A 12-month, Open-label, Interventional, Multicentre Study to Investigate the Current Criteria Driving Re-treatment With Ranibizumab Upon Relapse in Patients With Visual Impairment Due to Choroidal Neovascularization Secondary to Pathologic Myopia
Trial Snapshot
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Status
- Completed
- Sponsor
- Novartis Pharmaceuticals
- Enrollment
- 200
- Locations
- 1
- Primary Endpoint
- Number of Patients Treated and Re-treated Based on Presence/Absence of Active Leakage
Study Overview
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.
Study Design
- Study Type
- Interventional
- Allocation
- Na
- Intervention Model
- Single Group
- Primary Purpose
- Treatment
- Masking
- None
Eligibility Criteria
- Ages
- 18 Years to — (Adult, Older Adult)
- Sex
- All
- Accepts Healthy Volunteers
- No
Inclusion Criteria
- Not provided
Exclusion Criteria
- Not provided
Arms & Interventions
Ranibizumab
Patients treated with a single ranibizumab 0.5 mg/0.05ml intravitreal injection
Intervention: Ranibizumab (Drug)
Outcomes
Primary Outcomes
Number of Patients Treated and Re-treated Based on Presence/Absence of Active Leakage
Time Frame: 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
Time Frame: 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)
Time Frame: 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
Time Frame: 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
Time Frame: 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
Time Frame: 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)
Time Frame: 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
Time Frame: 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
Time Frame: 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
Time Frame: 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
Time Frame: 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 Outcomes
- Mean Change in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) From Baseline to Month 6 and Month 12 on Study Eye(Baseline, Month 6, Month 12)
- Mean Number of Ranibizumab Injection(Baseline to Month 12)
- Time to Re-treatment(Baseline to Month 12)
- Number of Patients Having Ocular and/or Systemic Adverse Event (AE)(Baseline to Month 12)
- Change in Patient Quality of Life From Baseline to Month 2 and Month 12(Baseline, Month 2, Month 12)
