Clinical Pharmacology for Eylea
Mechanism Of Action
Vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A) and placental growth factor (PlGF) are members of the VEGF family of angiogenic factors that can act as mitogenic, chemotactic, and vascular permeability factors for endothelial cells. VEGF acts via two receptor tyrosine kinases, VEGFR-1 and VEGFR-2, present on the surface of endothelial cells. PlGF binds only to VEGFR-1, which is also present on the surface of leucocytes. Activation of these receptors by VEGF-A can result in neovascularization and vascular permeability.
Aflibercept acts as a soluble decoy receptor that binds VEGF-A and PlGF, and thereby can inhibit the binding and activation of these cognate VEGF receptors.
Pharmacodynamics
Neovascular (Wet) Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD)
In the clinical studies anatomic measures of disease activity improved similarly in all treatment groups from baseline to week 52. Anatomic data were not used to influence treatment decisions during the first year.
Macular Edema Following Retinal Vein Occlusion (RVO)
Reductions in mean retinal thickness were observed in COPERNICUS, GALILEO, and VIBRANT at week 24 compared to baseline. Anatomic data were not used to influence treatment decisions [see Clinical Studies].
Diabetic Macular Edema (DME)
Reductions in mean retinal thickness were observed in VIVID and VISTA at weeks 52 and 100 compared to baseline. Anatomic data were not used to influence EYLEA treatment decisions [see Clinical Studies].
Pharmacokinetics
EYLEA is administered intravitreally to exert local effects in the eye. In patients with wet AMD, RVO, or DME, following intravitreal administration of EYLEA, a fraction of the administered dose is expected to bind with endogenous VEGF in the eye to form an inactive aflibercept: VEGF complex. Once absorbed into the systemic circulation, aflibercept presents in the plasma as free aflibercept (unbound to VEGF) and a more predominant stable inactive form with circulating endogenous VEGF (i.e., aflibercept: VEGF complex).
Absorption/Distribution
Following intravitreal administration of 2 mg per eye of EYLEA to patients with wet AMD, RVO, and DME, the mean Cmax of free aflibercept in the plasma was 0.02 mcg/mL (range: 0 to 0.054 mcg/mL), 0.05 mcg/mL (range: 0 to 0.081 mcg/mL), and 0.03 mcg/mL (range: 0 to 0.076 mcg/mL), respectively and was attained in 1 to 3 days. The free aflibercept plasma concentrations were undetectable two weeks post-dosing in all patients. Aflibercept did not accumulate in plasma when administered as repeated doses intravitreally every 4 weeks. It is estimated that after intravitreal administration of 2 mg to patients, the mean maximum plasma concentration of free aflibercept is more than 100 fold lower than the concentration of aflibercept required to half-maximally bind systemic VEGF.
The volume of distribution of free aflibercept following intravenous (I.V.) administration of aflibercept has been determined to be approximately 6L.
Metabolism/Elimination
Aflibercept is a therapeutic protein and no drug metabolism studies have been conducted. Aflibercept is expected to undergo elimination through both target-mediated disposition via binding to free endogenous VEGF and metabolism via proteolysis. The terminal elimination half-life (t½) of free aflibercept in plasma was approximately 5 to 6 days after I.V. administration of doses of 2 to 4 mg/kg aflibercept.
Specific Populations
Pediatric Patients
Pharmacokinetics of aflibercept were evaluated in pre-term infants with ROP at a dose of 0.4 mg aflibercept (per eye) administered unilaterally or bilaterally. In the BUTTERFLEYE study, mean concentrations of free aflibercept in plasma declined from a maximum of 0.583 mcg/mL at Day 1 to 0.0406 mcg/mL at Day 28 in bilaterally treated patients.
In the FIREFLEYE study, mean concentrations of free aflibercept in plasma for all patients (bilateral and unilateral administration combined) declined from a maximum of 0.481 mcg/mL at Day 1 to 0.13 mcg/mL at Day 28. Concentrations of free aflibercept in plasma subsequently declined to values below or close to the lower limit of quantitation within approximately 8 weeks.
Following an IVT dose of aflibercept 0.4 mg per eye given bilaterally at 10 or 14 day intervals, the population pharmacokinetic estimated mean maximal accumulation ratio of free aflibercept in plasma was approximately 2.0 and 1.4. No accumulation of free aflibercept in plasma is expected for IVT doses of 0.4 mg per eye given bilaterally at dosing intervals of 21 days or longer.
Renal Impairment
Pharmacokinetic analysis of a subgroup of patients (n=492) in one wet AMD study, of which 43% had renal impairment (mild n=120, moderate n=74, and severe n=16), revealed no differences with respect to plasma concentrations of free aflibercept after intravitreal administration every 4 or 8 weeks. Similar results were seen in patients in a RVO study and in patients in a DME study. No dose adjustment based on renal impairment status is needed for either wet AMD, RVO, or DME patients.
Other
No dosage modification is required based on gender or in the elderly.
Immunogenicity
As with all therapeutic proteins, there is a potential for an immune response in patients treated with EYLEA. The immunogenicity of EYLEA was evaluated in serum samples. The immunogenicity data reflect the percentage of patients whose test results were considered positive for antibodies to EYLEA in immunoassays. The detection of an immune response is highly dependent on the sensitivity and specificity of the assays used, sample handling, timing of sample collection, concomitant medications, and underlying disease. For these reasons, comparison of the incidence of antibodies to EYLEA with the incidence of antibodies to other products may be misleading.
In the wet AMD, RVO, and DME studies, the pre-treatment incidence of immunoreactivity to EYLEA was approximately 1% to 3% across treatment groups. After dosing with EYLEA for 24-100 weeks, antibodies to EYLEA were detected in a similar percentage range of patients. Similarly, after unilateral or bilateral dosing in pediatric ROP studies, antibodies to EYLEA were detected in less than 1% of patients.
There were no differences in efficacy or safety between patients with or without immunoreactivity.
Animal Toxicology And/Or Pharmacology
Erosions and ulcerations of the respiratory epithelium in nasal turbinates in monkeys treated with aflibercept intravitreally were observed at intravitreal doses of 2 or 4 mg per eye. At the NOAEL of 0.5 mg per eye in monkeys, the systemic exposure (AUC) was 56 times higher than the exposure observed in adult patients after an intravitreal dose of 2 mg and 2-fold higher based on Cmax when compared to corresponding values observed in pre-term infants from FIREFLEYE. Similar effects were not seen in other clinical studies [see Clinical Studies].
Clinical Studies
Neovascular (Wet) Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD)
The safety and efficacy of EYLEA were assessed in two randomized, multi-center, double-masked, active-controlled studies in patients with wet AMD. A total of 2412 patients were treated and evaluable for efficacy (1817 with EYLEA) in the two studies (VIEW1 and VIEW2). In each study, up to week 52, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to 1 of 4 dosing regimens: 1) EYLEA administered 2 mg every 8 weeks following 3 initial monthly doses (EYLEA 2Q8); 2) EYLEA administered 2 mg every 4 weeks (EYLEA 2Q4); 3) EYLEA 0.5 mg administered every 4 weeks (EYLEA 0.5Q4); and 4) ranibizumab administered 0.5 mg every 4 weeks (ranibizumab 0.5 mg Q4). Protocol-specified visits occurred every 28±3 days. Patient ages ranged from 49 to 99 years with a mean of 76 years.
In both studies, the primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients who maintained vision, defined as losing fewer than 15 letters of visual acuity at week 52 compared to baseline. Both EYLEA 2Q8 and EYLEA 2Q4 groups were shown to have efficacy that was clinically equivalent to the ranibizumab 0.5 mg Q4 group in year 1.
Detailed results from the analysis of the VIEW1 and VIEW2 studies are shown in Table 5 and Figure 14 below.
Table 5: Efficacy Outcomes at Week 52 (Full Analysis Set with LOCF) in VIEW1 and VIEW2 Studies
| Full Analysis Set |
VIEW1 |
VIEW2 |
| EYLEA 2 mg Q8 weeks a |
EYLEA 2 mg Q4 weeks |
ranibizu-mab 0.5 mg Q4 weeks |
EYLEA 2 mg Q8 weeks a |
EYLEA 2 mg Q4 weeks |
ranibizumab 0.5 mg Q4 weeks |
| N=301 |
N=304 |
N=304 |
N=306 |
N=309 |
N=291 |
| Efficacy Outcomes |
| Proportion of patients who maintained visual acuity (%) (<15 letters of BCVA loss) |
94% |
95% |
94% |
95% |
95% |
95% |
| Differenceb (%) (95.1% CI) |
0.6
(-3.2, 4.4) |
1.3
(-2.4, 5.0) |
|
0.6
(-2.9, 4.0) |
-0.3
(-4.0, 3.3) |
|
| Mean change in BCVA as measured by ETDRS letter score from Baseline |
7.9 |
10.9 |
8.1 |
8.9 |
7.6 |
9.4 |
| Differenceb in LS mean (95.1% CI) |
0.3
(-2.0, 2.5) |
3.2
(0.9, 5.4) |
|
-0.9
(-3.1, 1.3) |
-2.0
(-4.1, 0.2) |
|
| Number of patients who gained at least 15 letters of vision from Baseline (%) |
92 (31%) |
114 (38%) |
94 (31%) |
96 (31%) |
91 (29%) |
99 (34%) |
| Differenceb (%) (95.1% CI) |
-0.4
(-7.7, 7.0) |
6.6
(-1.0, 14.1) |
|
-2.6
(-10.2, 4.9) |
-4.6
(-12.1, 2.9) |
|
BCVA = Best Corrected Visual Acuity; CI = Confidence Interval; ETDRS = Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study; LOCF = Last Observation Carried Forward (baseline values are not carried forward); 95.1% confidence intervals were presented to adjust for safety assessment conducted during the study
a After treatment initiation with 3 monthly doses
b EYLEA group minus the ranibizumab group |
Treatment effects in evaluable subgroups (e.g., age, gender, race, baseline visual acuity) in each study were in general consistent with the results in the overall populations.
Figure 14: Mean Change in Visual Acuity from Baseline to Week 96* in VIEW1 and VIEW2 Studies
*Patient dosing schedules were individualized from weeks 52 to 96 using a modified 12-week dosing regimen.
VIEW1 and VIEW2 studies were both 96 weeks in duration. However, after 52 weeks patients no longer followed a fixed dosing schedule. Between week 52 and week 96, patients continued to receive the drug and dosage strength to which they were initially randomized on a modified 12 week dosing schedule (doses at least every 12 weeks and additional doses as needed). Therefore, during the second year of these studies there was no active control comparison arm.
Macular Edema Following Central Retinal Vein Occlusion (CRVO)
The safety and efficacy of EYLEA were assessed in two randomized, multi-center, double-masked, sham-controlled studies in patients with macular edema following CRVO. A total of 358 patients were treated and evaluable for efficacy (217 with EYLEA) in the two studies (COPERNICUS and GALILEO). In both studies, patients were randomly assigned in a 3:2 ratio to either 2 mg EYLEA administered every 4 weeks (2Q4), or sham injections (control group) administered every 4 weeks for a total of 6 injections. Protocol-specified visits occurred every 28±7 days. Patient ages ranged from 22 to 89 years with a mean of 64 years.
In both studies, the primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients who gained at least 15 letters in BCVA compared to baseline. At week 24, the EYLEA 2 mg Q4 group was superior to the control group for the primary endpoint. Results from the analysis of the COPERNICUS and GALILEO studies are shown in Table 6 and Figure 15 below.
Table 6: Efficacy Outcomes at Week 24 (Full Analysis Set with LOCF) in COPERNICUS and GALILEO Studies
|
COPERNICUS |
GALILEO |
Control
N=73 |
EYLEA 2 mg Q4 weeks
N=114 |
Control
N=68 |
EYLEA 2 mg Q4 weeks
N=103 |
| Efficacy Outcomes |
| Proportion of patients who gained at least 15 letters in BCVA from Baseline (%) |
12% |
56% |
22% |
60% |
| Weighted Difference a b (%) (95.1% CI) |
|
44.8%c
(32.9, 56.6) |
|
38.3%c
(24.4, 52.1) |
| Mean change in BCVA as measured by ETDRS letter score from Baseline (SD) |
-4.0 (18.0) |
17.3 (12.8) |
3.3 (14.1) |
18.0 (12.2) |
| Difference in LS mean a d (95.1% CI) |
|
21.7c
(17.3, 26.1) |
|
14.7c
(10.7, 18.7) |
a Difference is EYLEA 2 mg Q4 weeks minus Control
b Difference and CI are calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for baseline factors; 95.1% confidence intervals were presented to adjust for the multiple assessments conducted during the study
c p<0.01 compared with Control
d LS mean and CI based on an ANCOVA model |
Figure 15: Mean Change in BCVA as Measured by ETDRS Letter Score from Baseline to Week 24 in COPERNICUS and GALILEO Studies
Treatment effects in evaluable subgroups (e.g., age, gender, race, baseline visual acuity, retinal perfusion status, and CRVO duration) in each study and in the combined analysis were in general consistent with the results in the overall populations.
Macular Edema Following Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion (BRVO)
The safety and efficacy of EYLEA were assessed in a 24-week, randomized, multi-center, double-masked, controlled study in patients with macular edema following BRVO. A total of 181 patients were treated and evaluable for efficacy (91 with EYLEA) in the VIBRANT study. In the study, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either 2 mg EYLEA administered every 4 weeks (2Q4) or laser photocoagulation administered at baseline and subsequently as needed (control group). Protocol-specified visits occurred every 28±7 days. Patient ages ranged from 42 to 94 years with a mean of 65 years.
In the VIBRANT study, the primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients who gained at least 15 letters in BCVA at week 24 compared to baseline. At week 24, the EYLEA 2 mg Q4 group was superior to the control group for the primary endpoint.
Detailed results from the analysis of the VIBRANT study are shown in Table 7 and Figure 16 below.
Table 7: Efficacy Outcomes at Week 24 (Full Analysis Set with LOCF) in VIBRANT Study
|
VIBRANT |
Control
N=90 |
EYLEA 2 mg Q4 weeks
N=91 |
| Efficacy Outcomes |
| Proportion of patients who gained at least 15 letters in BCVA from Baseline (%) |
26.7% |
52.7% |
| Weighted Difference a,b (%) (95% CI) |
|
26.6%c
(13.0, 40.1) |
| Mean change in BCVA as measured by ETDRS letter score from Baseline (SD) |
6.9 (12.9) |
17.0 (11.9) |
| Difference in LS mean a,d (95% CI) |
|
10.5c
(7.1, 14.0) |
a Difference is EYLEA 2 mg Q4 weeks minus Control
b Difference and CI are calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted for region (North America vs. Japan) and baseline BCVA category (> 20/200 and ≤ 20/200)
c p<0.01 compared with Control
d LS mean and CI based on an ANCOVA model |
Figure 16: Mean Change in BCVA as Measured by ETDRS Letter Score from Baseline to Week 24 in VIBRANT Study
Treatment effects in evaluable subgroups (e.g., age, gender, and baseline retinal perfusion status) in the study were in general consistent with the results in the overall populations.
Diabetic Macular Edema (DME)
The safety and efficacy of EYLEA were assessed in two randomized, multi-center, double-masked, controlled studies in patients with DME. A total of 862 randomized and treated patients were evaluable for efficacy. Protocol-specified visits occurred every 28±7 days. Patient ages ranged from 23 to 87 years with a mean of 63 years.
Of those, 576 were randomized to EYLEA groups in the two studies (VIVID and VISTA). In each study, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to 1 of 3 dosing regimens: 1) EYLEA administered 2 mg every 8 weeks following 5 initial monthly injections (EYLEA 2Q8); 2) EYLEA administered 2 mg every 4 weeks (EYLEA 2Q4); and 3) macular laser photocoagulation (at baseline and then as needed). Beginning at week 24, patients meeting a pre-specified threshold of vision loss were eligible to receive additional treatment: patients in the EYLEA groups could receive laser and patients in the laser group could receive EYLEA.
In both studies, the primary efficacy endpoint was the mean change from baseline in BCVA at week 52 as measured by ETDRS letter score. Efficacy of both EYLEA 2Q8 and EYLEA 2Q4 groups was statistically superior to the control group. This statistically superior improvement in BCVA was maintained at week 100 in both studies.
Results from the analysis of the VIVID and VISTA studies are shown in Table 8 and Figure 17 below.
Table 8: Efficacy Outcomes at Weeks 52 and 100 (Full Analysis Set with LOCF) in VIVID and VISTA Studies
| Full Analysis Set |
VIVID |
VISTA |
| EYLEA 2 mg Q8 weeks a |
EYLEA 2 mg Q4 weeks |
Control |
EYLEA 2 mg Q8 weeks a |
EYLEA 2 mg Q4 weeks |
Control |
| N=135 |
N=136 |
N=132 |
N=151 |
N=154 |
N=154 |
| Efficacy Outcomes at Week 52 |
| Mean change in BCVA as measured by ETDRS letter score from Baseline (SD) |
10.7 (9.3) |
10.5 (9.6) |
1.2 (10.6) |
10.7 (8.2) |
12.5 (9.5) |
0.2 (12.5) |
| Differenceb, c in LS mean (97.5% CI) |
9.1d (6.3, 11.8) |
9.3d (6.5, 12.0) |
|
10.5d (7.7, 13.2) |
12.2d (9.4, 15.0) |
|
| Proportion of patients who gained at least 15 letters in BCVA from Baseline (%) |
33.3% |
32.4% |
9.1% |
31.1% |
41.6% |
7.8% |
| Adjusted Differencec,e (%) (97.5% CI) |
24.2%d (13.5, 34.9) |
23.3%d (12.6, 33.9) |
|
23.3%d (13.5, 33.1) |
34.2%d (24.1, 44.4) |
|
| Efficacy Outcomes at Week 100 |
| Mean change in BCVA as measured by ETDRS letter score from Baseline (SD) |
9.4 (10.5) |
11.4 (11.2) |
0.7 (11.8) |
11.1 (10.7) |
11.5 (13.8) |
0.9 (13.9) |
| Differenceb,c in LS mean (97.5% CI) |
8.2d (5.2, 11.3) |
10.7d (7.6, 13.8) |
|
10.1d (7.0, 13.3) |
10.6d (7.1, 14.2) |
|
| Proportion of patients who gained at least 15 letters in BCVA from Baseline (%) |
31.1% |
38.2% |
12.1% |
33.1% |
38.3% |
13.0% |
| Adjusted Differencec,e (%) (97.5% CI) |
19.0%d (8.0, 29.9) |
26.1%d (14.8, 37.5) |
|
20.1%d (9.6, 30.6) |
25.8%d (15.1, 36.6) |
|
a After treatment initiation with 5 monthly injections
b LS mean and CI based on an ANCOVA model with baseline BCVA measurement as a covariate and a factor for treatment group. Additionally, protocol specified stratification factors were included in the model
c Difference is EYLEA group minus Control group
d p<0.01 compared with Control
e Difference with confidence interval (CI) and statistical test is calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by protocol specified stratification factors |
Figure 17: Mean Change in BCVA as Measured by ETDRS Letter Score from Baseline to Week 100 in VIVID and VISTA Studies
Treatment effects in the subgroup of patients who had previously been treated with a VEGF inhibitor prior to study participation were similar to those seen in patients who were VEGF inhibitor naïve prior to study participation.
Treatment effects in evaluable subgroups (e.g., age, gender, race, baseline HbA1c, baseline visual acuity, prior anti-VEGF therapy) in each study were in general consistent with the results in the overall populations.
Diabetic Retinopathy (DR)
Efficacy and safety data of EYLEA in diabetic retinopathy (DR) are derived from the VIVID, VISTA, and PANORAMA studies.
VIVID AND VISTA
In the VIVID and VISTA studies, an efficacy outcome was the change in the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale (ETDRS-DRSS). The ETDRS-DRSS score was assessed at baseline and approximately every 6 months thereafter for the duration of the studies [see Clinical Studies].
All enrolled patients had DR and DME at baseline. The majority of patients enrolled in these studies (77%) had moderate-to-severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) based on the ETDRS-DRSS. At week 100, the proportion of patients improving by at least 2 steps on the ETDRS-DRSS was significantly greater in both EYLEA treatment groups (2Q4 and 2Q8) when compared to the control group.
Results from the analysis of ETDRS-DRSS at week 100 in the VIVID and VISTA studies are shown in Table 9 below.
Table 9: Proportion of Patients Who Achieved a ≥2-Step Improvement from Baseline in the ETDRS-DRSS Score at Week 100 in VIVID and VISTA Studies
| Evaluable Patientsb |
VIVID |
VISTA |
| EYLEA 2 mg Q8 weeks a |
EYLEA 2 mg Q4 weeks |
Control |
EYLEA 2 mg Q8 weeks a |
EYLEA 2 mg Q4 weeks |
Control |
| N=101 |
N=97 |
N=99 |
N=148 |
N=153 |
N=150 |
| Number of patients with a ≥2-step improvement on ETDRS-DRSS from Baseline (%) |
32 (32%) |
27 (28%) |
7 (7%) |
56 (38%) |
58 (38%) |
24 (16%) |
| Differencec,d (%) (97.5% CI) |
24%e
(12, 36) |
21%e
(9, 33) |
|
22%e
(11, 33) |
22%e
(11, 33) |
|
Non-gradable post-baseline ETDRS-DRSS values were treated as missing and were imputed using the last gradable ETDRS-DRSS values (including baseline values if all post-baseline values were missing or non-gradable)
a After treatment initiation with 5 monthly injections
b The number of evaluable patients included all patients who had valid ETDRS-DRSS data at baseline
c Difference with confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by protocol specified stratification factors
d Difference is EYLEA minus Control group
e p<0.01 compared with Control |
Results of the evaluable subgroups (e.g., age, gender, race, baseline HbA1c, baseline visual acuity) on the proportion of patients who achieved a ≥2-step improvement on the ETDRS-DRSS from baseline to week 100 were, in general, consistent with those in the overall population.
PANORAMA
The PANORAMA study assessed the safety and efficacy of EYLEA in a randomized, multi-center, double-masked, controlled study in patients with moderately severe to severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) (ETDRS-DRSS of 47 or 53), without central-involved DME (CI-DME). A total of 402 randomized patients were evaluable for efficacy. Protocol-specified visits occurred every 28±7 days for the first 5 visits, then every 8 weeks (56±7 days). Patient ages ranged from 25 to 85 years with a mean of 55.7 years.
Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to 1 of 3 dosing regimens: 1) 3 initial monthly EYLEA 2 mg injections followed by one injection after 8 weeks and then one injection every 16 weeks (EYLEA 2Q16); 2) 5 monthly EYLEA 2 mg injections followed by one injection every 8 weeks (EYLEA 2Q8); and 3) sham treatment.
The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients who improved by ≥2 steps on the DRSS from baseline to week 24 in the combined EYLEA groups and at week 52 in the 2Q16 and 2Q8 groups individually versus sham. A key secondary endpoint was the proportion of patients developing the composite endpoint of proliferative diabetic retinopathy or anterior segment neovascularization through week 52.
At week 52, efficacy in the 2Q16 and 2Q8 groups was superior to the sham group (see Table 10 and Table 11). The proportion of patients with a ≥2-step improvement over time is shown in Figure 18.
Table 10: Proportion of Patients Who Achieved a ≥2-Step Improvement from Baseline in the ETDRS-DRSS Score at Weeks 24 and 52 in PANORAMA
| Full Analysis Set |
PANORAMA |
| Week 24 |
Week 52 |
| EYLEA Combined |
Control (sham) |
EYLEA 2Q16 |
EYLEA 2Q8 |
Control (sham) |
| N=269 |
N=133 |
N=135 |
N=134 |
N=133 |
| Proportion of patients with a ≥2-step improvement on ETDRS-DRSS from Baseline (%) |
58% |
6% |
65% |
80% |
15% |
| Adjusted Differencea (%) (95% CI)b |
52% c
(45, 60) |
|
50%c
(40, 60) |
65%c
(56, 74) |
|
Non-gradable post-baseline ETDRS-DRSS values were treated as missing and were imputed using the last gradable ETDRS-DRSS values (including baseline values if all post-baseline values were missing or non-gradable)
a Difference is EYLEA group minus sham
b Difference with CI was calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by baseline DRSS stratification variable
c p<0.01 compared with Control. p-value was calculated using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by baseline DRSS stratification variable. |
Figure 18: Proportion of Patients Who Achieved a ≥2-Step Improvement from Baseline in the ETDRS-DRSS Score Through Week 52 in PANORAMA
Table 11: Effect of EYLEA on Worsening of Diabetic Retinopathy in PANORAMA through Week 52
| Full Analysis Set |
EYLEA 2Q16
N=135 |
EYLEA 2Q8
N=134 |
Control (Sham)
N=133 |
| Composite Endpoint of Developing PDR or ASNVa |
| Event Rateb |
4.0%d |
2.4%d |
20.1% |
| Hazard Ratio |
0.15 |
0.12 |
|
| Development of Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathyc |
| Event Rateb |
1.6%d |
0.0%d |
11.9% |
| Hazard Ratio |
0.11 |
0.00 |
|
PDR = Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy; ASNV = Anterior Segment Neovascularization
a As diagnosed by either the Reading Center or Investigator through week 52
b Estimated using Kaplan-Meier method
c Defined as ≥2-step worsening on the ETDRS-DRSS score through week 52
d p<0.01 compared with Control |
Retinopathy Of Prematurity (ROP)
Efficacy and safety data of EYLEA in ROP are derived from two studies (BUTTERFLEYE and FIREFLEYE/FIREFLEYE NEXT). BUTTERFLEYE was a 52-week study. FIREFLEYE included 24 weeks of treatment and follow-up. FIREFLEYE NEXT was an observational followup of FIREFLEYE through week 52.
Both BUTTERFLEYE and FIREFLEYE studies assessed the efficacy, safety and tolerability of EYLEA in randomized, 2-arm, open-label, parallel-group studies. The studies were conducted in pre-term infants with ROP providing a comparison between EYLEA treatment and laser photocoagulation therapy (laser). Each eligible eye received the assigned study treatment at baseline. Re-treatment and/or rescue treatment was administered if needed based on prespecified criteria. Rescue treatment could potentially include the alternative treatment (EYLEA or laser). Re-treatment with aflibercept, if required, was administered up to 2 times in a particular eye, with at least 28 days between consecutive injections.
Eligible patients had a maximum gestational age at birth of 32 weeks or a maximum birth weight of 1500 g, had to weigh > 800 g on the day of treatment and had treatment-naïve ROP classified according to the International Classification for Retinopathy of Prematurity (IC-ROP 2005) in at least one eye with one of the following retinal findings:
- ROP Zone 1 Stage 1+, 2+, 3 or 3+, or
- ROP Zone II Stage 2+ or 3+, or
- AP-ROP (aggressive posterior ROP)
The primary efficacy endpoint of each study was the proportion of patients with absence of active ROP and unfavorable structural outcomes (retinal detachment, macular dragging, macular fold, retrolental opacity) at week 52 of chronological age.
In BUTTERFLEYE, patients were randomized in a 3:1 ratio to receive 1 of 2 treatment regimens: 1) EYLEA 0.4 mg at baseline and if required, up to 2 additional injections and 2) laser photocoagulation in each eye at baseline and if required, retreatment. In FIREFLEYE, patients were randomized to the same two treatments, but in a 2:1 ratio. Rescue treatment was administered if required, per pre-specified criteria. In both studies, greater than 92% of all treated patients in the aflibercept group received bilateral injections during the study.
Results from week 52 of chronological age in the BUTTERFLEYE and FIREFLEYE/FIREFLEYE NEXT studies are shown in Table 12 below.
The proportion of patients without clinically significant reactivations of ROP who also did not develop unfavorable structural outcomes was higher in each arm of each study than would have been expected in infants who had not received treatment. Neither trial demonstrated superiority of one arm compared to the other arm. Neither trial demonstrated inferiority of one arm compared to the other arm.
Table 12: Efficacy Outcomes at Week 52 Chronological Age in BUTTERFLEYE and FIREFLEYE/FIREFLEYE NEXT Studies
|
BUTTERFLEYEa |
FIREFLEYE/ FIREFLEYE NEXTa |
| EYLEA 0.4 mg |
Laser |
EYLEA 0.4 mg |
Laser |
| Full Analysis Setb |
|
N=93 |
N=27 |
N=75 |
N=38 |
| Efficacy Outcomes |
| Proportion of patients with absence of active ROP and unfavorable structural outcomes (%) |
79.6% |
77.8% |
78.7% |
81.6% |
| Adjusted Differencec (%) (95.1% CI) |
1.81% (-15.7, 19.3) |
-1.88% (-17.0, 13.2) |
a In case of bilateral treatment, success was achieved only if both eyes met the primary endpoint. Treatment interval between 2 doses injected into the same eye had to be at least 28 days.
b Included patients who were both randomized and treated from the BUTTERFLEYE and FIREFLEYE/FIREFLEYE NEXT studies. This was the primary analysis population as defined in the Statistical Analysis Plans.
c Difference with confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by baseline ROP status. Success criterion: Lower limit of 95.1% CI above -5%. |