A Study of the Criteria Establishing the Need for Re-treatment With Ranibizumab Upon Relapse in Patients With Visual Impairment Due to Choroidal Neovascularization Secondary to Pathologic Myopia.
- Conditions
- Choroidal Neovascularization Secondary to Pathologic Myopia
- Interventions
- Registration Number
- NCT02034006
- Lead Sponsor
- Novartis Pharmaceuticals
- Brief Summary
The primary objective of the study was to investigate current criteria driving re-treatment in patients affected by Choroidal Neovascularization (CNV) secondary to Pathologic Myopia (PM) and experiencing a relapse of the disease after the first administration of ranibizumab.
- Detailed Description
Not available
Recruitment & Eligibility
- Status
- COMPLETED
- Sex
- All
- Target Recruitment
- 200
Not provided
Not provided
Study & Design
- Study Type
- INTERVENTIONAL
- Study Design
- SINGLE_GROUP
- Arm && Interventions
Group Intervention Description Ranibizumab Ranibizumab Patients treated with a single ranibizumab 0.5 mg/0.05ml intravitreal injection
- Primary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Number of Patients Treated and Re-treated Based on Presence/Absence of Active Leakage Screening, Month 2, Month 6 Presence of active leakage on fluorescein angiography (FAG) was assessed at screening (14 to 3 days before baseline visit), month 2 and month 6. A univariate logistic regression model was applied expressing the presence/absence of the first retreatment in function of presence of active leakage (Yes/No). For retreated patients, the presence/absence of active leakage was considered at the closest time-point to the first re-treatment: the last scheduled assessment immediately before the first re-treatment was considered. For treated patients, the last scheduled assessment available was considered. In case of missing value on the scheduled assessment, the value was considered as missing for this analysis. \*NE = Not evaluable
Number of Patients Treated and Re-treated Based on Presence/Absence of Cysts Screening, Month 2, Month 6, Month 12 Presence of cysts from optical coherence tomography (OCT) was assessed at screening (14 to 3 days before baseline visit), month 2, month 6 and month 12. A univariate logistic regression model was applied expressing the presence/absence of the first retreatment in function of presence of cysts (Yes/No). For retreated patients, the presence/absence of cysts was considered at the closest time-point to the first re-treatment: the last scheduled assessment immediately before the first re-treatment was considered. For treated patients, the last scheduled assessment available was considered. In case of missing value on the scheduled assessment, the value was considered as missing for this analysis. \*NE = Not evaluable
Change in Central Subfield Thickness (CSFT) Screening, Month 2, Month 6, Month 12 Central subfield thickness (CSFT) from optical coherence tomography (OCT) was assessed at screening (14 to 3 days before baseline visit), month 2, month 6 and month 12. A univariate logistic regression model was applied expressing the presence/absence of the first retreatment in function of change in CSFT versus previous visit. For retreated patients, the change in CSFT was considered at the closest time-point to the first re-treatment: the last scheduled assessment immediately before the first re-treatment was considered. For treated patients, the last scheduled assessment available was considered. In case of missing value on the scheduled assessment, the value was considered as missing for this analysis.
Number of Patients Treated and Re-treated Based on Presence/Absence of Intra-retinal Fluid Screening, Month 2, Month 6, Month 12 Presence of Intra-retinal fluid from optical coherence tomography (OCT) was assessed at screening (14 to 3 days before baseline visit), month 2, month 6 and month 12. A univariate logistic regression model was applied expressing the presence/absence of the first retreatment in function of presence of Intra-retinal fluid (Yes/No). For retreated patients, the presence/absence of Intra-retinal fluid was considered at the closest time-point to the first re-treatment: the last scheduled assessment immediately before the first re-treatment was considered. For treated patients, the last scheduled assessment available was considered. In case of missing value on the scheduled assessment, the value was considered as missing for this analysis. \*NE = Not evaluable
Number of Patients Treated and Re-treated Based on Presence/Absence of Sub-retinal Fluid Screening, Month 2, Month 6, Month 12 Presence of sub-retinal fluid from optical coherence tomography (OCT) was assessed at screening (14 to 3 days before baseline visit), month 2, month 6 and month 12. The regression model for sub-retinal fluid was not valid because "Yes" was reported in almost all subjects causing a quasi-complete separation of data points. \*NE = Not evaluable
Number of Patients Treated and Re-treated Based on Presence/Absence of Macular Edema Screening, Month 2, Month 6, Month 12 Presence of macular edema from optical coherence tomography (OCT) was assessed at screening (14 to 3 days before baseline visit), month 2, month 6 and month 12. A univariate logistic regression model was applied expressing the presence/absence of the first retreatment in function of presence of macular edema (Yes/No). For retreated patients, the presence/absence of macular edema was considered at the closest time-point to the first re-treatment: the last scheduled assessment immediately before the first re-treatment was considered. For treated patients, the last scheduled assessment available was considered. In case of missing value on the scheduled assessment, the value was considered as missing for this analysis. \*NE = Not evaluable
Change in Central Subfield Volume (CSV) Screening, Month 2, Month 6, Month 12 Central subfield volume (CSV) from optical coherence tomography (OCT) was assessed at screening (14 to 3 days before baseline visit), month 2, month 6 and month 12. A univariate logistic regression model was applied expressing the presence/absence of the first retreatment in function of change in CSV versus previous visit. For retreated patients, the change in CSV was considered at the closest time-point to the first re-treatment: the last scheduled assessment immediately before the first re-treatment was considered. For treated patients, the last scheduled assessment available was considered. In case of missing value on the scheduled assessment, the value was considered as missing for this analysis.
Number of Patients Treated and Re-treated Based on Presence/Absence of Clinically Significant Abnormalities Baseline, Month 1, Month 2, Month 3, Month 6, Month 12 Presence of clinically significant abnormalities was assessed at baseline, month 1, month 2, month 3, month 6 and month 12. A univariate logistic regression model was applied expressing the presence/absence of the first retreatment in function of presence of clinically significant abnormalities (Yes/No). For retreated patients, the presence/absence of clinically significant abnormalities was considered at the closest time-point to the first re-treatment: the last scheduled assessment immediately before the first re-treatment was considered. For treated patients, the last scheduled assessment available was considered. In case of missing value on the scheduled assessment, the value was considered as missing for this analysis.
Number of Patients Treated and Re-treated Based on Improvement in Best Corrective Visual Acuity (BCVA) < 5 Letters Baseline, Month 1, Month 2, Month 3, Month 6, Month 12 Improvement in BCVA \< 5 letters (Yes/No) was assessed at month1, month 2, month 3, month 6 and month 12. A univariate logistic regression model was applied expressing the presence/absence of the first retreatment in function of improvement in BCVA \< 5 letters (Yes/No) which was reported as Gain \>= 5 letters versus Gain \< 5 letters. For retreated patients, Gain \>= 5 letters and Gain \< 5 letters were considered at the closest time-point to the first re-treatment: the last scheduled assessment immediately before the first re-treatment was considered. For treated patients, the last scheduled assessment available was considered. In case of missing value on the scheduled assessment, the value was considered as missing for this analysis.
Number of Patients Treated and Re-treated Based on Improvement in Best Corrective Visual Acuity (BCVA) < 10 Letters Baseline, Month 1, Month 2, Month 3, Month 6, Month 12 Improvement in BCVA \< 10 letters (Yes/No) was assessed at month1, month 2, month 3, month 6 and month 12. A univariate logistic regression model was applied expressing the presence/absence of the first retreatment in function of improvement in BCVA \< 10 letters (Yes/No) which was reported as Gain \>= 10 letters versus Gain \< 10 letters. For retreated patients, Gain \>= 10 letters and Gain \< 10 letters were considered at the closest time-point to the first re-treatment: the last scheduled assessment immediately before the first re-treatment was considered. For treated patients, the last scheduled assessment available was considered. In case of missing value on the scheduled assessment, the value was considered as missing for this analysis.
Number of Patients in Different Categories of Changes From Baseline in BCVA Baseline, Month 1, Month 2, Month 3, Month 6, Month 12 Changes from baseline in BCVA are described for the ETDRS parameter considering the following categories at each assessment: "no change" if the change was equal to 0 letter, "worsening" if change \< 0 letter , "improvement" if change \> 0 letter. A univariate logistic regression model was applied expressing the presence/absence of the first retreatment in function of change from baseline in BCVA (improved/worsened/stable) which was reported as Improved versus no change and worsened versus no change. For retreated patients, this variable was considered at the closest time-point to the first re-treatment: the last scheduled assessment immediately before the first re-treatment was considered. For treated patients, the last scheduled assessment available was considered. In case of missing value on the scheduled assessment, the value was considered as missing for this analysis.
- Secondary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Mean Change in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) From Baseline to Month 6 and Month 12 on Study Eye Baseline, Month 6, Month 12 Change from baseline in BCVA (Best Corrected Visual Acuity) was Measured by Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) Letter Score. Patients with a BCVA ETDRS letter score of 78 to 24 in the study eye were included; A higher score represents better functioning of the study eye. A positive change from baseline shows improvement.
Mean Number of Ranibizumab Injection Baseline to Month 12 Mean number of ranibizumab injection is reported as number of injections per patient.
Time to Re-treatment Baseline to Month 12 Time to re-treatment, defined as time in months from the data of first dose of ranibizumab to the date of re-treatment, was evaluated.
Number of Patients Having Ocular and/or Systemic Adverse Event (AE) Baseline to Month 12 Number of patients with any systemic AE, with serious systemic AE, with an ocular AE, with an ocular serious AE are reported
Change in Patient Quality of Life From Baseline to Month 2 and Month 12 Baseline, Month 2, Month 12 Patient quality of life was assessed by Impact of Vision Impairment (IVI) questionnaire. IVI is a 32-item instrument, either self- or interviewer-administered, developed to measure the impact of vision impairment on daily activities in five domains. The 32 items were divided into 5 domains as follows: Leisure and work (items 1 to 5), Social and consumer interaction (items 6 to 10 and items 23-24), Household and personal care (items 11 to 14 and items 20-21), Mobility (items 15 to 19 and item 22), Emotional reaction to vision loss (items 25 to 32). Responses to the IVI items were rated on a five-category Likert scale: not at all, 0; hardly at all, 1; a little, 2; a fair amount, 3; a lot, 4; and can't do because of eyesight, 5. Total score was an arithmetic average of the items rated between 0 (the best score) and 5 (the worst score). A negative change indicates improvement. Data was computed on items with non missing response
Trial Locations
- Locations (1)
Novartis Investigative Site
š®š¹Napoli, Italy