Clinical Pharmacology for Yesafili
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 products act 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 aflibercept treatment decisions [see Clinical Studies].
Pharmacokinetics
Aflibercept is administered intravitreally to exert local effects in the eye. In patients with wet AMD, RVO, or DME, following intravitreal administration of aflibercept, 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 aflibercept 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
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
The observed incidence of anti-drug antibodies is highly dependent on the sensitivity and specificity of the assay. Differences in assay methods preclude meaningful comparisons of the incidence of anti-drug antibodies in the studies described below with the incidence of anti-drug antibodies in other studies, including those of aflibercept or of other aflibercept products.
In the wet AMD, RVO, and DME studies, the pre-treatment incidence of immunoreactivity to aflibercept was approximately 1% to 3% across treatment groups. After dosing with aflibercept for 24-100 weeks, antibodies to aflibercept were detected in a similar percentage range 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. Similar effects were not seen in clinical studies [see Clinical Studies].
Clinical Studies
Neovascular (Wet) Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD)
The safety and efficacy of aflibercept were assessed in two randomized, multi-center, double-masked, activecontrolled studies in patients with wet AMD. A total of 2412 patients were treated and evaluable for efficacy (1817 with aflibercept) 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) aflibercept administered 2 mg every 8 weeks following 3 initial monthly doses (aflibercept 2Q8); 2) aflibercept administered 2 mg every 4 weeks (aflibercept 2Q4); 3) aflibercept 0.5 mg administered every 4 weeks (aflibercept 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 aflibercept 2Q8 and aflibercept 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 4 and Figure 13 below.
Table 4: Efficacy Outcomes at Week 52 (Full Analysis Set with LOCF) in VIEW1 and VIEW2 Studies
|
VIEW1 |
VIEW2 |
| Aflibercept 2 mg Q8 weeks a |
Aflibercept 2 mg Q4 weeks |
ranibizumab 0.5 mg Q4 weeks |
Aflibercept 2 mg Q8 weeks a |
Aflibercept 2 mg Q4 weeks |
ranibizumab 0.5 mg Q4 weeks |
| Full Analysis Set |
N=301 |
N=304 |
N=304 |
N=306 |
N=309 |
N=291 |
| Efficacy Outcomes |
| Proportion of patients who maintained visual acuity (%) (<15 letters of BC VA loss) |
94% |
95% |
94% |
95% |
95% |
95% |
| Difference b (%) (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 |
| Difference b 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 Aflibercept 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 13: Mean Change in Visual Acuity from Baseline to Week 96* in VIEW1 and VIEW2 Studies
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 aflibercept were assessed in two randomized, multi-center, double-masked, shamcontrolled studies in patients with macular edema following CRVO. A total of 358 patients were treated and evaluable for efficacy (217 with aflibercept) in the two studies (COPERNICUS and GALILEO). In both studies, patients were randomly assigned in a 3:2 ratio to either 2 mg aflibercept 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 aflibercept 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 5 and Figure 14 below.
Table 5: Efficacy Outcomes at Week 24 (Full Analysis Set with LOCF) in COPERNICUS and GALILEO Studies
|
COPERNICUS |
GALILEO |
Control
N=73 |
Aflibercept 2 mg Q4 weeks
N=114 |
Control
N=68 |
Aflibercept 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 |
-4 |
17.3 |
3.3 |
18 |
| measured by ETDRS letter score from Baseline (SD) |
-18 |
-12.8 |
-14.1 |
-12.2 |
| Difference in LS mean a, d |
|
21.7c |
|
14.7c |
| (95.1% CI) |
|
(17.3, 26.1) |
(10.7, 18.7) |
a Difference is aflibercept 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 14: 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 aflibercept 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 aflibercept) in the VIBRANT study. In the study, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either 2 mg aflibercept 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 aflibercept 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 6 and Figure 15 below.
Table 6: Efficacy Outcomes at Week 24 (Full Analysis Set with LOCF) in VIBRANT Study
|
VIBRANT |
Control
N=90 |
Aflibercept 2 mg Q4 weeks
N=91 |
| Efficacy Outcomes |
| Proportion of patients who gained at least 15 letters in BCVA from Baseline (%) |
26.70% |
52.70% |
| 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 (119) |
| Difference in LS mean a, d (95% CI) |
|
10.5c (7.1, 14.0) |
a Difference is aflibercept 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 15: 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 aflibercept 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 aflibercept 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) aflibercept administered 2 mg every 8 weeks following 5 initial monthly injections (aflibercept 2Q8); 2) aflibercept administered 2 mg every 4 weeks (aflibercept 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 aflibercept groups could receive laser and patients in the laser group could receive aflibercept.
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 aflibercept 2Q8 and aflibercept 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 7 and Figure 16 below.
Table 7: Efficacy Outcomes at Weeks 52 and 100 (Full Analysis Set with LOCF) in VIVID and VISTA Studies
|
VIVID |
VISTA |
| Aflibercept 2 mg Q8 weeks a |
Aflibercept 2 mg Q4 weeks |
Control |
Aflibercept 2 mg Q8 weeksa |
Aflibercept 2 mg Q4 weeks |
| Full Analysis Set |
N=135 |
N=136 |
N=132 |
N=151 |
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) |
| 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 (%) |
33.30% |
32.40% |
9.10% |
31.10% |
41.60% |
| 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 (112) |
0.7 (118) |
11.1 (10.7) |
11.5 (13.8) |
| 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 (%) |
31.10% |
38.20% |
12.10% |
33.10% |
38.30% |
| 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 aflibercept 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 16: 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 aflibercept 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 aflibercept 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 8 below.
Table 8: Proportion of Patients Who Achieved a ≥2-Step Improvement from Baseline in the ETDRSDRSS Score at Week 100 in VIVID and VISTA Studies
|
VIVID |
VISTA |
| Aflibercept 2 mg Q8 weeks a |
Aflibercept 2 mg Q4 weeks |
Control |
Aflibercept 2 mg Q8 weeksa |
Aflibercept 2 mg Q4 weeks |
Control |
| Evaluable Patientsb |
N=101 |
N=97 |
N=99 |
N=148 |
N=153 |
N=150 |
| Number of patients with |
32 |
27 |
7 |
56 |
58 |
24 |
| a ≥2-step improvement on ETDRS-DRSS from Baseline (%) |
-32% |
-28% |
-7% |
-38% |
-38% |
-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 aflibercept 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 aflibercept in a randomized, multi-center, doublemasked, 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 aflibercept 2 mg injections followed by one injection after 8 weeks and then one injection every 16 weeks (aflibercept 2Q16); 2) 5 monthly aflibercept 2 mg injections followed by one injection every 8 weeks (aflibercept 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 aflibercept 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 9 and Table 10). The proportion of patients with a ≥2-step improvement over time is shown in Figure 17.
Table 9: Proportion of Patients Who Achieved a ≥2-Step Improvement from Baseline in the ETDRSDRSS Score at Weeks 24 and 52 in PANORAMA
|
PANORAMA |
| Week 24 |
Week 52 |
| Aflibercept Combined |
Control (sham) |
Aflibercept 2Q16 |
Aflibercept 2Q8 |
Control (sham) |
| Full Analysis Set |
N=269 |
N=133 |
5 3 =1 N |
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 aflibercept 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 17: Proportion of Patients Who Achieved a ≥2-Step Improvement from Baseline in the ETDRS-DRSS Score Through Week 52 in PANORAMA
Table 10: Effect of Aflibercept on Worsening of Diabetic Retinopathy in PANORAMA through Week 52
|
Aflibercept 2Q16 |
Aflibercept 2Q8 |
Control (Sham) |
| Full Analysis Set |
N=135 |
N=134 |
N=133 |
| Composite Endpoint of Developing PDR or ASNVa |
| Event Rateb |
4.0%d |
2.4%d |
20.10% |
| Hazard Ratio |
0.15 |
0.12 |
|
| Development of Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathyc |
| Event Rateb |
1.6%d |
0.0%d |
11.90% |
| Hazard Ratio |
0.11 |
0 |
|
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 |