Trial Outcomes & Findings for Comparison of Age-related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials: Lucentis-Avastin Trial (NCT NCT00593450)
NCT ID: NCT00593450
Last Updated: 2017-08-21
Results Overview
Visual acuity testing was performed with the Electronic Visual Tester (EVA) following the ETDRS protocol. VA score is measured as number of letters read correctly. The VA score change is the difference of the VA score at 1 Year and the VA score at baseline. In this study, the outcome VA score change is ranged from -71 to 52, with the higher VA score change the better visual acuity improvement.
COMPLETED
PHASE3
1208 participants
Baseline and 1 Year
2017-08-21
Participant Flow
Note: The Data and Safety Monitoring Committee for CATT recommended excluding the data for all patients (N=23) from one center because of serious protocol non-compliance. Unless specified otherwise, only the 1185 patients enrolled by the remaining 43 centers are included in analyses.
Participant milestones
| Measure |
1-Lucentis Monthly
Lucentis® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Lucentis® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
2-Avastin Monthly
Avastin® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Avastin® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
3-Lucentis as Needed
Lucentis® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
4-Avastin as Needed
Avastin® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Overall Study
STARTED
|
301
|
286
|
298
|
300
|
|
Overall Study
COMPLETED
|
284
|
265
|
285
|
271
|
|
Overall Study
NOT COMPLETED
|
17
|
21
|
13
|
29
|
Reasons for withdrawal
Withdrawal data not reported
Baseline Characteristics
Comparison of Age-related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials: Lucentis-Avastin Trial
Baseline characteristics by cohort
| Measure |
1-Lucentis Monthly
n=301 Participants
Lucentis® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Lucentis® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
2-Avastin Monthly
n=286 Participants
Avastin® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Avastin® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
3-Lucentis as Needed
n=298 Participants
Lucentis® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
4-Avastin as Needed
n=300 Participants
Avastin® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
Total
n=1185 Participants
Total of all reporting groups
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Age, Continuous
|
79.2 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.4 • n=5 Participants
|
80.1 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.3 • n=7 Participants
|
78.4 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.8 • n=5 Participants
|
79.3 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.6 • n=4 Participants
|
79.3 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.5 • n=21 Participants
|
|
Age, Customized
50-59 years
|
2 participants
n=5 Participants
|
1 participants
n=7 Participants
|
6 participants
n=5 Participants
|
2 participants
n=4 Participants
|
11 participants
n=21 Participants
|
|
Age, Customized
60-69 years
|
33 participants
n=5 Participants
|
28 participants
n=7 Participants
|
31 participants
n=5 Participants
|
34 participants
n=4 Participants
|
126 participants
n=21 Participants
|
|
Age, Customized
70-79 years
|
102 participants
n=5 Participants
|
84 participants
n=7 Participants
|
115 participants
n=5 Participants
|
103 participants
n=4 Participants
|
404 participants
n=21 Participants
|
|
Age, Customized
80-89 years
|
142 participants
n=5 Participants
|
150 participants
n=7 Participants
|
126 participants
n=5 Participants
|
142 participants
n=4 Participants
|
560 participants
n=21 Participants
|
|
Age, Customized
>=90 years
|
22 participants
n=5 Participants
|
23 participants
n=7 Participants
|
20 participants
n=5 Participants
|
19 participants
n=4 Participants
|
84 participants
n=21 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Female
|
183 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
180 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
185 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
184 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
732 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Male
|
118 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
106 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
113 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
116 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
453 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
White
|
297 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
281 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
296 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
294 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
1168 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Other
|
4 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
5 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
2 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
6 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
17 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
|
History of myocardial infarction
Yes
|
34 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
40 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
30 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
36 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
140 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
|
History of myocardial infarction
No
|
267 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
246 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
268 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
264 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
1045 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
|
History of stroke
Yes
|
14 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
18 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
22 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
16 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
70 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
|
History of stroke
No
|
287 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
268 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
276 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
284 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
1115 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
|
History of transient ischemic attack
Yes
|
12 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
25 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
12 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
19 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
68 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
|
History of transient ischemic attack
No
|
289 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
261 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
286 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
281 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
1117 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
|
Systolic blood pressure
|
134 mm Hg
STANDARD_DEVIATION 18 • n=5 Participants
|
135 mm Hg
STANDARD_DEVIATION 19 • n=7 Participants
|
136 mm Hg
STANDARD_DEVIATION 17 • n=5 Participants
|
135 mm Hg
STANDARD_DEVIATION 17 • n=4 Participants
|
135 mm Hg
STANDARD_DEVIATION 18 • n=21 Participants
|
|
Diastolic blood pressure
|
75 mm Hg
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10 • n=5 Participants
|
75 mm Hg
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10 • n=7 Participants
|
76 mm Hg
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9 • n=5 Participants
|
75 mm Hg
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10 • n=4 Participants
|
75 mm Hg
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10 • n=21 Participants
|
|
Visual-acuity score and Snellen equivalent
68-82 letters, 20/25-40
|
111 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
94 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
116 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
103 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
424 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
|
Visual-acuity score and Snellen equivalent
53-67 letters, 20/50-80
|
98 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
118 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
108 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
119 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
443 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
|
Visual-acuity score and Snellen equivalent
38-52 letters, 20/100-160
|
67 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
53 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
58 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
58 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
236 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
|
Visual-acuity score and Snellen equivalent
23-37 letters, 20/200-320
|
25 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
21 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
16 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
20 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
82 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
|
Visual-acuity score and Snellen equivalent
|
60.1 Letters
STANDARD_DEVIATION 14.3 • n=5 Participants
|
60.2 Letters
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.1 • n=7 Participants
|
61.5 Letters
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.2 • n=5 Participants
|
60.4 Letters
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.4 • n=4 Participants
|
60.5 Letters
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.5 • n=21 Participants
|
|
Total thickness at fovea
|
458 μm
STANDARD_DEVIATION 184 • n=5 Participants
|
463 μm
STANDARD_DEVIATION 196 • n=7 Participants
|
458 μm
STANDARD_DEVIATION 193 • n=5 Participants
|
461 μm
STANDARD_DEVIATION 175 • n=4 Participants
|
460 μm
STANDARD_DEVIATION 187 • n=21 Participants
|
|
Retinal thickness plus subfoveal-fluid thickness at fovea
|
251 microns
STANDARD_DEVIATION 122 • n=5 Participants
|
254 microns
STANDARD_DEVIATION 121 • n=7 Participants
|
247 microns
STANDARD_DEVIATION 122 • n=5 Participants
|
252 microns
STANDARD_DEVIATION 115 • n=4 Participants
|
251 microns
STANDARD_DEVIATION 120 • n=21 Participants
|
|
Foveal center involvement
Choroidal neovacularization
|
176 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
153 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
176 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
183 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
688 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
|
Foveal center involvement
Fluid
|
85 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
81 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
77 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
72 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
315 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
|
Foveal center involvement
Hemorrhage
|
20 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
24 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
24 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
25 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
93 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
|
Foveal center involvement
Other
|
18 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
20 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
15 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
18 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
71 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
|
Foveal center involvement
No choroidal neovascularization or can't grade
|
2 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
8 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
6 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
2 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
18 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and 1 YearPopulation: All patients who had VA measured at week 52 were included in the analysis. All analyses were performed on the basis of the intention-to-treat principle. The Data and Safety Monitoring Committee recommended that data for all 23 patients at one center be excluded because of serious protocol noncompliance.
Visual acuity testing was performed with the Electronic Visual Tester (EVA) following the ETDRS protocol. VA score is measured as number of letters read correctly. The VA score change is the difference of the VA score at 1 Year and the VA score at baseline. In this study, the outcome VA score change is ranged from -71 to 52, with the higher VA score change the better visual acuity improvement.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
1-Lucentis Monthly
n=284 Participants
Lucentis® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Lucentis® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
2-Avastin Monthly
n=265 Participants
Avastin® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Avastin® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
3-Lucentis as Needed
n=285 Participants
Lucentis® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
4-Avastin as Needed
n=271 Participants
Avastin® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Visual-acuity Score (Continuous)
|
8.5 No. of Letters
Standard Deviation 14.1
|
8.0 No. of Letters
Standard Deviation 15.8
|
6.8 No. of Letters
Standard Deviation 13.1
|
5.9 No. of Letters
Standard Deviation 15.7
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and 1 YearOutcome measures
| Measure |
1-Lucentis Monthly
n=284 Participants
Lucentis® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Lucentis® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
2-Avastin Monthly
n=265 Participants
Avastin® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Avastin® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
3-Lucentis as Needed
n=285 Participants
Lucentis® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
4-Avastin as Needed
n=271 Participants
Avastin® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline Visual-acuity Score (Frequency)
Increase of ≥15 letters
|
97 Participants
|
83 Participants
|
71 Participants
|
76 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline Visual-acuity Score (Frequency)
Increase of 5-14 letters
|
90 Participants
|
98 Participants
|
103 Participants
|
90 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline Visual-acuity Score (Frequency)
Change of ≤4 letters
|
62 Participants
|
50 Participants
|
75 Participants
|
59 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline Visual-acuity Score (Frequency)
Decrease of 5-14 letters
|
19 Participants
|
18 Participants
|
23 Participants
|
23 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline Visual-acuity Score (Frequency)
Decrease of ≥15 letters
|
16 Participants
|
16 Participants
|
13 Participants
|
23 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: at 1 YearOutcome measures
| Measure |
1-Lucentis Monthly
n=284 Participants
Lucentis® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Lucentis® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
2-Avastin Monthly
n=265 Participants
Avastin® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Avastin® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
3-Lucentis as Needed
n=285 Participants
Lucentis® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
4-Avastin as Needed
n=271 Participants
Avastin® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Visual-acuity Score and Snellen Equivalent (Frequency)
83-97 letters, 20/12-20
|
42 Participants
|
45 Participants
|
38 Participants
|
40 Participants
|
|
Visual-acuity Score and Snellen Equivalent (Frequency)
68-82 letters, 20/25-40
|
149 Participants
|
134 Participants
|
141 Participants
|
127 Participants
|
|
Visual-acuity Score and Snellen Equivalent (Frequency)
53-67 letters, 20/50-80
|
52 Participants
|
47 Participants
|
66 Participants
|
57 Participants
|
|
Visual-acuity Score and Snellen Equivalent (Frequency)
38-52 letters, 20/100-160
|
23 Participants
|
21 Participants
|
23 Participants
|
24 Participants
|
|
Visual-acuity Score and Snellen Equivalent (Frequency)
≤37 letters, ≤20/200
|
18 Participants
|
18 Participants
|
17 Participants
|
23 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: at 1 YearVisual acuity testing was performed with the Electronic Visual Tester (EVA) following the ETDRS protocol. VA score is measured as number of letters read correctly. In this study, the outcome VA score is ranged from 0 to 97, with the higher score the better visual acuity.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
1-Lucentis Monthly
n=284 Participants
Lucentis® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Lucentis® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
2-Avastin Monthly
n=265 Participants
Avastin® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Avastin® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
3-Lucentis as Needed
n=285 Participants
Lucentis® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
4-Avastin as Needed
n=271 Participants
Avastin® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Visual-acuity Score and Snellen Equivalent (Continuous)
|
68.8 No. of Letters
Standard Deviation 17.7
|
68.4 No. of Letters
Standard Deviation 18.2
|
68.4 No. of Letters
Standard Deviation 16.4
|
66.5 No. of Letters
Standard Deviation 19.0
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: 1 YearCumulative over the 1 year of trial
Outcome measures
| Measure |
1-Lucentis Monthly
n=284 Participants
Lucentis® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Lucentis® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
2-Avastin Monthly
n=265 Participants
Avastin® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Avastin® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
3-Lucentis as Needed
n=285 Participants
Lucentis® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
4-Avastin as Needed
n=271 Participants
Avastin® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Number of Treatments
|
11.7 Number of Treatments
Standard Error 1.5
|
11.9 Number of Treatments
Standard Error 1.2
|
6.9 Number of Treatments
Standard Error 3.0
|
7.7 Number of Treatments
Standard Error 3.5
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: at 1 YearOutcome measures
| Measure |
1-Lucentis Monthly
n=284 Participants
Lucentis® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Lucentis® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
2-Avastin Monthly
n=265 Participants
Avastin® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Avastin® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
3-Lucentis as Needed
n=285 Participants
Lucentis® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
4-Avastin as Needed
n=271 Participants
Avastin® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Average Cost of Drug/Patient
|
23400 US dollars per patient
Standard Deviation 3000
|
595 US dollars per patient
Standard Deviation 60
|
13800 US dollars per patient
Standard Deviation 6000
|
385 US dollars per patient
Standard Deviation 175
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: at 1 YearOutcome measures
| Measure |
1-Lucentis Monthly
n=280 Participants
Lucentis® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Lucentis® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
2-Avastin Monthly
n=261 Participants
Avastin® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Avastin® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
3-Lucentis as Needed
n=281 Participants
Lucentis® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
4-Avastin as Needed
n=265 Participants
Avastin® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Total Thickness at Fovea
|
266 μm
Standard Deviation 125
|
300 μm
Standard Deviation 149
|
294 μm
Standard Deviation 139
|
308 μm
Standard Deviation 127
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and 1 YearOutcome measures
| Measure |
1-Lucentis Monthly
n=280 Participants
Lucentis® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Lucentis® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
2-Avastin Monthly
n=260 Participants
Avastin® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Avastin® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
3-Lucentis as Needed
n=278 Participants
Lucentis® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
4-Avastin as Needed
n=265 Participants
Avastin® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Total Thickness Change From Baseline at Fovea
|
-196 μm
Standard Deviation 176
|
-164 μm
Standard Deviation 181
|
-168 μm
Standard Deviation 186
|
-152 μm
Standard Deviation 178
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: at 1 YearOutcome measures
| Measure |
1-Lucentis Monthly
n=280 Participants
Lucentis® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Lucentis® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
2-Avastin Monthly
n=261 Participants
Avastin® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Avastin® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
3-Lucentis as Needed
n=281 Participants
Lucentis® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
4-Avastin as Needed
n=265 Participants
Avastin® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Retinal Thickness Plus Subfoveal-fluid Thickness at Fovea
|
152 μm
Standard Deviation 57
|
172 μm
Standard Deviation 81
|
166 μm
Standard Deviation 66
|
172 μm
Standard Deviation 68
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and 1 YearOutcome measures
| Measure |
1-Lucentis Monthly
n=280 Participants
Lucentis® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Lucentis® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
2-Avastin Monthly
n=260 Participants
Avastin® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Avastin® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
3-Lucentis as Needed
n=278 Participants
Lucentis® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
4-Avastin as Needed
n=265 Participants
Avastin® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Retinal Thickness Plus Subfoveal-fluid Thickness Change From Baseline at Fovea
|
-100 μm
Standard Deviation 130
|
-79 μm
Standard Deviation 132
|
-81 μm
Standard Deviation 134
|
-79 μm
Standard Deviation 123
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: at 1 YearOutcome measures
| Measure |
1-Lucentis Monthly
n=284 Participants
Lucentis® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Lucentis® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
2-Avastin Monthly
n=265 Participants
Avastin® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Avastin® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
3-Lucentis as Needed
n=285 Participants
Lucentis® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
4-Avastin as Needed
n=271 Participants
Avastin® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Fluid on Optical Coherence Tomography
Absent
|
124 Participants
|
69 Participants
|
68 Participants
|
52 Participants
|
|
Fluid on Optical Coherence Tomography
Present
|
151 Participants
|
188 Participants
|
203 Participants
|
214 Participants
|
|
Fluid on Optical Coherence Tomography
Data missing
|
9 Participants
|
8 Participants
|
14 Participants
|
5 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: at 1 YearOutcome measures
| Measure |
1-Lucentis Monthly
n=284 Participants
Lucentis® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Lucentis® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
2-Avastin Monthly
n=265 Participants
Avastin® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Avastin® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
3-Lucentis as Needed
n=285 Participants
Lucentis® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
4-Avastin as Needed
n=271 Participants
Avastin® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dye Leakage on Angiogram
Absent
|
167 Participants
|
153 Participants
|
133 Participants
|
111 Participants
|
|
Dye Leakage on Angiogram
Present
|
97 Participants
|
100 Participants
|
137 Participants
|
145 Participants
|
|
Dye Leakage on Angiogram
Data missing
|
20 Participants
|
12 Participants
|
15 Participants
|
15 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: at 1 YearOutcome measures
| Measure |
1-Lucentis Monthly
n=256 Participants
Lucentis® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Lucentis® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
2-Avastin Monthly
n=243 Participants
Avastin® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Avastin® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
3-Lucentis as Needed
n=265 Participants
Lucentis® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
4-Avastin as Needed
n=249 Participants
Avastin® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Area of Lesion
|
6.6 mm^2
Standard Deviation 6.8
|
6.5 mm^2
Standard Deviation 6.7
|
7.3 mm^2
Standard Deviation 6.5
|
7.0 mm^2
Standard Deviation 7.5
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and 1 YearOutcome measures
| Measure |
1-Lucentis Monthly
n=250 Participants
Lucentis® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Lucentis® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
2-Avastin Monthly
n=238 Participants
Avastin® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Avastin® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
3-Lucentis as Needed
n=259 Participants
Lucentis® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
4-Avastin as Needed
n=241 Participants
Avastin® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Area of Lesion Change From Baseline
|
-0.1 mm^2
Standard Deviation 5.2
|
0.3 mm^2
Standard Deviation 4.9
|
0.6 mm^2
Standard Deviation 6.2
|
1.3 mm^2
Standard Deviation 6.6
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and 1 YearOutcome measures
| Measure |
1-Lucentis Monthly
n=239 Participants
Lucentis® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Lucentis® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
2-Avastin Monthly
n=226 Participants
Avastin® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Avastin® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
3-Lucentis as Needed
n=250 Participants
Lucentis® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
4-Avastin as Needed
n=232 Participants
Avastin® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change in Systolic Blood Pressure From Baseline
|
-2.1 mm Hg
Standard Deviation 22.4
|
-5.4 mm Hg
Standard Deviation 18.2
|
-5.2 mm Hg
Standard Deviation 20.3
|
-4.5 mm Hg
Standard Deviation 20.0
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and 1 YearOutcome measures
| Measure |
1-Lucentis Monthly
n=239 Participants
Lucentis® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Lucentis® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
2-Avastin Monthly
n=226 Participants
Avastin® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Avastin® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
3-Lucentis as Needed
n=250 Participants
Lucentis® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
4-Avastin as Needed
n=232 Participants
Avastin® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change in Diastolic Blood Pressure From Baseline
|
-0.9 mm Hg
Standard Deviation 11.9
|
-1.4 mm Hg
Standard Deviation 11.2
|
-1.9 mm Hg
Standard Deviation 10.2
|
-2.1 mm Hg
Standard Deviation 10.8
|
Adverse Events
1-Lucentis Monthly
2-Avastin Monthly
3-Lucentis as Needed
4-Avastin as Needed
Serious adverse events
| Measure |
1-Lucentis Monthly
n=301 participants at risk
Lucentis® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Lucentis® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
2-Avastin Monthly
n=286 participants at risk
Avastin® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Avastin® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
3-Lucentis as Needed
n=298 participants at risk
Lucentis® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
4-Avastin as Needed
n=300 participants at risk
Avastin® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
General disorders
Any other system organ class
|
6.0%
18/301 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
9.1%
26/286 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
5.4%
16/298 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
9.3%
28/300 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
|
Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)
Benignor malignant neoplasm
|
2.3%
7/301 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
1.7%
5/286 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
3.4%
10/298 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
3.0%
9/300 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
|
Cardiac disorders
Cardiac disorder
|
3.3%
10/301 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
5.6%
16/286 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
4.0%
12/298 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
4.3%
13/300 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
|
General disorders
Death from any cause
|
1.3%
4/301 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
1.4%
4/286 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
1.7%
5/298 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
3.7%
11/300 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
|
Blood and lymphatic system disorders
Death from vascular causes
|
0.66%
2/301 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
0.70%
2/286 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
0.67%
2/298 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
1.7%
5/300 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Gastrointestinal disorder
|
1.00%
3/301 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
2.1%
6/286 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
0.67%
2/298 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
3.0%
9/300 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
|
Blood and lymphatic system disorders
Hypertension
|
0.00%
0/301 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
0.70%
2/286 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
0.00%
0/298 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
0.00%
0/300 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Infection
|
2.0%
6/301 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
3.8%
11/286 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
4.0%
12/298 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
6.0%
18/300 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Injury or procedural complication
|
2.3%
7/301 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
3.8%
11/286 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
2.7%
8/298 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
3.0%
9/300 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
|
Nervous system disorders
Nervous system disorder
|
2.0%
6/301 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
3.1%
9/286 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
4.0%
12/298 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
3.0%
9/300 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
|
Cardiac disorders
Nonfatal myocardial infarction
|
0.66%
2/301 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
0.70%
2/286 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
1.0%
3/298 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
0.33%
1/300 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
|
Cardiac disorders
Nonfatal stroke
|
1.00%
3/301 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
0.70%
2/286 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
0.34%
1/298 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
0.67%
2/300 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
|
Surgical and medical procedures
Surgical or medical procedure
|
1.3%
4/301 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
2.1%
6/286 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
1.3%
4/298 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
2.7%
8/300 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
|
Cardiac disorders
Transient ischemic attack
|
0.33%
1/301 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
0.00%
0/286 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
0.67%
2/298 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
1.0%
3/300 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
|
Blood and lymphatic system disorders
Venous thrombotic event
|
0.00%
0/301 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
1.4%
4/286 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
0.67%
2/298 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
0.33%
1/300 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
Other adverse events
| Measure |
1-Lucentis Monthly
n=301 participants at risk
Lucentis® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Lucentis® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
2-Avastin Monthly
n=286 participants at risk
Avastin® on a fixed schedule of every 4 weeks for 1 year; at 1 year, re-randomization to Avastin® every 4 weeks or to variable dosing.
|
3-Lucentis as Needed
n=298 participants at risk
Lucentis® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
4-Avastin as Needed
n=300 participants at risk
Avastin® on a variable dosing schedule for 2 years; i.e., after initial treatment, monthly evaluation for treatment based on signs of lesion activity.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Eye disorders
Endophthalmitis
|
0.66%
2/301 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
1.4%
4/286 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
0.00%
0/298 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
0.00%
0/300 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
|
Eye disorders
Pseudoendophthalmitis
|
0.33%
1/301 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
0.00%
0/286 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
0.00%
0/298 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
0.00%
0/300 • Adverse events were collected at 1 year.
Adverse events were ascertained through monthly questioning of patients by study coordinators who were aware of study-group assignments; events were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system, version 10. A medical monitor who was unaware of study-group assignments reviewed serious adverse events.
|
Additional Information
Results disclosure agreements
- Principal investigator is a sponsor employee Dr. Grunwald reports receiving consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline; and Dr. Jaffe, consulting fees from Neurotech and SurModics. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
- Publication restrictions are in place
Restriction type: OTHER