4.2 Article

Double-Masked, Randomized, Phase 2 Evaluation of Abicipar Pegol (an Anti-VEGF DARPin Therapeutic) in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration

Journal

JOURNAL OF OCULAR PHARMACOLOGY AND THERAPEUTICS
Volume 34, Issue 10, Pages 700-709

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/jop.2018.0062

Keywords

abicipar pegol; age-related macular degeneration; anti-VEGF; choroidal neovascularization; optical coherence tomography; vascular endothelial growth factor

Funding

  1. Allergan plc, Dublin, Ireland
  2. Allergan plc

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To evaluate safety and efficacy of the vascular endothelial growth factor binding protein abicipar pegol (abicipar) versus ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Methods: Phase 2, multicenter, randomized, double-masked comparison (REACH study, stage 3). Patients (n=64) received intravitreal injections of abicipar 1mg or 2mg at baseline, week 4, and week 8 (3 injections) or ranibizumab 0.5mg at baseline and monthly (5 injections). Results: In the abicipar 1mg (n=25), abicipar 2mg (n=23), and ranibizumab (n=16) arms, respectively, least-squares mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) change from baseline was +6.2, +8.3, and +5.6 letters at week 16 (primary endpoint) and +8.2, +10.0, and +5.3 letters at week 20. Least-squares mean central retinal thickness (CRT) reduction from baseline was 134, 113, and 131m at week 16 and 116, 103, and 138m at week 20. Intraocular inflammation adverse events (AEs), reported in 5/48 (10.4%) abicipar-treated patients, resolved without sustained vision loss or other sequelae. Conclusions: Abicipar demonstrated durability of effect: BCVA and CRT improvements were similar between abicipar and ranibizumab at weeks 16 and 20 (8 and 12 weeks after the last abicipar injection and 4 weeks after the last ranibizumab injection). No serious AEs were reported.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available