PURPOSE: To provide a perspective on the impact of the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trial (CATT) on future clinical practices. DESIGN: Interpretation of trial outcomes relative to clinical use of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) treatments, assessment of the influence of study design and execution on results, and review of unanalyzed safety data in the online supplement. METHODS: Expert opinion. RESULTS: The CATT study supports the selection of either ranibizumab or bevacizumab for treatment of AMD based on factors other than efficacy, such as cost, because monthly administration of bevacizumab was noninferior to the reference treatment of monthly ranibizumab in improving visual acuity at 1 year. Visual acuity results for bevacizumab as needed were inconclusive for noninferiority relative to monthly administration of either drug. The secondary outcome of decrease in thickness at the foveal center as measured by time-domain optical coherence tomography significantly favored the monthly ranibizumab group vs the bevacizumab-as-needed group but is more difficult to interpret as it did not correlate with visual acuity and is less appropriate for a noninferiority design. Bevacizumab groups had a statistically higher observed risk of serious adverse events; however, scrutiny of the online supplements shows similar numbers of cardiac and neurologic events in bevacizumab and ranibizumab users. Information regarding fellow eye treatment with anti-VEGF agents was not given. CONCLUSIONS: CATT provides the first level I evidence for bevacizumab in a large number of patients with neovascular AMD. The trial supports use of either drug as primary therapy and suggests that modification of monthly dosing regimens is feasible. A difference in cardiovascular safety between the 2 drugs was not apparent on inspection of the supplementary safety data.
PURPOSE: To provide a perspective on the impact of the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trial (CATT) on future clinical practices. DESIGN: Interpretation of trial outcomes relative to clinical use of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) treatments, assessment of the influence of study design and execution on results, and review of unanalyzed safety data in the online supplement. METHODS: Expert opinion. RESULTS: The CATT study supports the selection of either ranibizumab or bevacizumab for treatment of AMD based on factors other than efficacy, such as cost, because monthly administration of bevacizumab was noninferior to the reference treatment of monthly ranibizumab in improving visual acuity at 1 year. Visual acuity results for bevacizumab as needed were inconclusive for noninferiority relative to monthly administration of either drug. The secondary outcome of decrease in thickness at the foveal center as measured by time-domain optical coherence tomography significantly favored the monthly ranibizumab group vs the bevacizumab-as-needed group but is more difficult to interpret as it did not correlate with visual acuity and is less appropriate for a noninferiority design. Bevacizumab groups had a statistically higher observed risk of serious adverse events; however, scrutiny of the online supplements shows similar numbers of cardiac and neurologic events in bevacizumab and ranibizumab users. Information regarding fellow eye treatment with anti-VEGF agents was not given. CONCLUSIONS: CATT provides the first level I evidence for bevacizumab in a large number of patients with neovascular AMD. The trial supports use of either drug as primary therapy and suggests that modification of monthly dosing regimens is feasible. A difference in cardiovascular safety between the 2 drugs was not apparent on inspection of the supplementary safety data.
Authors: Ryan M Rich; Philip J Rosenfeld; Carmen A Puliafito; Sander R Dubovy; Janet L Davis; Harry W Flynn; Serafin Gonzalez; William J Feuer; Richard C Lin; Geeta A Lalwani; Jackie K Nguyen; Gaurav Kumar Journal: Retina Date: 2006 May-Jun Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Andrew A Moshfeghi; Philip J Rosenfeld; Carmen A Puliafito; Stephan Michels; Erin N Marcus; Joshua D Lenchus; Anna S Venkatraman Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2006-10-05 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: David M Brown; Peter K Kaiser; Mark Michels; Gisele Soubrane; Jeffrey S Heier; Robert Y Kim; Judy P Sy; Susan Schneider Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-10-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Stephan Michels; Philip J Rosenfeld; Carmen A Puliafito; Erin N Marcus; Anna S Venkatraman Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: J Mordenti; R A Cuthbertson; N Ferrara; K Thomsen; L Berleau; V Licko; P C Allen; C R Valverde; Y G Meng; D T Fei; K M Fourre; A M Ryan Journal: Toxicol Pathol Date: 1999 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 1.902
Authors: Jocelyn Holash; Sam Davis; Nick Papadopoulos; Susan D Croll; Lillian Ho; Michelle Russell; Patricia Boland; Ray Leidich; Donna Hylton; Elena Burova; Ella Ioffe; Tammy Huang; Czeslaw Radziejewski; Kevin Bailey; James P Fandl; Tom Daly; Stanley J Wiegand; George D Yancopoulos; John S Rudge Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2002-08-12 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Quan Dong Nguyen; Syed Mahmood Shah; David J Browning; Henry Hudson; Peter Sonkin; Seenu M Hariprasad; Peter Kaiser; Jason S Slakter; Julia Haller; Diana V Do; William F Mieler; Karen Chu; Ke Yang; Avner Ingerman; Robert L Vitti; Alyson J Berliner; Jesse M Cedarbaum; Peter A Campochiaro Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2009-08-22 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Lauren A Dalvin; Matthew R Starr; Jackson E AbouChehade; Gena M Damento; Maria Garcia; Saumya M Shah; David O Hodge; Irene Meissner; Sophie J Bakri; Raymond Iezzi Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Francesco Parmeggiani; Mario R Romano; Ciro Costagliola; Francesco Semeraro; Carlo Incorvaia; Sergio D'Angelo; Paolo Perri; Paolo De Palma; Katia De Nadai; Adolfo Sebastiani Journal: Mediators Inflamm Date: 2012-11-07 Impact factor: 4.711