Faculty Bibliography

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 investigate the effect of photodynamic therapy (PDT) with verteporfin on patients with vitelliform lesions caused by cuticular drusen or adult-onset foveomacular vitelliform dystrophy (AOFVD). DESIGN: Observational case series. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eight eyes of seven patients from two centers were examined prospectively. Each patient received PDT with verteporfin applied to the vitelliform lesions. RESULTS: Photodynamic therapy did not significantly affect the median visual acuity outcome (20/50 before PDT and 20/66 after PDT) in all seven treated patients. Of note, however, were four eyes of four patients who experienced a severe decrease in visual acuity after PDT with verteporfin. The temporary relationship of the vision loss to the treatment suggests that this may represent an adverse effect from therapy. The fluorescein angiographic appearance was virtually unchanged in all treated patients, whereas indocyanine green angiography showed typical PDT-associated reduction of choroidal perfusion in the treatment area. CONCLUSION: Photodynamic therapy does not have a positive influence on the visual outcome in patients with vitelliform lesions and may have a negative impact on vision in some treated patients. It is important for physicians using PDT to exercise caution in distinguishing between choroidal neovascular membranes and vitelliform lesions because the outcome in this latter group may be worse with application of PDT than with the natural course

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 evaluate safety and efficacy of the angiostatic agent anecortave acetate, compared with a placebo, for treatment of subfoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV). DESIGN: Ongoing masked, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel evaluation of anecortave acetate (30 mg, 15 mg, and 3 mg) versus a placebo. PARTICIPANTS: There were 128 eyes of 128 patients with subfoveal CNV secondary to age-related macular degeneration who were enrolled and treated, with 80% (102/128) of eyes presenting with predominantly classic lesions at baseline. METHODS: All eyes received a posterior juxtascleral depot application of masked study medication or a placebo, with retreatment at 6-month intervals if the masked investigator believed the patient could benefit. Patients received periodic detailed ophthalmic examinations with both fluorescein and indocyanine green angiography, general physical examinations with electrocardiograms, and hematology/serum chemistry/urinalysis. All ophthalmic and systemic safety data were periodically reviewed by the Independent Safety Committee overseeing the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Best-corrected logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) vision and fluorescein angiographic lesion characteristics were compared over time and among treatment groups. RESULTS: At month 12, anecortave acetate (15 mg) administered at 6-month intervals was statistically superior to the placebo for 3 measures of clinical efficacy: mean change from baseline vision (P = 0.0131), stabilization of vision (<3 logMAR line change; P = 0.0323), and prevention of severe vision loss (decrease of > or = 6 logMAR lines from baseline; P = 0.0224). Subgroup analysis of predominantly classic lesions revealed that anecortave acetate (15 mg) was also superior to the placebo at 1 year for each of these 3 measures of visual outcome (Ps = 0.0022, 0.0100, and 0.0299, respectively). Anecortave acetate (15 mg) trended toward significance over the placebo at month 12 for inhibition of total lesion growth and for inhibition of both the total CNV component and the classic CNV component in both the overall and subgroup analyses. The Independent Safety Committee identified no clinically relevant treatment-related safety issues. CONCLUSIONS: Anecortave acetate (15 mg) is safe and clinically efficacious at 1 year for maintaining vision, preventing severe vision loss, and inhibiting subfoveal CNV lesion growth

BACKGROUND: Most patients with central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC) have spontaneous resolution of exudative macular detachments and a good visual prognosis. Patients with CSC have a primary choroidal hyperpermeability problem evident as multifocal areas of hyperpermeability during indocyanine green (ICG) angiography. A small percentage of patients develop chronic or progressive disease with widespread decompensation of the retinal pigment epithelium and severe vision loss. There is no known treatment for this variant of the disorder. PURPOSE: To study ICG-guided photodynamic therapy (PDT) with verteporfin as a potential treatment for patients with chronic CSC. METHODS: Twenty eyes of 15 patients were studied with fluorescein angiography, optical coherence tomography, and ICG angiography to diagnose the maculopathy, monitor the detachments, and localize the choroidal hyperpermeability of the disorder. PDT with ICG guidance was applied to areas of choroidal hyperpermeability, and the patients were observed to determine the anatomic and functional outcomes. RESULTS: Photodynamic therapy guided by ICG was associated with complete resolution of exudative macular detachments in 12 patients and incomplete resolution in the remaining eight eyes. The vision improved in six eyes and remained unchanged in 14 eyes during a mean follow-up of 6.8 months. Six weeks after treatment, the mean visual acuity improved by 0.55 lines, an amount that was marginally significant. There was a significant inverse correlation between the baseline visual acuity and the amount of improvement in acuity at 6 weeks. No patient had any treatment-related side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Indocyanine green angiography-guided PDT with verteporfin seems to aid in the resolution of exudative detachments in patients with chronic CSC. This treatment was associated with a rapid reduction in subretinal fluid and improvement in visual acuity. Although the follow-up time and number of patients in this pilot study were limited, the encouraging results and lack of complications suggest that further study is indicated