Jean François KOROBELNIK Bordeaux, France€¦ · Jean François KOROBELNIK Bordeaux, France...
Transcript of Jean François KOROBELNIK Bordeaux, France€¦ · Jean François KOROBELNIK Bordeaux, France...
Oedème maculaire etocclusionsveineuses:EtudeLOUVREetsonincidenceen pratique clinique
JeanFrançoisKOROBELNIK
Bordeaux,France
• Financialdisclosures:
– Consultant:Alcon,Alimera,Allergan,Bayer,
Horus,Novartis,Roche,Théa,Zeiss
– Investigator:Allergan,Bayer,Novartis,Roche,
SecondSight,Théa
4
INTERNAL USE ONLY
Design de l’étude
Allergan. Data on file.
Organisation de l’étude1ère inject.: Suivi sur 6 mois puis 2ème injection même suivi2ème inject. (par 700ug) si AV<10/10 et OCT>250µm199 patients è pas de necessité de 2ème injection
6 m
ois
5
INTERNAL USE ONLY
Variation moyenne de la MAVC: population retraitée
1. Allergan Data on File.
Variation moyenne de l’AV: population retraitéeRé-injection (700ug) (199 patients une seule injection)Même efficacité sur l’AV moyenne à la 2ème injectionLe sham répond aussi, (mais moins bien) à une injection retardée
6
INTERNAL USE ONLY
Variation de PIO à 12 mois: predictible, transitoire et gérable
Variations de la PIO (à 2 mois), population retraitée•Environ 3 % des patients ont une PIO>35mmHg•Environ 16 % des patients ont une PIO>25 mmHg
16% 16%
16% 16%
3% 3%
Two-year, Prospective, Multicenter Study of the Use of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant for Treatment of
Macular Edema Secondary toRetinal Vein Occlusion in France
Jean-François Korobelnik, MD2; Vincent Gualino, MD1; Laurent Kodjikian, MD, PhD3; Cécile Delcourt, MSc4;
Richard Leaback, MD5; Sybil Pinchinat, MSc6; Marie-Eve Velard, MSc7
1Clinique Honoré Cave, Montauban, France; 2Bordeaux University Hospital, Bordeaux, France; 3La Croix-Rousse Hospital, University Hospital of Lyon, Lyon,
France; 4University of Bordeaux, Centre de Recherche INSERM Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France; 5Allergan plc, Marlow, United Kingdom; 6Biostatem, Castries,
France; 7Allergan plc, Courbevoie, France
Background
¢ Dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX implant; Ozurdex®) was the first treatment reimbursed for macular edema (ME) due to branch or central retinal vein occlusion (RVO) in France
¢ The French National Authority for Health (HAS) required an additional study to inform on the patterns of use and long-term safety and efficacy of DEX implant treatment of RVO-associated ME in French clinical practice
¢ Study protocol (LOUVRE) was validated by an independent scientific committee and the HAS in 2011
9
LOUVRE Study Objective
¢ This prospective, observational, 24-month, longitudinal study characterized the patterns of use, and long-term efficacy and safety of DEX implant treatment for RVO-associated ME in the French clinical setting
10
Study Design
¢ 48 sites were randomly selected in metropolitan France● 27.6% public practice; 72.4% private practice
¢ Consecutive patients with ME due to RVO treated with DEX implant at baseline were enrolled
¢ Need for re-treatment with DEX implant and use of other treatments were at physician/patient discretion
¢ Assessments: best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), adverse events (AEs), and intraocular pressure (IOP)
● At baseline, week 6, and months 4, 6, 12, 18, and 24
11
Outcome Measures
¢ Primary endpoint:● Change in BCVA at month 6
¢ Key secondary endpoints:● Patient characteristics ● All RVO-related treatments and procedures
● BCVA change (ETDRS letters) at all follow-up visits
● Patients (%) with ≥15-letter BCVA gain at all follow-up visits
● AEs during and after injection
12
¢ A total of 520 patients presented with ME secondary to RVO at the participating sites during the study enrollment period
¢ The analysis population consisted of 375 patients
¢ The 2-year study completion rate for the analysis population was 74.4% (279/375)
Patients screened (n=520)
Enrolled (n=375)
Completed month 24 (n=279)
Analysis population
Study conducted from October 2011 to October 2014
Patient Disposition
Patient Characteristics at BaselineCharacteristics Total analysis
population (N=375)Mean age, years (SD) 70.3 (11.2)Gender, n (%)
Male 206 (54.9)RVO subtype, n (%)
BranchCentral
202 (53.9)173 (46.1)
Treatment status, n (%)*NaïvePreviously treated, with DEX implantPreviously treated, no DEX implant
145 (38.9)149 (40.0)79 (21.1)
Mean time since onset of ME, months (SD) 10.8 (18.1) Mean BCVA in the study eye, letters (SD) 47.6 (21.2)Mean CRT in the study eye, µm (SD) 554 (180)* Data missing for 2 patients
14
Ocular Comorbidities at Baseline
Comorbidity Total analysispopulation (N=375)
Ocular hypertension 73 (19.5)Glaucoma 52 (13.9)Age-related macular degeneration 5 (1.3)Cataract 108 (28.8)Pseudophakic 101 (26.9)
15
¢ The second most common ocular comorbidity was ocular hypertension
Treatments received for ME n (%)DEX implant intravitreal injections
123456 or 7
124 (33.1)92 (29.3)59 (18.8)43 (13.7)38 (12.1)19 (6.1)
Other ocular treatmentsLaserRanibizumabBevacizumabAflibercept
106 (28.3)114 (30.4)12 (3.2)5 (1.3)
Other ophthalmic treatment n (%)IOP-lowering medication
Week 6Month 6Month 24
82 (21.9)43 (11.5)21 (5.6)
Treatments Received over 24 Months
167 patients received DEX implant only; 208 also received other RVO treatments
Mean: 2.6 DEX with a mean time of 6.9 ± 3.6 months
First use after a mean (SD) of 8.7 ±6.4 months
Primary Endpoint
¢ Change in BCVA at month 6 :● A mean change of +5.1 ± 19.0 letters
(P<.001 vs baseline)
¢ Mean interval between 1st and 2nd DEX injections in patients retreated during the first 6 months was 4.9 ± 1.1 months
17
At least 30% of patients had a BCVA gain of 15 letters or more at each visit between months 6 and 24 18
Patients with BCVA Gain ≥15 Letters
43,4
24,9
31,3 30,4 31,0
38,7
05
101520253035404550
W6 M4 M6 M12 M18 M24
Patie
nts
(%)
Total analysis population (N=375)
Treatment with DEX implant alone was effective in improving BCVA; moving to other treatments did not improve efficacy
Mean BCVA by Treatment Subgroup
19
47,3
58,3
47,9
52,3
49,350,9 51,5
40
45
50
55
60
65
47,9
59,6
53,6
56,9 56,855,3
57,9
40
45
50
55
60
65
Study visitD0 M6 M12 M18 M24
Mea
n B
CVA
(95%
CI),
lette
rs
≥1 DEX implant (N=167) DEX implant + other treatments (N=208)
36.5% of patients treated with DEX implant only received a single injection; mean BCVA gain was 9 letters at month 6 vs 20 letters at month 24
Follow-upVisit
≥1 DEX implant (N=167), mean letters (SD)
DEX implant + other treatments (N=208), mean letters (SD)
Week 6 11.8 (1.2)* 11.1 (1.1)†
Month 4 6.1 (1.5)* 0.8 (1.3)
Month 6 7.0 (1.6)* 3.7 (1.3)†
Month 12 7.3 (1.8)* -0.1 (1.5)
Month 18 5.9 (2.0)* 1.3 (1.6)
Month 24 8.3 (2.0)* 2.3 (1.6)
P value(vs baseline)
*≤.0031 †≤.0056
Mean BCVA Gain by Treatment Subgroup
Mean BCVA by Treatment Subgroup
21
Raisons des switch :
¢ Récidive de l’OM dans 36% des cas
¢ Présence d’une ischémie dans 27% des cas (laser)
¢ Sans aucune raison 22% des cas
¢ 15% autres
22
Follow-up Visit ≥1 DEX implant (N=167)
DEX implant + other treatments (N=208)
Month 6, % 30.9 31.6
Month 24, % 45.3 34.5
Patients with BCVA Gain ≥15 Letters by Treatment
Moving to other treatments did not result in a greater response rate
40,3
47,9
23,0
30,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Month 6 Month 24
Patie
nts
with
a ≥
15-le
tter
gain
, %
<3 months (N=180)
≥3 months (N=183)
Mean BCVA gain: +8.5 +6.7+2.0 +3.0
Visit
BCVA Gain by ME Onset
¢ Significantly greater response rates and mean BCVA gains from baseline were seen at months 6 and 24 in patients with recent onset ME (P ≤.004)
¢ At month 6, patients with recent onset ME gained 10.7 ± 19.31 letters when treated with DEX implant only vs 4.1 ± 22.32 letters when moved to other treatments
23
Significant reductions in CRT from baseline were seen at all follow-up visits in each treatment subgroup (P <.001)
Mean CRT by Treatment Subgroup
24
523,8
292,4
396,1
341,2
377,9 371,6 364,2
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
579,1
308,6
479,7
384,0415,2 416,9
383,6
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
Study visitSc M6 M12 M18 M24
Mea
n C
RT
(95%
CI),
µm
≥1 DEX implant (N=167) DEX implant + other treatments (N=208)
Patients with Common Ocular Adverse Events
Adverse eventPatients with events,
N (%)Patients with drug-
related events, N (%)Any adverse event 261 (69.6) 162 (43.8)
Most commonly reported ocular adverse events
IOP increases 129 (34.4) 99 (26.4)*
Cataract 149 (39.7) 82 (21.9)*
* Related to the drug or injection procedure
25
Comorbidity Total analysispopulation (N=375)
Ocular hypertension 73 (19.5)Glaucoma 52 (13.9)Age-related macular degeneration 5 (1.3)Cataract 108 (28.8)Pseudophakic 101 (26.9)
Ocular Comorbidities at Baseline
Patients with Common Ocular Adverse Events
26
Adverse eventPatients with events,
N (%)Patients with drug-
related events, N (%)Any adverse event 261 (69.6) 162 (43.8)
Most commonly reported ocular adverse events
IOP increases 129 (34.4) 99 (26.4)*
Cataract 149 (39.7) 82 (21.9)*
* Related to the drug or injection procedure
¢ IOP increased ≤ 5 mmHg in 74.1% of patients¢ IOP increased ]5 – 9] mmHg in 17.1% of patients¢ IOP increased ≥ 10 mmHg in 8.8% of patients
¢ 5.6% (21/375) of patients were using IOP-lowering medication at month 24
¢ 110 eyes (40% of phakic eyes) underwent cataract surgery
Patients with Common Ocular Adverse Events
27
¢ No incisional glaucoma surgery
¢ No hypertonia surgery
¢ There were no reports of endophthalmitis
Conclusions
¢ In the French clinical setting, DEX implant demonstrated efficacy and safety similar to those of phase 3 trials
● BCVA significantly increased at all follow-up visits
● CRT was reduced at all follow-up visits
● DEX implant was well tolerated
§ The most frequently reported AEs were cataract and IOP increase, consistent with previous observations
28