Glenn J Jaffe1, C Stephen Foster2, Carlos E Pavesio3, Dario A Paggiarino4, Gerard E Riedel4. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: jaffe001@mc.duke.edu. 2. Massachusetts Eye Research and Surgery Institution, Ocular Immunology & Uveitis Foundation, Waltham, Massachusetts. 3. Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom. 4. EyePoint Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watertown, Massachusetts.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the safety and efficacy of an intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide (FA) insert to manage inflammation associated with chronic noninfectious posterior uveitis. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, prospective, doubled-masked, sham-controlled, 3-year phase 3 clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred twenty-nine participants with recurrent noninfectious posterior uveitis were assigned randomly to FA insert (n = 87) or sham injection (n = 42). The more severely affected eye in participants with bilateral disease was designated as the study eye. METHODS: The insert (FA, 0.18 mg) was injected into the vitreous cavity; sham injection mimicked the insert delivery procedure. Ophthalmic examinations, OCT, and ocular tolerability and discomfort assessments were conducted; study visits were on days 7 and 28 and months 2, 3, 6, 9, and 12. Uveitis recurrence was treated as needed. The 6-month recurrence rate was the primary outcome measure. RESULTS: The 6-month (28% and 91%) and 12-month (38% and 98%) uveitis recurrence rates were significantly lower (P < 0.001) with FA insert vs. sham, respectively. Fewer recurrences per study eye (mean, 0.7 vs. 2.5), lower incidence of 15-letter or more decrease in best-corrected visual acuity (14% vs. 31%), and reduced systemic (19% vs. 40%) and local (7% vs. 62%) uveitis adjunctive treatments were observed with FA insert vs. sham, respectively. The FA insert group showed higher rates of cataract. Intraocular pressure-lowering treatment use was similar between groups. No deaths, treatment-related study discontinuations, or unanticipated safety signals were observed through 12 months. CONCLUSIONS:Chronic noninfectious posterior uveitis was managed successfully in this study population; FA insert eyes experienced fewer uveitis recurrence episodes, required fewer adjunctive treatments, and demonstrated less visual acuity loss compared with sham eyes. The FA insert treatment group showed higher rates of cataract; delivery by injection was not associated with an increase in ocular adverse events or any other safety measures not typically associated with local steroid use, suggesting the procedure is appropriate for an office setting.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To assess the safety and efficacy of an intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide (FA) insert to manage inflammation associated with chronic noninfectious posterior uveitis. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, prospective, doubled-masked, sham-controlled, 3-year phase 3 clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred twenty-nine participants with recurrent noninfectious posterior uveitis were assigned randomly to FA insert (n = 87) or sham injection (n = 42). The more severely affected eye in participants with bilateral disease was designated as the study eye. METHODS: The insert (FA, 0.18 mg) was injected into the vitreous cavity; sham injection mimicked the insert delivery procedure. Ophthalmic examinations, OCT, and ocular tolerability and discomfort assessments were conducted; study visits were on days 7 and 28 and months 2, 3, 6, 9, and 12. Uveitis recurrence was treated as needed. The 6-month recurrence rate was the primary outcome measure. RESULTS: The 6-month (28% and 91%) and 12-month (38% and 98%) uveitis recurrence rates were significantly lower (P < 0.001) with FA insert vs. sham, respectively. Fewer recurrences per study eye (mean, 0.7 vs. 2.5), lower incidence of 15-letter or more decrease in best-corrected visual acuity (14% vs. 31%), and reduced systemic (19% vs. 40%) and local (7% vs. 62%) uveitis adjunctive treatments were observed with FA insert vs. sham, respectively. The FA insert group showed higher rates of cataract. Intraocular pressure-lowering treatment use was similar between groups. No deaths, treatment-related study discontinuations, or unanticipated safety signals were observed through 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic noninfectious posterior uveitis was managed successfully in this study population; FA insert eyes experienced fewer uveitis recurrence episodes, required fewer adjunctive treatments, and demonstrated less visual acuity loss compared with sham eyes. The FA insert treatment group showed higher rates of cataract; delivery by injection was not associated with an increase in ocular adverse events or any other safety measures not typically associated with local steroid use, suggesting the procedure is appropriate for an office setting.
Authors: Faruque Ghanchi; Rupert Bourne; Susan M Downes; Richard Gale; Christina Rennie; Ian Tapply; Sobha Sivaprasad Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 4.456
Authors: Xavier G L V Pouwels; Svenja Petersohn; Vanesa Huertas Carrera; Alastair K Denniston; Annette Chalker; Heike Raatz; Nigel Armstrong; Dhwani Shah; Willem Witlox; Gill Worthy; Caro Noake; Rob Riemsma; Jos Kleijnen; Manuela A Joore Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Kathryn L Pepple; Leslie Wilson; Russell N Van Gelder; Marina Kovaleva; Obinna C Ubah; John Steven; Caroline J Barelle; Andrew Porter Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2019-09-18 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Adrian T Fung; Tuan Tran; Lyndell L Lim; Chameen Samarawickrama; Jennifer Arnold; Mark Gillies; Caroline Catt; Logan Mitchell; Andrew Symons; Robert Buttery; Lisa Cottee; Krishna Tumuluri; Paul Beaumont Journal: Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2020-01-22 Impact factor: 4.207