections for Polypoidal Choroidal Vasculopathy. Am J Ophthalmol. 2016;165:1-6. Iida T. Results of the PLANET study. 10th Asia-Pacific Vitreo-retina Society Congress; December 9, 2016, 2016; Bangkok, Thailand.
EP
27.
AC C
550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 591 592 593 594
RI PT
595 596 597
SC
598 599
M AN U
600 601 602 603
605
TE D
604
Legends
607
Figure 1: Loess regression curves over 12 months stratified by baseline vision. Most eyes
608
stayed within their own bands, except for the eyes with poor baseline vision (35 letters of
609
worse) which managed to gain enough letters to cross into the moderate vision band at the
610
end of 1 year. VA: visual acuity
AC C
611
EP
606
612 613
Figure 2: Loess regression curves over 12 months in the 2 treatment groups.
614
A larger increase in visual acuity was noted in the initial PDT in combination with anti-
615
VEGF therapy over 12 months and appeared to continue to increase throughout the 12-month
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 616
time period as compared to Vision in the monotherapy with anti-VEGF group, where the
617
increase was less over 12 months and vision appeared to plateau. VEGF: vascular
618
endothelial growth factor, PDT: photodynamic therapy
619
RI PT
620 621
Figure 3: Loess regression curves over 12 months for monotherapy with anti-VEGF and
623
initial PDT in combination with anti-VEGF therapy stratified by baseline vision. Vision
624
gains were evident in all bands for initial PDT in combination with anti-VEGF therapy group
625
with largest gains in the low vision band crossing into the moderate vision band.
626
Monotherapy with anti-VEGF group appeared to have gains in all bands except for those in
627
the good vision band where vision appeared to be lost over 12 months. VEGF: vascular
628
endothelial growth factor, PDT: photodynamic therapy
M AN U
SC
622
630
TE D
629
Figure 4. Kaplan-Meier curve representing the proportion to inactivity over time between the
632
2 treatment groups, monotherapy with anti-VEGF group and initial PDT in combination with
633
anti-VEGF therapy group. A larger proportion of eyes over a shorter time achieved inactivity
634
in the initial PDT in combination with anti-VEGF therapy compared to the monotherapy with
635
anti-VEGF group. VEGF: vascular endothelial growth factor, PDT: photodynamic therapy
AC C
636
EP
631
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 1. Comparison of index visit characteristics of eyes with PCV between different initial treatment modalities. Anti-VEGF monotherapy
Initial PDT + antiVEGF
No. of eyes, n (%)
152 (73.4)
41 (19.8)
Mean age, years (CI)
70.7 (68.9 – 72.4)
69.0 (65.3 – 72.6)
0.16§
P value*
Overall
193
RI PT
70.6 (69.1 – 72.1)
69 (61.5)
18 (43.9)
0.21+
87 (45.0)
Median Baseline VA, letters (Q1, Q3) VA better than 6/12 at baseline, n (%) Median GLD, µm (Q1, Q3)
60 (45.0, 70.0)
46 (20, 67.3)
0.03++
60 (40, 70)
41 (26.9)
9 (22.0)
0.63+
58 (25.9)
3000 (1825, 4500)
2442 (1648, 5173)
0.54++
3000 (1710, 4518)
Caucasian, n (%)
62 (40.8)
3 (7.3)
-
65 (33.7)
Non-Caucasian, n (%)
84 (55.2)
31(75.6)
-
Undisclosed, n (%)
6 (3.9)
7 (17.1)
SC
Sex, male (%)
M AN U
115 (59.6)
-
13 (6.7)
*P-value – Anti-VEGF monotherapy versus Initial PDT in combination with anti-VEGF therapy; t-test§, Fishers exact test+ and Wilcoxon rank sum test++ VEGF: vascular endothelial growth factor, PDT: photodynamic therapy, VA: visual acuity,
AC C
EP
TE D
GLD: greatest linear diameter
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 2. Comparison of outcomes between initial treatment modalities: anti-VEGF monotherapy and initial PDT in combination with anti-VEGF therapy.
Anti-VEGF monotherapy
Initial PDT + antiVEGF
No. of eyes, n (%)
152 (73.4)
41 (17.0)
Median VA at 1 year or LOCF, letters (Q1, Q3)
70.0 (60.0, 78.0)
67.5 (49.0, 75.0)
0.44+
Crude mean change in VA, letters (CI)
8.4 (5.4-11.3)
14.3 (5.5- 23.0)
0.03+
Adjusted mean change in VA, letters (CI)
8.2 (5.2 – 11.2)
16.9 (10.6 – 23.3)
0.02+++
15 letter loss, n (%)
10 (5.0)
15 letter gain, n (%)
47 (32.0)
Time to inactivity of lesion, days (CI)
Mean number of injections, n (CI) Mean number of PDT treatments, n (CI)
RI PT
SC
0.87++
21 (51.2)
0.09++
82(55.8)
22(46.8)
0.21++
150.4 (132.8 – 168.0)
80.7 (62.8 – 98.5)
0.01§
6.4 (5.9-6.9)
4.3 (3.6 -5.2)
0.01§§
-
1.23 (1.13 – 1.36)
-
112 (76.8)
35 (85.3)
0.01§
TE D
Eyes that were inactive at month 12, n (%)
3 (8.8)
M AN U
VA better than 6/12, n (%)
P-value*
P-value* – Significance for anti-VEGF monotherapy versus Initial PDT in combination with anti-VEGF therapy; calculated using Wilcoxon rank sum+, logistic++, linear+++, cox
EP
proportional hazards§ or Poisson§§ regression model correcting for age, baseline visual acuity, practice and baseline greatest linear dimension of lesion.
AC C
VEGF: vascular endothelia growth factor, PDT: photodynamic therapy, VA: visual acuity, GLD: greatest linear diameter, LOCF: last observation carried forwards, CI: confidence interval
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 3. Demographics and outcomes for non-completers Non-completers
Mean age, years (CI) Median baseline VA, letters (Q1, Q3) Median GLD at baseline, µm (Q1, Q3) Median VA at last observation, letters (Q1, Q3) Mean change in VA, letters (CI)
Initial PDT + antiVEGF
Overall 25
18 (11.8)
7 (17.0)
168
68.3 (63.8-72.8) 50 (35, 66) 3057.5 (2296, 3575)
67.2 (61.6-79.8) 50 (35.0, 57.5) 3157.5 (2974.5, 4316)
70.8 (62.0-79.8) 59 (35, 69) 2500 (1300, 3275.5)
70.6 (69.0 -72.2) 60 (40, 70) 2948 (1744, 4733)
73(60, 75)
65 (57.5, 73.5)
75 (73, 75)
15(4.3-25.7)
12.1 (-1.8-26.2)
24.2 (-2.3-50.7)
P value*
0.91§ 0.60+
overall
RI PT
No. of eyes, n (%)
completers
Anti-VEGF monotherapy
0.06+
P value*
0.52§ 0.65+ 0.86+
0.31+
70 (57, 78)
0.49+
0.40§
9.3(6.3 -12.3)
0.16++
SC
P-value* – Significance of anti-VEGF monotherapy versus Initial PDT in combination with anti-VEGF therapy; t-test§, Wilcoxon rank sum+ and linear++ regression model correcting
M AN U
for age, baseline visual acuity, country and baseline greatest linear dimension of lesion VEGF: vascular endothelia growth factor, PDT: photodynamic therapy, VA: visual acuity,
AC C
EP
TE D
GLD: greatest linear diameter, CI: confidence interval
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 4. Subset analysis of anti-VEGF treatment by single agent within the monotherapy group P value*
82 (73.8)
16 (14.4)
13 (11.7)
8 (0, 15.0)
6.5 (0, 13.0)
5 (0, 15.0)
0.22
60 (40.0, 60.0)
70 (58.5, 75.0)
68 (51.0, 70.0)
1.00
70.0 (60.0, 78.0)
75.0 (65.5, 80.0)
73.0 (67.0, 80.0)
0.17
5(6.1)
1(6.2)
0(0)
1.00
21(25.6)
1(6.2)
4(30.1)
1.00
42 (51.2)
8 (50.0)
8 (61.5)
1.00
5 (3, 6)
5(3, 7)
Ranibizumab vs. Aflibercept
5(3, 7)
1.00
Bevacizumab vs. Aflibercept
RI PT
Aflibercept
1.00
0.16
1.00
0.16
0.42
0.18
1.00
1.00
0.60
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
SC
Ranibizumab
M AN U
No. of eyes, n (%) Median change in VA, letters (CI) Median Baseline VA, letters (Q1, Q3) Median VA at 1 year or LOCF, letters (Q1, Q3) 15 letter loss, n (%) 15 letter gain, n (%) VA better than 6/12, n, (%) Median number of injections, n (Q1, Q3)
Bevacizumab vs. Ranibizumab & Aflibercept
Bevacizumab
*Holms corrected P-value for multiple comparisons
VEGF: vascular endothelia growth factor, VA: visual acuity, LOCF: last observation carried
AC C
EP
TE D
forwards, CI: confidence interval
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Title: A multi-country comparison of real world management and outcomes of polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy – Fight Retinal Blindness! Cohort Precis:
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
Photodynamic therapy in combination with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) results in better vision, higher proportion of inactivity and a lower anti-VEGF treatment burden compared to anti VEGF monotherapy in treating polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy.