Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE: To describe in detail occurrences of acute severe visual acuity decrease after photodynamic therapy (PDT) with verteporfin in the Treatment of Age-related macular degeneration with Photodynamic therapy (TAP) Investigation and the Verteporfin In Photodynamic therapy (VIP) Trial. DESIGN: Observational case series. METHODS: Retrospective review of all cases that developed acute severe visual acuity decrease after treatment. RESULTS: Of 15 acute severe visual acuity decrease events originally identified in 14 eyes of 14 patients, one event in one patient was judged unlikely to have been an acute severe visual acuity decrease event on retrospective review of these events in preparation of this report. Eleven events occurred after the first treatment. At follow-up, 10 improved by at least 1 line in visual acuity from the level noted at the time of the event. Of the nine patients returning for the month 24 examination, visual acuity decreased at least 3 lines from baseline in six, including at least 6 lines in four, and remained within 1 line in three. Associated abnormal morphology included three with a serous macular detachment and abnormal choroidal hypofluorescence, four with macular hemorrhage, three with a greenish subfoveal hemorrhage, and four with no abnormality. Events appeared to be more likely when patients had a visual acuity of 20/50 or better. CONCLUSIONS: Acute severe visual acuity decrease after PDT with verteporfin was an uncommon event; the risk did not outweigh the benefits of therapy previously reported. When considering verteporfin therapy, patients should be warned of the possibility of this serious adverse event

PURPOSE: To review and update techniques of posterior segment ophthalmic fundus imaging. DESIGN: Literature review and collective experience of the authors. METHODS: This perspective includes sections on digital imaging, fundus autofluorescence, ultrasonography, angiography, and optical coherence tomography (OCT) -ophthalmoscopy written by leading clinicians and researchers in these areas. RESULTS: Digital angiography has become the new standard in the ophthalmic community based upon improved technology which has enhanced resolution, processing time, and ease of image duplication, manipulation, and transmission. A relatively new imaging technique, fundus autofluorescence, highlights lipofuscin deposits and improves our understanding of the metabolic status of the retinal pigment epithelium. Diagnostic ultrasonography continues to be a major adjunct to ocular evaluation where advances now allow for exceptional versatility and portability. High speed angiographic techniques provide detailed visualization of choroidal perfusion which improves our understanding of both normal and pathologic vascular phenomenon. Advances in high-resolution OCT currently under development promise an even more detailed fundus representation. The integration of the scanning laser ophthalmoscope and OCT has produced a dynamic new instrument, the OCT ophthalmoscope, which simultaneously images the fundus in numerous ways with point to point correlation. CONCLUSIONS: Ophthalmic imaging technology has revolutionized fundus examination. Currently available systems have contributed significantly to our understanding of the pathophysiology and treatment of various retinal diseases. Future advances promise near histologic resolution of retinal structures as well as real-time image manipulation and instantaneous transmission world-wide

PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate the detailed safety profile of photodynamic therapy with verteporfin in patients with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV) caused by age-related macular degeneration (ARMD) from the combined analysis of three multicenter, double-masked, placebo-controlled, randomized 24-month clinical trials of similar design (TAP Investigation Studies A and B and the VIP ARMD Trial), and to clarify the adverse reaction information in the current verteporfin product prescription information approved in the United States. METHODS: Nine hundred forty-eight patients were randomly assigned to verteporfin or placebo. Treatment was administered as described in previous reports. All general entry criteria were similar, so systemic safety results were combined for this analysis. Entry criteria for CNV lesion composition and visual acuity in the two TAP Investigation trials was different from those used in the VIP ARMD trial, so ocular safety results for the treated eye were not combined. RESULTS: The percentage of patients who experienced at least one ocular or nonocular adverse event, regardless of relationship to therapy, was similar between the verteporfin and placebo groups (92.3 and 89.1%, respectively, P = 0.114). The overall incidence of study eye adverse events was not significantly different between verteporfin and placebo. The only clinically relevant ocular adverse events reported with higher incidence after verteporfin compared with placebo were visual disturbances (22.1 versus 15.5% in TAP [P = 0.054] and 41.7 and 22.8% in VIP [P < 0.001]). Acute severe visual acuity decrease (defined as a visual acuity letter score decrease of at least 20, equivalent to at least four-line decrease, within 7 days of therapy) occurred in 3 patients treated with verteporfin in the TAP Investigation (0.7%) and 11 in the VIP ARMD trial (4.9%). Systemic adverse events with increased incidence after verteporfin compared with placebo, most of which were transient and mild or moderate, were injection site reactions (13.1 versus 5.6%; P < 0.001), photosensitivity reactions (2.4 versus 0.3%; P = 0.016), and infusion-related back pain (2.4 versus 0%; P = 0.004). No clinically relevant difference was observed between the verteporfin and placebo groups in any other adverse event. CONCLUSION: In 948 ARMD patients, verteporfin therapy had an overall safety profile similar to that for placebo, with a few exceptions. Visual disturbances, including acute severe visual acuity decrease, did not affect the net vision outcome benefits associated with treatment that has been reported previously. This detailed safety profile of verteporfin therapy clarifies the adverse reaction information in the current verteporfin product prescription information

Purpose: To provide broad clinical experience and to gather safety data on photodynamic therapy with verteporfin (Visudyne, Novartis AG, Basel, Switzerland), also termed verteporfin therapy, in patients with predominantly classic subfoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV) secondary to age-related macular degeneration (AMD). The Verteporfin in Age-related Macular Degeneration (VAM) Study was designed to provide expanded access to verteporfin therapy after beneficial results for these cases were reported but before regulatory approval in North America. Methods: This open-label multicenter study from September 1999 through June 2000 enrolled among 222 centers patients 50 years or older in the United States, or 40 years or older in Canada, with age-related macular degeneration and subfoveal CNV with a lesion composition that was predominantly classic CNV on fluorescein angiography. Corrected visual acuity with habitual eyewear in the office setting was 20/40 to 20/200, inclusive. All patients received verteporfin therapy and returned for follow-up every 3 months. At those follow-up examinations, additional courses of treatment were recommended if any fluorescein leakage from CNV was identified. Safety information was collected from patient self-reporting, questioning (in person and by telephone), and physician evaluation. Safety was assessed by evaluating the effect of treatment on corrected distance visual acuity and by evaluating adverse events. Results: A total of 4,435 patients were enrolled of whom 4,051 (91%) completed the study after receiving 6,701 treatments. Most patients received only one treatment in VAM before regulatory approval of verteporfin in the United States and Canada. Three hundred patients (6.8%) experienced an adverse event considered by the treating ophthalmologist to be associated with treatment, including 115 (2.6%) with abnormal or decreased vision, of whom 25 (0.6%) experienced acute severe visual acuity decrease, and 14 (0.3%) with transient infusion-related back pain. Patients were advised to avoid exposure to direct sunlight for 24 hours; however, after verteporfin administration only 2 (0.05%) reported a photosensitivity reaction. An additional course of verteporfin therapy was administered to 1,739 of 2,314 patients (75.2%) who had a month 3 examination that was not their close-out visit and 177 of 266 (66.5%) who had a month 6 examination that was not their close-out visit. Conclusions: Verteporfin therapy exhibited no additional or new safety concerns. The therapy associated with a low incidence of adverse events when expanded access was provided in a large, open-label, multicenter study, including a low incidence (0.05%) of reported photosensitivity reactions despite a short photosensitivity protection period (24 hours) following verteporfin administration. $$:

PURPOSE: To report 24-month vision and fluorescein angiographic outcomes from trials evaluating photodynamic therapy with verteporfin in patients with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV) caused by pathologic myopia. DESIGN AND SETTING: Multicenter, double-masked, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial at 28 ophthalmology practices in Europe and North America. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with subfoveal choroidal neovascular lesions caused by pathologic myopia measuring no more than 5400 micro m and best-corrected visual acuity (approximate Snellen equivalent) of 20/100 or better. METHODS: Similar to methods described for 1-year results with follow-up examinations beyond 1 year, continuing every 3 months (except Photograph Reading Center evaluations only at the month 24 examination). During the second year, the same regimen (with verteporfin or placebo as applied at baseline) was used if angiography showed fluorescein leakage from CNV. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of eyes with fewer than 8 letters (approximately 1.5 lines) of visual acuity loss at the month 24 examination, adhering to an intent-to-treat analysis and using the last observation carried forward method to impute for any missing data. RESULTS: Seventy-seven of 81 patients (95%) in the verteporfin group, compared with 36 of 39 patients (92%) in the placebo group, completed the month 24 examination. At this time point, 29 of 81 verteporfin-treated patients (36%) compared with 20 of 39 placebo-treated patients (51%) lost at least 8 letters (P = 0.11). The distribution of change in visual acuity at the month 24 examination was in favor of a benefit for the cases assigned to verteporfin (P = 0.05). This included improvement by at least 5 letters (equivalent to at least 1 line) in 32 verteporfin-treated cases [40%] vs. five placebo-treated cases (13%) and improvement by at least 15 letters (equivalent to at least 3 lines) in 10 verteporfin-treated cases (12%) vs. zero placebo-treated cases. No additional photosensitivity adverse reactions or injection site adverse events were associated with verteporfin therapy in the second year of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Verteporfin therapy for subfoveal CNV caused by pathologic myopia safely maintained a visual benefit compared with a placebo therapy through 2 years of follow-up. Although the primary outcome was not statistically significantly in favor of verteporfin therapy at 2 years as it had been at 1 year of follow-up, the distribution of change in visual acuity at the month 24 examination was in favor of the verteporfin-treated group and showed that this group was more likely to have improved visual acuity through the month 24 examination. The VIP Study Group recommends verteporfin therapy for subfoveal CNV resulting from pathologic myopia based on both the 1- and 2-year results of this randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE: To evaluate clinical safety and efficacy of the angiostatic agent anecortave acetate for treatment of subfoveal choroidal neovascularization secondary to AMD. METHODS: 128 patients were randomized to placebo treatment or one of three anecortave acetate doses. Study medication was administered as a posterior juxtascleral injection onto the posterior scleral surface. Best-corrected logMAR vision was obtained at baseline and follow-up visits. Fluorescein angiograms were evaluated for eligibility before enrollment and posttreatment. RESULTS: Six months after a single treatment, visual acuity (mean change from baseline logMAR values) was significantly better (P = 0.003) after anecortave acetate 15 mg than placebo. More patients treated with anecortave acetate 15 mg than placebo maintained vision (88% versus 70%, P = 0.080), especially those with predominantly classic lesions (92% versus 65%, P = 0.021). Anecortave acetate 15 mg inhibited lesion growth significantly better than placebo (P = 0.001). Trends favoring the other doses over placebo were observed for vision preservation and lesion inhibition, but statistical significance was not achieved. The Independent Safety Committee overseeing this study identified no clinically relevant treatment-related changes. CONCLUSION: Anecortave acetate 15 mg is safe and effective for preserving or improving vision and for inhibiting lesion growth in patients with subfoveal AMD