Small Molecule
C21H28O4
10184-70-0
This report provides a comprehensive scientific and clinical monograph on Anecortave (DrugBank ID: DB12081), an investigational small molecule. Anecortave is the principal active metabolite of the prodrug Anecortave Acetate, which was developed by Alcon, Inc. under the proposed trade name Retaane. Anecortave Acetate was engineered as a first-in-class "angiostatic cortisene," a synthetic steroid derivative designed to potently inhibit angiogenesis—the formation of new blood vessels—while being devoid of the glucocorticoid activity and associated side effects typical of corticosteroids.
The primary therapeutic target for Anecortave Acetate was exudative (wet) age-related macular degeneration (AMD), a leading cause of severe vision loss. Its development was characterized by significant innovation, most notably a multi-faceted, downstream mechanism of action that targeted multiple steps in the angiogenic cascade, and a novel drug delivery system. This system, known as the posterior juxtascleral depot (PJD), utilized a specialized cannula to place a slow-release suspension of the drug behind the eye, offering the potential for sustained therapeutic effect with dosing intervals of up to six months.
Initial clinical trials were promising, with a pivotal placebo-controlled study (C-98-03) demonstrating statistically significant efficacy in stabilizing vision and inhibiting lesion growth in patients with wet AMD. However, a subsequent large-scale Phase III trial (C-01-99) comparing Anecortave Acetate to the then-standard photodynamic therapy (PDT) failed to establish non-inferiority, an outcome confounded by procedural variables such as drug reflux. A strategic pivot to a preventative indication—investigating whether the drug could halt the progression from dry to wet AMD in the massive Anecortave Acetate Risk-Reduction Trial (AART)—ultimately failed, with an interim analysis showing no clinical benefit.
In parallel, Anecortave Acetate was explored for its potential to lower intraocular pressure (IOP) in glaucoma, where it showed promising early results. Despite this, the entire development program was terminated between 2008 and 2009. The discontinuation was not primarily due to safety concerns but was a consequence of its modest clinical efficacy being eclipsed by the revolutionary success of a new class of biologics—the anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) agents—which fundamentally reset the standard of care for wet AMD from vision stabilization to vision improvement. This report details the complete story of Anecortave, from its rational chemical design and unique pharmacology to its complex clinical trial history and ultimate withdrawal, serving as a salient case study in pharmaceutical development within a rapidly evolving therapeutic landscape.
A thorough understanding of Anecortave begins with its precise chemical identity and its relationship to the clinically investigated compound, Anecortave Acetate. The molecule specified by CAS Number 10184-70-0 and DrugBank ID DB12081 is Anecortave, which functions as the active drug moiety.[1] However, the vast majority of preclinical and clinical research was conducted using its prodrug, Anecortave Acetate (CAS Number 7753-60-8; DrugBank ID DB05288).[3] Anecortave Acetate is rapidly hydrolyzed in vivo to yield Anecortave, which is also referred to as anecortave desacetate or 21-Desacetyl Anecortave.[4]
Anecortave is known by several chemical names and synonyms that reflect its structure and origin as a steroid derivative and investigational compound.
Anecortave possesses a tetracyclic steroid core derived from a pregnane skeleton. Its structure is closely related to cortisol but features critical modifications designed to eliminate glucocorticoid activity.[3] Specifically, it is derived from cortisol by the removal of the 11-beta hydroxyl group and the formation of a double bond between carbons 9 and 11.[3] This structural re-engineering is fundamental to its unique pharmacological profile.
Anecortave is classified within the chemical taxonomy as a steroid. Its specific functional groups place it into several more detailed categories. According to the Classyfire system, it is described as a 21-hydroxysteroid, defined as a steroid carrying a hydroxyl group at the C21 position of the steroid backbone.[1] It belongs to the kingdom of organic compounds and the superclass of lipids and lipid-like molecules.[1] Its structure also contains a ketone at the C3 position (3-oxosteroid) and a ketone at the C20 position (20-oxosteroid), with hydroxyl groups at C17 and C21.[1]
The table below consolidates the key chemical and physical properties of Anecortave.
Table 1: Chemical and Physical Properties of Anecortave (DB12081)
Property | Value | Source(s) |
---|---|---|
Generic Name | Anecortave | 1 |
CAS Number | 10184-70-0 | 1 |
DrugBank ID | DB12081 | 1 |
Molecular Formula | C21H28O4 | 1 |
Average Molecular Weight | 344.45 g/mol | 2 |
Monoisotopic Weight | 344.198759382 g/mol | 1 |
IUPAC Name | (8S,10S,13S,14S,17R)-17-hydroxy-17-(2-hydroxyacetyl)-10,13-dimethyl-2,6,7,8,12,14,15,16-octahydro-1H-cyclopenta[a]phenanthren-3-one | 2 |
InChIKey | BCFCRXOJOFDUMZ-ONKRVSLGSA-N | 1 |
Canonical SMILES | CC12CCC(=O)C=C1CCC3C2=CCC4(C3CCC4(C(=O)CO)O)C | 2 |
Physical Form | Solid (Off-White to Light Beige) | 9 |
Melting Point | 231-233 °C | 9 |
Predicted Water Solubility | 0.0334 mg/mL | 1 |
Predicted logP | 2.98 | 1 |
Predicted pKa (Acidic) | 12.58 | 1 |
The pharmacological innovation of Anecortave Acetate lies in its classification as an angiostatic cortisene, a compound class defined by the deliberate separation of anti-angiogenic properties from the hormonal activities inherent to its corticosteroid precursor. This was achieved through targeted chemical modifications, resulting in a molecule with a novel and broad-based mechanism of action.
Anecortave Acetate is the prototypical angiostatic cortisene, a term coined to describe this new class of anti-angiogenic agents.[12] It is a synthetic analog of cortisol acetate, but the removal of the 11β-hydroxyl group and the creation of a double bond between carbons 9 and 11 effectively abolishes its ability to bind to and activate glucocorticoid receptors.[3] Consequently, it is devoid of the anti-inflammatory, immunosuppressive, and side-effect-inducing properties of traditional glucocorticoids, such as cataractogenesis and elevation of intraocular pressure.[3] This feat of medicinal chemistry allowed for the exploitation of the steroid backbone's angiostatic potential without undesirable hormonal effects.[12]
A key differentiator of Anecortave's mechanism was its broad-based action on multiple, downstream events in the angiogenic cascade.[10] At the time of its development, many emerging therapies, particularly the anti-VEGF agents, were highly specific, targeting a single pro-angiogenic growth factor. The therapeutic hypothesis for Anecortave was that a multi-factorial inhibitor would be more robust and less susceptible to bypass mechanisms. By acting "downstream and independent of the initiating angiogenic stimuli," it was designed to inhibit neovascularization regardless of the specific growth factor or trigger that initiated the process.[10]
Preclinical studies elucidated several specific pathways modulated by Anecortave:
This broad-based approach represented a compelling scientific strategy. However, the clinical development of Anecortave Acetate became a real-world test of this "broad-based" pharmacological philosophy against the "highly targeted" philosophy of anti-VEGF agents. While logically sound, the diffuse, modulatory effect of Anecortave proved less potent in a clinical setting than the direct, powerful blockade of the VEGF pathway, which was later identified as the overwhelmingly dominant pathological driver in wet AMD.[19] The eventual triumph of anti-VEGF therapies demonstrated that in this specific disease, a highly targeted approach yielded a more profound clinical benefit.
Further distinguishing it from conventional steroids, the angiostatic activity of Anecortave does not appear to be mediated through any of the commonly known pharmacological receptors.[10] This suggests a novel intracellular mechanism, potentially involving direct interaction with components of the cellular machinery responsible for migration and matrix remodeling. This receptor-independent action reinforces its unique classification and separates it from traditional hormone-receptor-mediated signaling pathways.
The clinical application of Anecortave Acetate was critically dependent on a specialized pharmacokinetic profile, centered around a novel drug delivery system designed to provide sustained, localized drug levels to the posterior segment of the eye while minimizing systemic exposure.
Early investigations determined that conventional administration routes were unsuitable for Anecortave Acetate. Oral administration was impractical due to rapid systemic metabolism, while topical and subconjunctival injections failed to achieve therapeutic concentrations in the target tissues of the retina and choroid.[5] Intravitreal injections, while effective in animal models, carried significant risks such as endophthalmitis and retinal detachment.[5]
To overcome these challenges, Alcon developed a novel delivery method: the posterior juxtascleral depot (PJD).[3] This procedure involves:
This PJD system was a cornerstone of the drug's therapeutic proposition. The low solubility of the compound allowed the depot to act as a slow-release reservoir, providing sustained therapeutic drug concentrations to the choroid and retina for up to six months from a single administration.[16] This offered a significant potential advantage over other therapies requiring more frequent injections, thereby reducing treatment burden and improving patient compliance.[3]
However, this innovative delivery system also introduced a critical variable that would ultimately confound clinical trial results. The technical precision required for the PJD procedure was high, and improper administration could lead to reflux of the drug suspension from the depot site.[5] Pharmacokinetic studies confirmed that patients who experienced reflux had lower plasma concentrations of the active metabolite.[24] As detailed in subsequent sections, post-hoc analyses of the pivotal C-01-99 trial revealed that clinical efficacy was diminished in patients with observed reflux, demonstrating that the success of this novel drug was inextricably linked to the practical challenges of its delivery system.[21]
Anecortave Acetate is a prodrug that undergoes rapid and extensive metabolism.
The clinical development program for Anecortave Acetate in AMD was extensive, progressing from a promising proof-of-concept trial to large-scale comparative and preventative studies. This journey ultimately defined the drug's fate, as it unfolded against the backdrop of a revolutionary shift in the standard of care for AMD.
The foundation for the Anecortave Acetate program was laid by the C-98-03 trial, a 24-month, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled study designed to establish its safety and efficacy as a monotherapy for exudative AMD.[5] The trial enrolled 128 patients with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV) who were randomized to receive PJD administrations of Anecortave Acetate (3 mg, 15 mg, or 30 mg) or a placebo every six months.[18]
The results were highly encouraging and established clinical proof-of-concept:
The C-98-03 trial was a clear success, demonstrating that Anecortave Acetate 15 mg was a safe and effective primary therapy for exudative AMD, superior to placebo in both maintaining vision and suppressing lesion progression.[5]
Building on the positive results of C-98-03, Alcon initiated the C-01-99 trial, a large-scale, 24-month, active-controlled study designed to compare Anecortave Acetate 15 mg against the existing standard of care, photodynamic therapy (PDT) with verteporfin (Visudyne).[5] This non-inferiority trial enrolled 530 patients with predominantly classic subfoveal CNV. Patients were randomized to receive either Anecortave Acetate via PJD every six months (plus sham PDT every three months) or active PDT every three months (plus sham PJD every six months).[5]
The results of this pivotal trial were ambiguous and ultimately disappointing:
The trial's outcome was significantly complicated by the confounding factors previously discussed. Post-hoc analyses showed that when patients who experienced drug reflux were excluded, the vision preservation rate in the Anecortave Acetate arm improved to 57%.[21] Furthermore, the study population had unusually small and aggressive lesions, which may have limited the efficacy of both therapies.[18] While technically showing equivalence to the standard of care, this result was not strong enough to support a compelling case for regulatory approval, especially as a new, more effective class of drugs was emerging.
In a major strategic pivot, Alcon initiated the Anecortave Acetate Risk-Reduction Trial (AART), a massive, multi-year, international study designed to evaluate a preventative indication.[27] The primary objective was to determine if Anecortave Acetate (15 mg or 30 mg), administered every six months, could reduce the risk of progression from high-risk non-exudative ("dry") AMD to sight-threatening exudative ("wet") AMD when compared to a sham procedure.[22] The trial began in 2004 and ultimately enrolled over 2,500 patients.[22]
This ambitious trial ended in a definitive failure that sealed the fate of the AMD program. In July 2008, Alcon announced it was terminating the AART study and the entire AMD development program for Anecortave Acetate.[3] The decision was based on a planned interim analysis of data from 2,546 patients at the 24-month time point, which concluded that Anecortave Acetate demonstrated
no effect on either the primary or secondary endpoints.[30] It did not arrest the progression from dry to wet AMD.
The table below summarizes the key clinical trials that defined the development trajectory of Anecortave Acetate in AMD.
Table 2: Summary of Key Clinical Trials of Anecortave Acetate in Age-Related Macular Degeneration
Trial ID | Phase | Design | Patient Population (n) | Treatment Arms | Primary Endpoint | Key Efficacy Outcome |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C-98-03 | II/III | Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Masked | Exudative AMD (128) | Anecortave Acetate (3, 15, 30 mg) vs. Placebo | Mean change in visual acuity at 24 months | 15 mg dose superior to placebo; 73% maintained vision vs. 47% for placebo (p≤0.05) 18 |
C-01-99 | III | Randomized, Active-Controlled, Double-Masked | Predominantly Classic Exudative AMD (530) | Anecortave Acetate 15 mg vs. PDT with Verteporfin | Non-inferiority in vision maintenance at 12 months | Failed to meet primary endpoint; 45% maintained vision vs. 49% for PDT (p=0.43) 18 |
AART (C-02-60) | III | Randomized, Sham-Controlled, Double-Masked | High-Risk Dry AMD (>2,500) | Anecortave Acetate (15, 30 mg) vs. Sham | Incidence of sight-threatening CNV | Terminated; interim analysis showed no effect on preventing progression to wet AMD 30 |
The clinical journey of Anecortave Acetate illustrates the critical impact of a shifting therapeutic landscape. It was developed in an era where "vision stabilization" was the primary goal of AMD therapy, a standard set by PDT.[19] The C-98-03 trial showed it could meet this standard effectively. However, during the execution of the C-01-99 and AART trials, anti-VEGF agents like ranibizumab and bevacizumab emerged, demonstrating an unprecedented ability to not only stabilize but actively
improve vision in a significant portion of patients.[19] This paradigm shift raised the bar for efficacy so dramatically that Anecortave Acetate's more modest benefit of being "as good as PDT" was no longer clinically or commercially viable.[19]
As the prospects for Anecortave Acetate in AMD began to wane, Alcon initiated a second line of investigation, exploring its potential utility in lowering intraocular pressure (IOP) for the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension.[3] This represented an attempt to salvage a promising molecule by repurposing it for a different ophthalmic indication.
The rationale for this investigation was novel, as angiostatic agents are not typically associated with IOP modulation. The research was based on the hypothesis that Anecortave Acetate, administered as an anterior juxtascleral depot (AJD) in the sub-Tenon's space, might have a direct effect on the aqueous outflow pathways, such as the trabecular meshwork.[19]
The first clinical evidence for an IOP-lowering effect came from a small, uncontrolled case series published in 2009.[34] The study included eight eyes from seven patients with severe, medically uncontrolled ocular hypertension caused by prior injections of the corticosteroid triamcinolone acetonide. These patients received a 24 mg AJD of Anecortave Acetate.
The results were striking:
This pilot study provided the first human evidence that Anecortave Acetate could substantially lower IOP, particularly in the challenging context of steroid-induced glaucoma.[33]
These promising findings led to more formal, controlled trials. Alcon conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled, proof-of-concept study in 89 patients with open-angle glaucoma.[35] Patients received a single AJD of Anecortave Acetate (7.5 mg or 15 mg) or a vehicle control. At the pre-defined 3-month primary efficacy endpoint, both the 7.5 mg and 15 mg doses demonstrated a statistically significant lower mean IOP compared to the vehicle (
p<0.05).[35]
A subsequent, larger Phase II safety and efficacy study (NCT00691717) was initiated to evaluate higher doses (up to 60 mg) in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.[1]
Despite the positive and statistically significant results from these early-stage glaucoma trials, Alcon announced in 2009 that it was terminating the development of Anecortave Acetate for reducing IOP.[3] This decision was likely not a reflection of scientific failure in the glaucoma indication itself, but rather a broader, portfolio-level business decision to cease all investment in the Anecortave platform after its definitive and costly failure in the much larger AMD market. The promising IOP-lowering data suggested a novel biological mechanism, but the termination of the program left this mechanism unexplored and represented a lost opportunity to develop a potentially new class of glaucoma therapy.
Throughout its extensive clinical development in both AMD and glaucoma, Anecortave Acetate, along with its PJD and AJD administration procedures, demonstrated a favorable safety profile.
Across multiple large trials involving thousands of patients, the drug was consistently found to be safe and well-tolerated.[15] A key success of its design was the absence of typical corticosteroid-related adverse events. Clinical trials confirmed that, unlike traditional steroids, Anecortave Acetate did not cause clinically relevant increases in IOP or accelerate cataract formation.[5] An independent safety committee that reviewed the data from the AMD trials identified no clinically relevant safety issues related to either the medication or the administration procedure.[5]
The majority of reported adverse events were ocular, generally mild, transient, and considered related to the juxtascleral injection procedure rather than the drug itself.[5] The most common of these events included:
These events occurred at similar frequencies in both active treatment and sham procedure groups, underscoring their link to the physical administration process.[18]
The documented drug interactions for Anecortave are largely theoretical, based on its chemical properties and pharmacological class, rather than on observed clinical events. The primary risks identified are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3: Documented Drug Interactions with Anecortave
Risk / Effect | Interacting Drug Class | Specific Examples | Source(s) |
---|---|---|---|
Increased risk of Methemoglobinemia | Local Anesthetics & Various Agents | Articaine, Benzocaine, Lidocaine, Prilocaine, Bupivacaine, Capsaicin, Cocaine, Phenol | 1 |
Increased risk of Jaw Osteonecrosis & Anti-angiogenesis | Bisphosphonates | Alendronic acid, Clodronic acid, Etidronic acid, Risedronic acid, Zoledronic acid | 1 |
Increased risk of Thrombosis | Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents | Darbepoetin alfa, Erythropoietin | 1 |
The regulatory journey of Anecortave Acetate was characterized by initial optimism, reflected in its expedited review status, followed by significant setbacks that, combined with a shifting competitive landscape, ultimately led to the termination of its development.
Recognizing the significant unmet need for effective wet AMD treatments at the time, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted Anecortave Acetate "Fast Track" designation.[3] It was also accepted into the FDA's new Pilot 1 Continuous Marketing Application (CMA) program, which allowed Alcon to submit its New Drug Application (NDA) in separate, reviewable units as they were completed.[3] The final unit of the NDA was submitted to the FDA in early 2005, and a Marketing Authorisation Application was submitted to the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) in late 2004.[39]
The first major hurdle appeared in May 2005, when Alcon received an "approvable letter" from the FDA, rather than a full approval.[40] The letter indicated that final approval for the wet AMD indication would be contingent on the completion of an additional clinical study.[19] This requirement likely stemmed from the ambiguous results of the C-01-99 comparative trial and the rapidly rising efficacy bar being set by emerging anti-VEGF therapies.
The regulatory challenges were mirrored in Europe. In March 2006, Alcon formally withdrew its application from the EMEA, stating that the decision was based on its research, development, and marketing strategies, and after learning the European agency would also require new clinical data.[19]
By September 2007, Alcon publicly announced that it had no immediate plans to conduct the additional trial requested by the FDA. The company cited the extreme difficulty of recruiting patients for such a study, given the widespread availability and superior efficacy of newly approved treatments for wet AMD.[3]
The final decisions to halt the program followed the definitive failure of the AART study.
As of 2010, all development activities for Anecortave Acetate had ceased, and the drug has not been brought to market for any indication.[3]
The history of Anecortave and its prodrug, Anecortave Acetate, offers a compelling case study in the complexities and risks of pharmaceutical research and development. It is the story of a scientifically elegant and innovative compound that was ultimately rendered obsolete by a paradigm shift in its target therapeutic area.
From a medicinal chemistry and pharmacology perspective, Anecortave Acetate was a triumph of rational drug design. The successful engineering of a steroid derivative that retained potent anti-angiogenic activity while shedding its glucocorticoid properties was a significant achievement. Its broad-based, downstream mechanism of action and its novel, long-acting PJD delivery system were logical and well-conceived strategies to address the complex pathology of wet AMD. The drug demonstrated a strong safety profile and clear biological activity in both preclinical models and human clinical trials.
The ultimate failure of Anecortave Acetate was less a reflection of its own scientific deficiencies and more a consequence of extraordinary bad timing. Its development coincided precisely with the discovery and clinical validation of anti-VEGF biologics like ranibizumab (Lucentis), bevacizumab (Avastin), and later, aflibercept (Eylea).[19] These agents produced results that were not just statistically significant but clinically transformative.
The therapeutic goalpost for wet AMD shifted almost overnight from "slowing vision loss"—an endpoint Anecortave Acetate could meet—to "improving vision," a standard it could not.[19] Anecortave Acetate was designed and tested against an older standard of care (PDT), and by the time its pivotal trial data were available, that standard was already obsolete. The FDA's request for an additional trial in 2005 was an implicit acknowledgment that the drug now had to prove its worth against a much higher bar, a challenge its developer rightly concluded was insurmountable.
The story of Anecortave provides several critical lessons. It demonstrates that even a well-designed drug with a novel mechanism and a good safety profile can fail if it is outpaced by disruptive innovation. Success in drug development requires not only demonstrating efficacy against a placebo or non-inferiority to a current standard but also delivering a clinically meaningful benefit that can compete in a dynamic and forward-moving field. It also highlights the critical interplay between a drug and its delivery system, where procedural challenges can undermine the ability to demonstrate a compound's true efficacy.
Finally, while the commercial journey of Anecortave is over, it leaves behind intriguing scientific questions. The molecular basis for its broad-based angiostatic activity and, perhaps more compellingly, its non-glucocorticoid-mediated ability to lower intraocular pressure, remain areas of scientific interest. The data from its discontinued glaucoma program suggest a novel biological pathway for regulating IOP that, while commercially abandoned, may yet hold value for future research.
Published at: August 29, 2025
This report is continuously updated as new research emerges.
Empowering clinical research with data-driven insights and AI-powered tools.
© 2025 MedPath, Inc. All rights reserved.