throbber
Anti-VEGF Agents in the Treatment of Neovascular
`Age-related Macular Degeneration: Applying Clinical
`Trial Results to the Treatment of Everyday Patients
`
`DAVID M. BROWN AND CARL D. REGILLO
`
`● PURPOSE: The vision gains reported with monthly intra-
`vitreal ranibizumab in the MARINA and ANCHOR trials
`led to an immediate paradigm shift in the treatment of
`neovascular AMD with retina physicians universally
`switching to the pan-VEGF blocking agents ranibizumab
`and bevacizumab, and patients expecting visual improve-
`ment. As these agents are primarily used on a pro re nata
`(PRN) dosing schedule (because neither patients nor
`physicians want monthly injections), the factors involved
`in making the treatment and retreatment decisions are
`very important in any attempt to maximize vision gain.
`● DESIGN: Analysis of literature, ongoing clinical trials,
`and the clinical assessments that can aid clinicians in
`treatment and retreatment decisions.
`● METHODS: Literature review and perspective.
`● RESULTS: If a monthly injection protocol is not used,
`clinicians should use both functional and anatomic criteria
`to attempt to guide treatment and retreatment decisions.
`Qualitative optical coherence tomography (OCT) appears
`to be the most sensitive and practical assessment tool to
`determine anatomic response to treatment but should be
`used in conjunction with clinical examination.
`● CONCLUSIONS: If monthly intravitreal injections are
`not performed, a combination of clinical examination
`(looking for new hemorrhage) and qualitative OCT (to
`assess response to treatment and early signs of recurrent
`leakage) can be used to guide anti-vascular endothelial
`growth factor (anti-VEGF), treatments with the goal of
`maintaining a “normal” retinal anatomy in an attempt to
`maximize the benefit (visual acuity gains) to risk (num-
`ber of injections required) ratio.
`(Am J Ophthalmol
`2007;144:627– 637. © 2007 by Elsevier Inc. All rights
`reserved.)
`
`T REATMENTS FOR NEOVASCULAR AGE-RELATED MACU-
`
`lar degeneration (AMD) have improved dramatically
`since 1999 when the only treatment clinically avail-
`able was Macular Photocoagulation Study (MPS)-style laser
`photocoagulation.1 For subfoveal choroidal neovasculariza-
`tion (CNV), MPS guided laser photocoagulation leads to an
`
`Accepted for publication Jun 20, 2007.
`From the Vitreoretinal Consultants, Houston, Texas (D.M.B.); and the
`Wills Eye Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (C.D.R.).
`Inquiries to David M. Brown, Vitreoretinal Consultants, Texas Med-
`ical Center Office, Scurlock Tower, 6560 Fannin, Suite 750, Houston,
`TX 77030; e-mail: dmbmd@houstonretina.com.
`
`immediate, permanent loss of central vision with its aim to
`limit the spread of the uncontrollable disease analogous to
`surgical amputation in general surgery. Photodynamic
`therapy with verteporfin (vPDT) became available in
`2000. Unlike laser photocoagulation, vPDT involves rel-
`atively selective photochemical damage to CNV, with less
`damage to the associated choroid and retina. vPDT de-
`creased the rate of moderate and severe vision loss,
`demonstrated improved vision (a gain of ⱖ15 letters on
`the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study
`(ETDRS) chart in up to 6% of patients with subfoveal
`CNV secondary to AMD) (Table).2,3 However, 30% to
`40% of vPDT-treated patients still lost at least 15 letters
`from the pretreatment baseline visual acuity (VA). Fur-
`thermore, although PDT clinical trials showed consistent
`benefit when treating patients with subfoveal predomi-
`nantly classic CNV, other CNV subtypes appeared to
`benefit only if the lesion was relatively small in size.2,3,7
`Combining vPDT treatment with intravitreal (ITV) injec-
`tion of a corticosteroid was popularized by Spaide and
`associates.8 This combination approach appeared to de-
`crease the number of required vPDT treatments to achieve
`a nonleaking CNV, but has yet to demonstrate definitive,
`clinically significant, added visual benefit compared with
`vPDT alone.
`
`THE SEARCH FOR A MORE
`TARGETED TREATMENT
`
`NEOVASCULAR AMD IS ASSOCIATED WITH INCREASED VAS-
`cular permeability as well as CNV infiltration. This in-
`crease in vascular permeability leads to abnormal fluid
`collection within or below the retina that causes visual
`dysfunction when it involves the center of the macula. For
`the past 50 years, researchers have attempted to determine
`the underlying mechanism of neovascularization and vas-
`cular leakage in the eye. In 1983, Senger and associates
`identified a “tumor vascular permeability factor” (VPF)
`that could induce vascular leakage.9 In 1989, Ferrara and
`Henzel reported the isolation and sequencing of an endo-
`thelial cell mitogen dubbed vascular endothelial growth
`factor (VEGF),10 which was later determined to be the
`same molecule as VPF. VEGF-A (also referred to as simply
`VEGF) is a vascular endothelial cell-specific growth factor
`
`0002-9394/07/$32.00
`doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2007.06.039
`
`© 2007 BY ELSEVIER INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
`
`627
`
`Mylan Exhibit 1043
`Mylan v. Regeneron, IPR2021-00880
`Page 1
`
`

`

`TABLE. Summary of Published Results for Several Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration Studies Using 2-m Early
`Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study Refracted Visual Acuities
`
`Mean Change in
`letters of VA
`from Baseline*
`
`Efficacy Endpoints
`
`ⱖ15 Letters Lost
`(% Patients)*
`
`ⱖ15 Letters
`Gained
`(% Patients)*
`
`6 2
`
`6 2
`
`26*
`33*
`4
`36*
`40*
`6
`12
`13
`10
`
`⫺2.2
`⫺3.5
`N/A
`
`5.4*
`6.6*
`⫺14.9
`8.5*
`11.3*
`⫺9.5
`⫺1.6*
`⫺0.2*
`⫺16.3
`
`39*
`54
`30*
`45
`
`8*
`10*
`47
`6*
`4*
`36
`17*
`10*
`51
`
`Study
`
`Study Design
`
`TAP (12-month time point)2
`
`VISION (12-month time point)4
`
`MARINA (24-month time point)5
`
`ANCHOR (12-month time point)6
`
`PIER (12-month time point)
`(Regillo et al, unpublished
`data)
`
`PDT every 3 months for
`24 months (n ⫽ 609)
`ITV pegaptanib every 6
`weeks for 24 months
`(n ⫽ 1,186)
`ITV ranibizumab monthly
`for 24 months
`(n ⫽ 716)
`ITV ranibizumab monthly
`for 24 months
`(n ⫽ 423)
`ITV ranibizumab monthly
`for 3 months, then
`every 3 months for a
`total of 24 months
`(n ⫽ 184)
`
`Study
`Arms
`
`PDT
`Placebo
`0.3 mg
`Sham
`
`0.3 mg
`0.5 mg
`Sham
`0.3 mg
`0.5 mg
`PDT
`0.3 mg
`0.5 mg
`Sham
`
`ITV ⫽ intravitreal; N/A ⫽ not applicable (not directly reported in the article); PDT ⫽ photodynamic therapy; VA ⫽ visual acuity.
`*P ⱕ .001 compared with the control arm.
`
`and, within the VEGF family, is the most potent promoter
`of angiogenesis and inducer of vascular permeability.11 In
`addition, VEGF-A is 50,000 times more potent as an
`enhancer of vascular permeability than is histamine.12
`VEGF-A has been shown to be involved in the develop-
`ment of ocular diseases such as neovascular AMD.13
`The first ocular anti-VEGF agent was an aptomer-based
`therapeutic designed to target VEGF165, the most abun-
`dant isoform of VEGF-A in ocular disease. The VISION
`trials using this aptomer (Pegaptanib sodium, Macugen;
`OSI/Eyetech Pharmaceuticals, New York, New York, USA)
`demonstrated efficacy in all CNV subtypes secondary to
`AMD, and the number of pegaptanib-treated patients with all
`CNV subtypes who had 15-letter improvements was compa-
`rable to PDT-treated patients with predominantly classic
`CNV secondary to AMD in other studies (4% to 6%;
`Table).4 The proportion of patients losing ⱖ15 letters from
`the pretreatment baseline VA, however, was still about
`40% despite ITV pegaptanib injections every six weeks
`during the two-year trial. Nonetheless, because of the
`broad treatment effect with some visual benefit in all CNV
`subtypes secondary to AMD, along with the good safety
`profile, pegaptanib sodium was approved by the Food and
`Drug Administration in 2004 for the treatment of neovas-
`cular AMD.
`Ranibizumab (Lucentis; Genentech, Inc, South San
`Francisco, California, USA) is an anti-VEGF agent that is
`Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment
`of all subfoveal CNV subtypes secondary to AMD. Ranibi-
`
`zumab is a humanized antigen-binding fragment that
`targets all VEGF-A isoforms and their biologically active
`degradation products, and it has been shown to bind and
`inhibit VEGF165, VEGF121, and VEGF110. Ranibizumab
`has been investigated in clinical trials in patients with
`neovascular AMD since 2000 (Table; Figure 1). MARINA
`was a randomized Phase III clinical trial of minimally
`classic or occult CNV secondary to AMD treated with
`monthly ITV ranibizumab (0.3 mg or 0.5 mg) or sham
`injections for 24 months. Anatomically, ranibizumab treat-
`ment was associated with arrested growth of and cessation
`of leakage from the CNV (including intense, progressive
`staining of the retinal pigment epithelium [RPE]). The
`mean change from baseline in each of the ranibizumab-
`treated groups differed significantly from the sham-injected
`group at 12 and 24 months (P ⬍ .001). Mean retinal
`thickness on ocular coherence tomography (OCT) was
`reduced dramatically in the first week after initial treat-
`ment, and this reduction was associated with mean im-
`provement in VA. With monthly injections, both the
`reduction in retinal thickness and the VA gains were
`maintained. At the end of the 24-month study, signifi-
`cantly more ranibizumab-treated patients had maintained
`or improved vision (lost ⬍15 letters of VA) than sham-
`injected patients, with 92% and 90% of ranibizumab-
`treated patients (0.3 mg and 0.5 mg, respectively) losing
`fewer than 15 letters of VA, compared with 53% of
`sham-injected patients (P ⬍ .001).5 In addition, the mean
`change in VA from baseline was a gain of 5.4 and 6.6
`
`628
`
`AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
`
`OCTOBER 2007
`
`Mylan Exhibit 1043
`Mylan v. Regeneron, IPR2021-00880
`Page 2
`
`

`

`ANCHOR was a randomized Phase III clinical trial of
`patients with predominantly classic CNV secondary to
`AMD treated with monthly ITV ranibizumab (0.3 mg or
`0.5 mg) and sham PDT or sham injection and PDT for 24
`months. Anatomically, fluorescein angiography (FA) at 12
`months revealed a dramatic reduction of leakage from the
`CNV (and area of intense, progressive staining of the RPE)
`compared with baseline among ranibizumab-treated pa-
`tients compared with an overall increase in leakage among
`PDT-treated patients (P ⬍ .01). Analogous to the ana-
`tomic changes seen on OCT in the MARINA trial, retinal
`thickness was markedly reduced within a week of initial
`treatment, and this reduction was associated with com-
`mensurate gains in VA. Repeated injections maintained
`this anatomical improvement and allowed for unprece-
`dented gains in VA at the primary endpoint at 12 months.
`At the 12-month time point, 94% and 96% of ranibi-
`zumab-treated patients (0.3 mg and 0.5 mg, respectively)
`had lost fewer than 15 letters of VA, compared with 64%
`of PDT-treated patients (P ⬍ .0001).6 In addition, the
`mean change in VA from baseline was a gain of 8.5 and
`11.3 letters for ranibizumab-treated patients (0.3 mg and
`0.5 mg, respectively), compared with a loss of 9.5 letters in
`PDT-treated patients (P ⬍ .001).6 After 12 months, 36%
`and 40% of ranibizumab-treated patients gained 15 or
`more letters of VA (0.3 and 0.5 mg, respectively), com-
`pared with 6% of PDT-treated patients (P ⬍ .001).6
`While ranibizumab is an anti-VEGF antibody fragment,
`bevacizumab is a related humanized,
`full-length anti-
`VEGF antibody that was also developed by Genentech. At
`the July 2005 American Society of Retina Specialists
`(ASRS) meeting in Montreal, Canada, Phillip Rosenfeld,
`MD, presented a small series of patients with neovascular
`AMD treated with off-label ITV bevacizumab (Food and
`Drug Administration approved for intravenous treatment
`of metastatic colon cancer in combination with chemo-
`therapy). The preliminary results from this series demon-
`strated good short-term safety and efficacy similar to that seen
`in patients treated with ranibizumab.14 Other investigators
`have since demonstrated comparable clinical results with
`larger but still short-term and uncontrolled series of pa-
`tients with neovascular AMD treated with off-label ITV
`bevacizumab.15–17 These reports resulted in a relatively
`quick and widespread adoption of off-label ITV bevaci-
`zumab by retina specialists before the clinical availability
`of ranibizumab. Bevacizumab use has continued around the
`world, and increasing pharmacokinetic, histopathology,
`and toxicity studies have subsequently been performed in
`RPE cell lines and bovine, rabbit, pig, and monkey models
`that demonstrate no evidence of ocular toxicity at the dose
`commonly administered.18 –20 Durability of effect of bev-
`acizumab appears comparable to ranibizumab with appar-
`ent intravitreal concentrations up to one month after
`injection.21 There are no data available to assess the
`relative efficacy and safety of off-label ITV bevacizumab
`but with support from the National Eye Institute, The
`
`FIGURE 1. Visual acuity over time for the (Upper panel)
`MARINA, (Middle panel) ANCHOR, and (Lower panel)
`PIER Phase III trials. All three panels show the mean change
`from baseline in visual acuity [VA] (number of letters) over
`time (months). The black boxes represent the mean change in
`VA for the 0.5 mg ranibizumab group, the gray triangles
`represent the mean change in VA for the 0.3 mg group, and the
`gray circles represent the mean change in VA for the control
`group in each of the studies. Pairwise analysis of variance
`(ANOVA) adjusting for the VA score on day zero was used
`to analyze the mean change in VA from baseline at each
`monthly assessment. At each monthly assessment, there was
`a significant difference between the ranibizumab and control
`groups. (MARINA and ANCHOR panels are reproduced
`with permission from Rosenfeld and associates, N Engl
`J Med 2006;355:1419 –1431 and Brown and associates,
`N Engl J Med 2006;355:1432–1444).
`
`letters for ranibizumab-treated patients (0.3 mg and 0.5
`mg, respectively), compared with a loss of 14.9 letters in
`sham-treated patients (P ⬍ .001). After 24 months, 26%
`and 33% of ranibizumab-treated patients gained 15 or
`more letters of VA (0.3 and 0.5 mg, respectively), com-
`pared with 4% of sham-injected patients (P ⬍ .001).5
`
`VOL. 144, NO. 4
`
`ANTI-VEGF AGENTS IN THE TREATMENT OF NEOVASCULAR AMD
`
`629
`
`Mylan Exhibit 1043
`Mylan v. Regeneron, IPR2021-00880
`Page 3
`
`

`

`Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treat-
`ments Trial (CATT) is being organized to determine the
`safety and efficacy of intravitreal bevacizumab compared
`with ranibizumab.22 The trial will be a head-to-head,
`prospective, randomized, masked clinical trial of ranibi-
`zumab and off-label ITV bevacizumab in 1,200 patients.
`Monthly ranibizumab and bevacizumab injection regimens
`will be included as well as pro re nata (PRN) treatment
`regimens with both agents and is expected to begin this
`year. Direct comparisons of the efficacy and potential
`adverse events of off-label ITV bevacizumab and ranibi-
`zumab can only be made at the conclusion of such a
`head-to-head study.
`
`OCULAR RISKS AND POSSIBLE
`SYSTEMIC RISKS OF
`ANTI-VEGF THERAPY
`
`THE OCULAR RISKS OF ANTI-VEGF INJECTIONS APPEAR TO
`be primarily related to the injection process itself. In the
`MARINA, ANCHOR, and PIER trials, ranibizumab treat-
`ment was associated with a 1.7% or lower rate of key
`serious ocular adverse events such as endophthalmitis,
`retinal detachment, and uveitis.5,6 The theoretical risk
`exists that intraocular pan-VEGF suppression may cause
`choriocapillaris damage. However, these findings have not
`been collaborated by wide-field angiography looking for
`choriocapillaris damage in our patients who had more than
`24 injections of ranibizumab (unpublished data). Because
`intravenous anti-VEGF blockade is known to be associated
`with increased rates of thromboembolic events, systemic
`absorption of these agents from intraocular injections may
`increase these rates in treated patients. In animal studies,
`ITV ranibizumab was cleared from the vitreous with a
`half-life of approximately three days.23 After reaching a
`maximum at approximately one day, serum concentrations
`decline in parallel to vitreous concentrations with a
`systemic level ⬍1000 times the vitreous concentrations. In
`human trials, serum ranibizumab levels ranged from 0.3
`ng/ml to 2.36 ng/ml following monthly injections.24 These
`levels were below the concentration of ranibizumab (11
`ng/ml to 27 ng/ml) thought to be necessary to inhibit 50%
`of the biologic activity of VEGF-A. Systemic absorption of
`ITV bevacizumab has also been demonstrated in approxi-
`mately 11.8% of patients (Csaky K, personal communica-
`tion). This may be significant given bevacizumab’s
`terminal half-life in the systemic circulation is approxi-
`mately 20 days compared with 12 hours for ranibizumab. In
`the initial Phase III trials with ranibizumab, the actual key
`serious nonocular adverse events were not found to be
`significantly different
`than the corresponding control
`groups.5,6 However, in January 2007, Genentech released
`data that showed in preliminary analysis of the SAILOR
`cohort (a Phase IIIb study with much larger sample size
`than the Phase III trials), that the 0.5 mg dose had a
`
`significantly higher risk of stroke compared with the 0.3
`mg dose (1.2% vs 0.3%; P ⫽ .02).25 Ongoing safety
`analysis is being performed in patients in the SAILOR trial
`as well as longer term follow-up in the HORIZON trial
`(the extension study of MARINA and ANCHOR). The
`CATT trial is also designed to provide systemic safety data
`for both ranibizumab and bevacizumab.
`
`ALTERNATIVE DOSING STRATEGIES
`FOR ANTI-VEGF AGENTS
`
`BECAUSE OF BOTH OCULAR AND SYSTEMIC SAFETY CON-
`cerns, as well as cost and physician and patient conve-
`nience issues, ideally an alternative dosing strategy can be
`used to decrease the number of required injections for
`anti-VEGF agents. A recently completed Phase IIIb study,
`PIER, was a randomized, double-masked, sham-controlled
`clinical trial of patients with subfoveal CNV secondary to
`AMD treated with ITV ranibizumab monthly for the first
`three months, followed by mandated quarterly dosing for
`24 months (Regillo et al, 2006, unpublished data). For the
`first three months, both the anatomic improvements on
`OCT and the VA gains mirrored the ANCHOR and
`MARINA trials. After this period, the average VA de-
`creased to baseline levels, because quarterly injections
`were unable to maintain the anatomic improvements seen
`with monthly injections. This is thought to be directly
`related to the mandated quarterly dosing in PIER, with
`some patients requiring more frequent injections to main-
`tain the anatomic and visual improvements achieved in
`the first three months of the study. At the 12-month time
`point, the mean change in VA from baseline was a loss of
`1.6 and 0.2 letters for ranibizumab-treated patients (0.3 mg
`and 0.5 mg, respectively), compared with a loss of 16.3
`letters for sham-treated patients (P ⬍ .0001). In addition,
`83% and 90% of ranibizumab-treated patients (0.3 and 0.5
`mg, respectively) lost fewer than 15 letters of VA, com-
`pared with 49% of sham-injected patients. After 12
`months, 12% and 13% of ranibizumab-treated patients
`gained 15 or more letters of VA (0.3 and 0.5 mg,
`respectively), compared with 10% of
`sham-injected
`patients. Although the PIER trial results are far superior
`to those seen with any previous agent in AMD trials, the
`high expectations of overall improvement in mean visual
`acuity demonstrated in the ANCHOR and MARINA trials
`were not achieved. These initial PIER study data show that
`treating patients with CNV secondary to AMD every
`three months is less effective than monthly dosing with
`ranibizumab.
`Another small, uncontrolled, but very well-designed
`study exploring an alternate dosing strategy for ranibi-
`zumab is PrONTO, a prospective OCT imaging study of
`patients with all subtypes of CNV secondary to AMD
`treated with ITV ranibizumab monthly for the first two
`months (three injections), followed by PRN dosing there-
`
`630
`
`AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
`
`OCTOBER 2007
`
`Mylan Exhibit 1043
`Mylan v. Regeneron, IPR2021-00880
`Page 4
`
`

`

`after.26 OCT was used to evaluate quantitative retinal
`thickness, and retreatment decisions were based on these
`quantitative OCT measurements as well as on other
`criteria, such as visual loss associated with any edema
`observed on qualitative OCT, the presence of new classic
`CNV on FA, and the presence of new hemorrhage or
`persistent fluid on qualitative OCT. Of note, fluid was
`observed with qualitative OCT 100% of the time at the
`time of ITV injection, whereas retinal thickness increases
`greater than 100 ␮m were observed with quantitative
`OCT and were the reason for injection only 16% of the
`time.26 ITV injections were also administered for decreased
`vision with evidence of fluid on qualitative OCT 41% of
`the time, for persistent fluid 29% of the time, for new
`subretinal hemorrhage with concomitant fluid on qualita-
`tive OCT 7% of the time, and for new classic CNV
`observed on FA as well as fluid on qualitative OCT 6% of
`the time. Preliminary results from the 40 patients enrolled
`in the study show that mean VA from baseline improved
`by 9.3 letters in ranibizumab-treated patients (P ⬍ .001)
`and mean central retinal thickness decreased by 178 ␮m
`(P ⬍ .001). At one month (one injection), 85% of
`ranibizumab-treated patients had resolution of intraretinal,
`subretinal edema and 77.5% had resolution of subretinal
`fluid. At two months (two injections), 92.5% of ranibi-
`zumab-treated patients had resolution of subretinal fluid
`and intraretinal cysts, and at three months (three injec-
`tions), 97.5% had resolution of subretinal fluid, whereas
`92.5% had resolution of intraretinal cysts.26 At 12 months,
`the mean number of injections was 5.6, and 17.5% (7/40)
`of patients did not require retreatment after the initial
`three ITV injections of ranibizumab. This OCT-guided
`dosing strategy achieved results comparable to the MARINA
`and ANCHOR trials with less than half of the required
`monthly injections used in the Phase III trials.
`
`WHY DO PAN-VEGF BLOCKING
`AGENTS IMPROVE VA IN
`NEOVASCULAR AMD?
`
`THERE ARE NUMEROUS EXAMPLES OF RETINAL DISEASES IN
`which the anatomy of the fovea must be restored before
`visual improvements can occur. Two examples are macula-
`off retinal detachments and Irvine-Gass cystoid macular
`edema, where VA improves only when the anatomic
`pathology is corrected. Conversely, irreversible visual loss
`from progressive intraretinal fibrosis or atrophy occurs
`when the retina is subjected to prolonged subretinal and
`intraretinal edema as in diffuse diabetic macular edema
`and chronic central serous retinopathy. The MARINA
`and ANCHOR trials demonstrated a marked reduction in
`leakage from CNV in ranibizumab-treated patients com-
`pared with increased leakage in the controls, with quali-
`tative OCT images of the retina of ranibizumab-treated
`patients appearing completely dry in almost all patients
`
`after 24 ITV injections. These anatomic changes were
`associated with overall visual
`improvement in ranibi-
`zumab-treated patients.
`No previous treatment has been as efficacious as ranibi-
`zumab at eliminating the edema in the subretinal space
`and neurosensory retina in neovascular AMD. Pegaptanib
`sodium, which theoretically only blocks one isoform of
`VEGF-A in the eye, rarely eliminates all macular edema
`even with continued use. In contrast, most ranibizumab-
`treated patients (⬎70%) have resolution of all macular
`edema as seen by OCT within one month of their first
`injection, and more than 90% have resolution of all edema
`after three consecutive monthly injections.26 The visual
`gains seen in the initial three months of therapy in the
`ANCHOR, MARINA, and PIER trials are very similar
`and demonstrate visual gains very quickly after initiation
`of therapy and resolution of retinal edema. The on-average
`return to baseline (loss of
`the improvement
`in VA
`achieved in the first three months) in the PIER trial is
`likely related to the inability of mandated quarterly ITV
`ranibizumab injections to eliminate CNV leakage for all
`patients; some patients likely required more frequent ITV
`injections, whereas others could have used less frequent
`ITV injections, as supported by OCT findings in the trial
`(Regillo et al, 2006, unpublished data). This suggests that
`greater control through a criteria-based retreatment strat-
`egy may be warranted.
`
`● OCT AND THE MANAGEMENT OF OCULAR DISEASES:
`OCT is a noninvasive diagnostic imaging tool that can
`perform high-resolution, micron-scale, cross-sectional, or
`tomographic imaging in tissue by measuring the echo time
`delay and intensity of backscattered light.27 OCT allows
`real-time in situ imaging of tissue with resolution of up to
`15 ␮m and enables examination of the epiretinal, in-
`traretinal, and subretinal morphology.27 OCT uses several
`measures to generate its images,
`including the central
`subfield, center point thickness, automated retinal bound-
`ary lines, inner retinal surface, and the RPE band. In OCT
`images, bright colors such as red and white represent
`regions of high reflectivity such as the nerve fiber layer, the
`plexiform layers, or the RPE, whereas dark colors such as
`blue or black represent regions of low reflectivity, such as
`the nuclear layers and photoreceptor inner and outer
`segments. Only the hyporeflective photoreceptor layer is
`visible at the foveola, where the indentation of the foveal
`pit is at its maximum.
`OCT has been used in the management of many retinal
`diseases, including macular holes,28 macular edema,29,30
`and neovascular AMD.31 In AMD, OCT is useful
`in
`evaluating and documenting retinal angiomatous prolifer-
`ation (RAP) lesions before and after laser photocoagula-
`tion in patients with RAP lesions secondary to AMD.31
`The early stages of RAP are difficult to detect with both
`contact lens biomicroscopy and angiographic examina-
`tions, but typical intraretinal features can be observed with
`
`VOL. 144, NO. 4
`
`ANTI-VEGF AGENTS IN THE TREATMENT OF NEOVASCULAR AMD
`
`631
`
`Mylan Exhibit 1043
`Mylan v. Regeneron, IPR2021-00880
`Page 5
`
`

`

`FIGURE 2. Examples of optical coherence therapy (OCT) images from different patients being treated with ranibizumab for
`neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) demonstrating various patterns of recurrent choroidal neovascularization
`(CNV) leakage such as (Top row) diffuse edema; (Second row) intraretinal cysts; (Third row) subretinal fluid; or (Bottom row)
`subretinal pigment epithelium (RPE) fluid. Top row (Left): Three months after completing the MARINA protocol, the patient’s
`visual acuity (VA) in the involved eye was 20/25 with no injections for four months. Automated center point foveal thickness was
`263 ␮. (Right) Diffuse edema: The first sign of disease progression was evident on OCT six weeks later with diffuse edema and
`loss of the foveal depression. The VA declined to 20/50. Automated center point thickness increased to 341 ␮. Second row (Left):
`The patient finished the MARINA study with a VA of 20/63 in the treated eye and a normal foveal depression but quantitative
`OCT revealed atrophy with a foveal central thickness of 98 ␮. (Right) Intraretinal cysts: Five months after the patient’s last
`required intravitreal injection in the study, intraretinal cysts developed with no change in her best-corrected VA (20/63). Center
`point foveal thickness increased but was still in “normal” range at 178 ␮. Third row (Left): The patient finished the MARINA
`study with a VA of 20/25 in the treated eye and an OCT scan showing a near normal appearing foveal contour with underlying
`CNV. The central foveal thickness was 138 ␮. (Right) Subretinal fluid: Just six weeks into the extension study (10 weeks after
`her last scheduled injection in the MARINA trial), subretinal fluid became evident on the OCT with a commensurate decrease in
`VA to 20/40. Quantitative center point foveal thickness increased to 204 ␮. Bottom row (Left): The patient completed the
`MARINA study with a VA of 20/50 and no evidence of CNV leakage determined by OCT. Automated center point foveal
`thickness was 160 ␮. (Right) Sub-RPE fluid: Three months after her last ITV ranibizumab injection, OCT revealed fluid in the
`sub-RPE space. Automated center point foveal thickness increased slightly to 190 ␮, but VA improved to 20/25.
`
`632
`
`AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
`
`OCTOBER 2007
`
`Mylan Exhibit 1043
`Mylan v. Regeneron, IPR2021-00880
`Page 6
`
`

`

`qualitative OCT.31 In the management of diabetic reti-
`nopathy, OCT has been demonstrated to be more sensitive
`than contact lens biomicroscopy for the detection of
`mild foveal thickening in patients with diabetic macular
`edema.29 An OCT study of patients with diabetic macular
`edema found that best-corrected VA was significantly
`correlated with central foveal thickness (r ⫽ ⫺0.528;
`P ⬍ .01).30 There was 77% agreement between OCT
`and clinical examination. In addition, cystoid macular
`edema was detected in 15.4% of eyes with OCT, but
`cystoid macular edema was not detected with contact
`lens biomicroscopy and FA in 40% and 60% of these
`eyes, respectively. In this study, OCT detected serous
`foveal detachments detected that could not be seen with
`either contact lens biomicroscopy or FA.30 This finding
`illustrates that OCT can document subtle disease activ-
`ity in macular disease often undetectable by standard
`clinical examinations.
`
`● QUANTITATIVE VS QUALITATIVE OCT: Quantitative
`OCT uses fast macular thickness-based acquisition proto-
`cols, in which six radial scans are centered on a patient’s
`fixation and then compressed into one scan, which can be
`acquired quickly (1.92 seconds) and contains 128 A-scans
`per line.31 However, fast macular thickness-based acquisi-
`tion protocols provide low-resolution images that have
`some inherent errors particularly in eyes with neovascular
`AMD.32 Errors of retinal boundary detection and thickness
`measurement were observed in 92% of AMD eyes when
`fast macular thickness-based acquisition protocols were
`used.32 Poor VA in patients with neovascular AMD makes
`fixation difficult to maintain, and the center point thick-
`ness measurement is dependent on the fovea being in the
`center of each vector line. Thus any shift of the patient’s
`fixation causes significant error. Even when fixation is
`excellent, the anatomic heterogeneity of CNV lesions
`(eccentric with variable intraretinal cysts and subretinal
`fluid pockets) often misleads the automated detection of
`retinal boundaries necessary for accurate quantitative mea-
`surements. An additional and significant problem of quan-
`titative OCT is that sub-RPE fluid (pigment epithelial
`detachment) is not quantified even if fixation and retinal
`boundary detection is accurate.
`In contrast, qualitative OCT using normal acquisition
`protocols (Macular Thickness Map acquisition on the
`Stratus OCT 3, software version 4.1; Carl Zeiss Meditec,
`Dublin, California, USA) provides a transverse resolution
`of 512 A-scans per B-scan that yields more detailed
`intraretinal information.31 Fortunately, fixation difficulties
`inherent with AMD patients do not affect qualitative
`OCT analysis because it relies much less on each vector
`cut being centered on fixation. Qualitative OCT simply
`looks for any anatomic evidence of CNV leakage in the
`imaged tissues. This more detailed scan is useful
`for
`visualizing neovascular-associated leakage and provides
`higher-resolution images without relying on the machine
`
`to interpret the images. The actual thickness and morphol-
`ogy of the CNV complex are quite difficult to assess on
`OCT images because the posterior CNV boundary is
`difficult to ascertain. Higher resolution OCT machines (in
`development by both Topcon and Carl Zeiss Meditec) may
`allow this component to be more readily assessed. Until
`higher resolution OCT images are available to facilitate
`this assessment, however, one must look for evidence of
`CNV leakage (or VEGF-A-mediated leakage from other
`sources) in the intraretinal, subretinal, and sub-RPE space
`using the available OCT protocols.
`Just as there are recognizable OCT patterns in diabetic
`macular edema,33 specific patterns of structural changes
`resulting from CNV leakage can be seen on qualitative
`OCT in patients with neovascular AMD. To define the
`patterns of leakage after successful anatomic correction of
`CNV leakage with ranibizumab, we monitored qualitative
`OCT at our clinical trial center (which recruited and
`followed the largest number of patients in both the
`ANCHOR and MARINA Phase III clinical trials) with
`monthly ETDRS refractions, clinical examinations, and
`high-resolution qualitative OCT. We looked for the first
`anatomic changes indicating recurrent disease activity on
`the six radial qualitative OCT scans (using Macular
`Thickness Map acquisition protocol). There were four
`distinct patterns: diffuse retinal edema, intraretinal cysts,
`subretinal fluid, and sub-RPE fluid or serous pigment
`epithelial detachment (Figure 2). Diffuse retinal edema is
`a sponge-like thickening that appears as increased retinal
`thickness with areas of reduced intraretinal reflectivity
`compared with retina without thickening (Figure 2, Top
`row). Intraretinal cysts (

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket