Pharmacotherapeutic group: Ophthalmologicals/Antineovascularisation agents
ATC code: S01LA05
PAVBLU is a biosimilar medicinal product. Detailed information is available on the website of the
European Medicines Agency https://www.ema.europa.eu.
Aflibercept is a recombinant fusion protein consisting of portions of human VEGF receptor 1 and 2extracellular domains fused to the Fc portion of human IgG1.
Aflibercept is produced in a Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cell line by recombinant DNA technology.
Aflibercept acts as a soluble decoy receptor that binds VEGF-A and PlGF with higher affinity thantheir natural receptors, and thereby can inhibit the binding and activation of these cognate VEGFreceptors.
Mechanism of actionVascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A) and placental growth factor (PlGF) are members ofthe VEGF family of angiogenic factors that can act as potent mitogenic, chemotactic, and vascularpermeability factors for endothelial cells. VEGF acts via two receptor tyrosine kinases; VEGFR-1 and
VEGFR-2, present on the surface of endothelial cells. PlGF binds only to VEGFR-1, which is alsopresent on the surface of leucocytes. Excessive activation of these receptors by VEGF-A can result inpathological neovascularisation and excessive vascular permeability. PlGF can synergize with
VEGF-A in these processes, and is also known to promote leucocyte infiltration and vascularinflammation.
Pharmacodynamic effectswet AMD
Wet AMD is characterised by pathological choroidal neovascularisation (CNV). Leakage of blood andfluid from CNV may cause retinal thickening or oedema and/or sub-/intra-retinal haemorrhage,resulting in loss of visual acuity.
In patients treated with aflibercept (one injection per month for three consecutive months, followed byone injection every 2 months), central retinal thickness [CRT] decreased soon after treatment initiation,and the mean CNV lesion size was reduced, consistent with the results seen with ranibizumab 0.5 mgevery month.
In the VIEW1 study there were mean decreases in CRT on optical coherence tomography (OCT) (-130and -129 microns at week 52 for the aflibercept 2 mg every two months and ranibizumab 0.5 mg everymonth study groups, respectively). Also at the 52-week time point, in the VIEW2 study there weremean decreases in CRT on OCT (-149 and -139 microns for the aflibercept 2 mg every two monthsand ranibizumab 0.5 mg every month study groups, respectively). The reduction of CNV size andreduction in CRT were generally maintained in the second year of the studies.
The ALTAIR study was conducted in Japanese patients with treatment naïve wet AMD, showingsimilar outcomes to the VIEW studies using 3 initial monthly aflibercept 2 mg injections, followed byone injection after a further 2 months, and then continued with a treat-and-extend regimen withvariable treatment intervals (2-week or 4-week adjustments) up to a maximum 16-week intervalaccording to pre-specified criteria. At week 52, there were mean decreases in central retinal thickness(CRT) on OCT of -134.4 and -126.1 microns for the 2-week adjustment group and the 4-weekadjustment group, respectively. The proportion of patients without fluid on OCT at week 52 was68.3% and 69.1% in the 2- and 4-week adjustment groups, respectively. The reduction in CRT wasgenerally maintained in both treatment arms in the second year of the ALTAIR study.
The ARIES study was designed to explore the non-inferiority of an aflibercept 2 mg treat-and-extenddosing regimen initiated immediately after administration of 3 initial monthly injections and oneadditional injection after 2 months vs. a treat-and-extend dosing regimen initiated after one year oftreatment. For patients requiring a more frequent than Q8 dosing at least once over the course of thestudy, CRT remained higher, but the mean decrease in CRT from baseline to week 104 was -160.4 microns, similar to the patients treated at Q8 or less frequent intervals.
Macular oedema secondary to CRVO and BRVO
In CRVO and BRVO, retinal ischaemia occurs and signals the release of VEGF which in turndestabilises the tight junctions and promotes endothelial cell proliferation. Up-regulation of VEGF isassociated with the breakdown of the blood retina barrier, increased vascular permeability, retinaloedema, and neovascularisation complications.
In patients treated with 6 consecutive monthly injections of aflibercept 2 mg, there was a consistent,rapid and robust morphologic response (as measured by improvements in mean CRT) observed. Atweek 24, the reduction in CRT was statistically superior versus control in all three studies(COPERNICUS in CRVO: -457 vs. -145 microns; GALILEO in CRVO: -449 vs.
- 169 microns; VIBRANT in BRVO: -280 vs. -128 microns). This decrease from baseline in CRT wasmaintained to the end of each study, week 100 in COPERNICUS, week 76 in GALILEO, and week 52in VIBRANT.
Diabetic macular oedema
Diabetic macular oedema is a consequence of diabetic retinopathy and is characterised by increasedvasopermeability and damage to the retinal capillaries which may result in loss of visual acuity.
In patients treated with aflibercept, the majority of whom were classified as having Type II diabetes, arapid and robust response in morphology (CRT, DRSS level) was observed.
In the VIVIDDME and the VISTADME studies, a statistically significant greater mean decrease in CRTfrom baseline to week 52 was observed in patients treated with aflibercept than with the laser control, -192.4 and -183.1 microns for the 2Q8 aflibercept groups and -66.2 and -73.3 microns for the controlgroups, respectively. At week 100 the decrease was maintained with -195.8 and -191.1 microns for the2Q8 aflibercept groups and -85.7 and -83.9 microns for the control groups, in the VIVIDDME and
VISTADME studies, respectively.
A ≥ 2 step improvement in DRSS was assessed in a pre-specified manner in VIVIDDME and VISTADME.
The DRSS score was gradable in 73.7% of the patients in VIVIDDME and 98.3% of the patients in
VISTADME. At week 52, 27.7% and 29.1% of the aflibercept 2Q8 groups, and 7.5% and 14.3% of thecontrol groups experienced a ≥ 2 step improvement in the DRSS. At week 100, the respectivepercentages were 32.6% and 37.1% of the aflibercept 2Q8 groups and 8.2% and 15.6% of the controlgroups.
The VIOLET study compared three different dosing regimens of aflibercept 2 mg for treatment of
DME after at least one year of treatment at fixed intervals, where treatment was initiated with5 consecutive monthly doses followed by dosing every 2 months. At week 52 and week 100 of thestudy, i.e. second and third year of treatment, the mean changes in CRT were clinically similar fortreat-and-extend (2T&E), pro re nata (2PRN) and 2Q8, respectively, -2.1, 2.2 and -18.8 microns atweek 52, and 2.3, -13.9 and -15.5 microns at week 100.
Myopic choroidal neovascularisation
Myopic choroidal neovascularisation (myopic CNV) is a frequent cause of vision loss in adults withpathologic myopia. It develops as a wound healing mechanism consequent to Bruch’s membraneruptures and represents the most vision-threatening event in pathologic myopia.
In patients treated with aflibercept in the MYRROR study (one injection given at start of therapy, withadditional injections given in case of disease persistence or recurrence), CRT decreased soon aftertreatment initiation favouring aflibercept at week 24 (-79 microns and -4 microns for the aflibercept2 mg treatment group and the control group, respectively), which was maintained through week 48. Inaddition, the mean CNV lesion size decreased.
Clinical efficacy and safetywet AMD
The safety and efficacy of aflibercept were assessed in two randomised, multi-centre, double-masked,active-controlled studies in patients with wet AMD (VIEW1 and VIEW2) with a total of 2 412patients treated and evaluable for efficacy (1 817 with aflibercept). Patient ages ranged from 49 to 99years with a mean of 76 years. In these clinical studies, approximately 89% (1 616/1 817) of thepatients randomised to treatment with aflibercept were 65 years of age or older, and approximately63% (1 139/1 817) were 75 years of age or older. In each study, patients were randomly assigned in a1:1:1:1 ratio to 1 of 4 dosing regimens:
1) aflibercept administered at 2 mg every 8 weeks following 3 initial monthly doses (aflibercept2Q8);2) aflibercept administered at 2 mg every 4 weeks (aflibercept 2Q4);3) aflibercept administered at 0.5 mg every 4 weeks (aflibercept 0.5Q4); and4) ranibizumab administered at 0.5 mg every 4 weeks (ranibizumab 0.5Q4).
In the second year of the studies, patients continued to receive the initially randomised dosage but on amodified dosing schedule guided by assessment of visual and anatomic outcomes with a protocol-defined maximum dosing interval of 12 weeks.
In both studies, the primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients in the Per Protocol Setwho maintained vision, i.e. losing fewer than 15 letters of visual acuity at week 52 from baseline.
In the VIEW1 study, at week 52, 95.1% of patients in the aflibercept 2Q8 group maintained visioncompared to 94.4% patients in the ranibizumab 0.5Q4 group. In the VIEW2 study, at week 52,95.6% of patients in the aflibercept 2Q8 group maintained vision compared to 94.4% patients in theranibizumab 0.5Q4 group. In both studies aflibercept was shown to be non-inferior and clinicallyequivalent to the ranibizumab 0.5Q4 group.
Detailed results from the combined analysis of both studies are shown in table 2 and figure 1 below.
Table 2. Efficacy outcomes at week 52 (primary analysis) and week 96; combined data from the
VIEW1 and VIEW2 studiesB)
Efficacy Outcome Aflibercept 2Q8E) Ranibizumab 0.5Q4(Aflibercept 2 mg every (ranibizumab 0.5 mg8 weeks following 3 initial every 4 weeks)monthly doses)(N = 607) (N = 595)
Week 52 Week 96 Week 52 Week 96
Mean number of injections from baseline 7.6 11.2 12.3 16.5
Mean number of injections from Week 52 to 4.2 4.7
Proportion of patients with < 15 letters loss 95.33%B) 92.42% 94.42%B) 91.60%from baseline (PPSA))
DifferenceC) 0.9% 0.8%(95% CI)D) (-1.7, 3.5)F) (-2.3, 3.8)F)
Mean change in BCVA as measured by 8.40 7.62 8.74 7.89
ETDRSA) letter score from baseline
Difference in LSA) mean change (ETDRS -0.32 -0.25letters)C) (-1.87, 1.23) (-1.98, 1.49)(95% CI)D)
Proportion of patients with ≥ 15 letters gain 30.97% 33.44% 32.44% 31.60%from baseline
DifferenceC) -1.5% 1.8%(95% CI)D) (-6.8, 3.8) (-3.5, 7.1)
A) BCVA: Best Corrected Visual Acuity
ETDRS: Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study
LS: Least square means derived from ANCOVA
PPS: Per Protocol Set
B) Full Analysis Set (FAS), Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) for all analyses except proportion ofpatients with maintained visual acuity at week 52 which is PPS
C) The difference is the value of the aflibercept group minus the value of the ranibizumab group. A positive valuefavours aflibercept
D) Confidence interval (CI) calculated by normal approximation
E) After treatment initiation with three monthly doses
F) A confidence interval lying entirely above -10% indicates a non-inferiority of aflibercept to ranibizumab
Figure 1. Mean Change in Visual Acuity from Baseline to Week 96 for the Combined Data fromthe VIEW1 and VIEW2 Studies
In combined data analysis of VIEW1 and VIEW2, aflibercept demonstrated clinically meaningfulchanges from baseline in pre-specified secondary efficacy endpoint National Eye Institute Visual
Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25) without clinically meaningful differences to ranibizumab. Themagnitude of these changes was similar to that seen in published studies, which corresponded to a15-letter gain in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA).
In the second year of the studies, efficacy was generally maintained through the last assessment atweek 96, and 2-4% of patients required all injections on a monthly basis, and a third of patientsrequired at least one injection with a treatment interval of only one month.
Decreases in mean CNV area were evident in all dose groups in both studies.
Efficacy results in all evaluable subgroups (e.g. age, gender, race, baseline visual acuity, lesion type,lesion size) in each study and in the combined analysis were consistent with the results in the overallpopulations.
ALTAIR was a 96 week multicentre, randomised, open-label study in 247 Japanese patients withtreatment naïve wet AMD, designed to assess the efficacy and safety of aflibercept following twodifferent adjustment intervals (2-weeks and 4-weeks) of a treat-and-extend dosing regimen.
All patients received monthly doses of aflibercept 2 mg for 3 months, followed by one injection after afurther 2-month interval. At week 16, patients were randomised 1:1 into two treatment groups: 1)aflibercept treat-and-extend with 2-week adjustments and 2) aflibercept treat-and-extend with 4-weekadjustments. Extension or shortening of the treatment interval was decided based on visual and/oranatomic criteria defined by protocol with a maximum treatment interval of 16 weeks for both groups.
The primary efficacy endpoint was mean change in BCVA from baseline to week 52. The secondaryefficacy endpoints were the proportion of patients who did not lose ≥ 15 letters and the proportion ofpatients who gained at least 15 letters of BCVA from baseline to week 52.
At week 52, patients in the treat-and-extend arm with 2-week adjustments gained a mean of 9.0 lettersfrom baseline as compared to 8.4 letters for those in the 4-week adjustment group [LS mean differencein letters (95% CI): -0.4 (-3.8,3.0), ANCOVA]. The proportion of patients who did not lose ≥ 15letters in the two treatment arms was similar (96.7% in the 2-week and 95.9% in the 4-weekadjustment groups). The proportion of patients who gained ≥ 15 letters at week 52 was 32.5% in the2-week adjustment group and 30.9% in the 4-week adjustment group. The proportion of patients whoextended their treatment interval to 12 weeks or beyond was 42.3% in the 2-week adjustment groupand 49.6% in the 4-week adjustment group. Furthermore, in the 4-week adjustment group 40.7% ofpatients were extended to 16-week intervals. At the last visit up to week 52, 56.8% and 57.8% ofpatients in the 2-week and 4-week adjustment groups, respectively had their next injection scheduledat an interval of 12 weeks or beyond.
In the second year of the study, efficacy was generally maintained up to and including the lastassessment at week 96, with a mean gain from baseline of 7.6 letters for the 2-week adjustment groupand 6.1 letters for the 4-week adjustment group. The proportion of patients who extended theirtreatment interval to 12 weeks or beyond was 56.9% in the 2-week adjustment group and 60.2% in the4-week adjustment group. At the last visit prior to week 96, 64.9% and 61.2% of patients in the2-week and 4-week adjustment groups, respectively had their next injection scheduled at an interval of12 weeks or beyond. During the second year of treatment patients in both the 2-week and 4-weekadjustment groups received an average of 3.6 and 3.7 injections, respectively. Over the 2 yeartreatment period patients received an average of 10.4 injections.
Ocular and systemic safety profiles were similar to the safety observed in the pivotal studies VIEW1and VIEW2.
ARIES was a 104-week multicentre, randomised, open-label, active-controlled study in 269 patientswith treatment naïve wet AMD, designed to assess the non-inferiority in terms of efficacy as well asthe safety of a treat-and-extend dosing regimen initiated after 3 consecutive monthly doses followedby extension to a 2 monthly treatment interval vs. a treat-and-extend dosing regimen initiated after thefirst year of treatment.
The ARIES study also explored the percentage of patients that required more frequent treatment thanevery 8 weeks based on the investigator’s decision. Out of the 269 patients 62 patients received morefrequent dosing at least once during the course of the study. Such patients remained in the study andreceived treatment according to the investigator’s best clinical judgement but not more frequently thanevery 4 weeks and their treatment intervals could be extended again afterwards. The average treatmentinterval after the decision to treat more frequently was 6.1 weeks. Week 104 BCVA was lower inpatients requiring more intensive treatment at least once over the course of the study compared withpatients who did not and the mean change in BCVA from baseline to end of the study was +2.3 ± 15.6letters. Among the patients treated more frequently, 85.5% maintained vision, i.e. lost less than15 letters, and 19.4% gained 15 letters or more. The safety profile of patients treated more frequentlythan every 8 weeks was comparable to the safety data in VIEW1 and VIEW2.
Macular oedema secondary to CRVO
The safety and efficacy of aflibercept were assessed in two randomised, multi-centre, double-masked,sham-controlled studies in patients with macular oedema secondary to CRVO (COPERNICUS and
GALILEO) with a total of 358 patients treated and evaluable for efficacy (217 with aflibercept).
Patient ages ranged from 22 to 89 years with a mean of 64 years. In the CRVO studies, approximately52% (112/217) of the patients randomised to treatment with aflibercept were 65 years of age or older,and approximately 18% (38/217) were 75 years of age or older. In both studies, patients wererandomly assigned in a 3:2 ratio to either 2 mg aflibercept administered every 4 weeks (2Q4), or thecontrol group receiving sham injections every 4 weeks for a total of 6 injections.
After 6 consecutive monthly injections, patients received treatment only if they met pre-specifiedretreatment criteria, except for patients in the control group in the GALILEO study who continued toreceive sham (control to control) until week 52. From this timepoint all patients were treated ifpre-specified criteria were met.
In both studies, the primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients who gained at least15 letters in BCVA at week 24 compared to baseline. A secondary efficacy variable was change invisual acuity at week 24 compared to baseline.
The difference between treatment groups was statistically significant in favour of aflibercept in bothstudies. The maximal improvement in visual acuity was achieved at month 3 with subsequentstabilisation of visual acuity and CRT until month 6. The statistically significant difference wasmaintained through week 52.
Detailed results from the analysis of both studies are shown in table 3 and figure 2 below.
Table 3. Efficacy outcomes at week 24, week 52 and week 76/100 (Full Analysis Set with LOCFC)) in COPERNICUS and GALILEO studies
Efficacy COPERNICUS GALILEO
Outcomes 24 Weeks 52 Weeks 100 Weeks 24 Weeks 52 Weeks 76 Weeks
Aflibercept Control Aflibercept ControlE) AfliberceptF) ControlE,F) Aflibercept Control Aflibercept Control AfliberceptG) ControlG)2 mg Q4 2 mg (N = 73) 2 mg (N = 73) 2 mg Q4 (N = 68) 2 mg (N = 68) 2 mg (N = 68)(N = 114) (N = 73) (N = 114) (N = 114) (N = 103) (N = 103) (N = 103)
Proportion ofpatients with≥ 15 letters 56% 12% 55% 30% 49.1% 23.3% 60% 22% 60% 32% 57.3% 29.4%gain frombaseline
Weighted 27.9%
A,B,E) 44.8% 25.9% 26.7% (13.1, 38.3% 28.0% (13.3,difference (13.0, 42.7)(33.0, 56.6) (11.8, 40.1) 40.3) (24.4, 52.1) 42.6)(95% CI) p = 0.0004p < 0.0001 p = 0.0006 p = 0.0003 p < 0.0001 p = 0.0004p-value
Mean changein BCVAC) asmeasured by
C) 17.3 -4.0 3.8 (17.1) 3.3 3.8 13.7 (17.8) 6.2 (17.7)
ETDRS 16.2 (17.4) 13.0 (17.7) 1.5 (17.7) 18.0 (12.2) 16.9 (14.8)(12.8) (18.0) (14.1) (18.1)letter scorefrom baseline(SD)
Difference in
LS 21.7 12.7 (7.7, 11.8 (6.7, 14.7 (10.8, 13.2 (8.2, 7.6 (2.1,meanA,C,D,E) (17.4, 26.0) 17.7) 17.0) 18.7) 18.2) 13.1)(95% CI) p < 0.0001 p < 0.0001 p < 0.0001 p < 0.0001 p < 0.0001 p = 0.0070p-value
A) Difference is aflibercept 2 mg Q4 weeks minus control
B) Difference and confidence interval (CI) are calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for region (America vs. rest of the world for COPERNICUS and Europe vs. Asia/Pacific for GALILEO) andbaseline BCVA category (> 20/200 and ≤ 20/200)
C) BCVA: Best Corrected Visual Acuity
ETDRS: Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study
LOCF: Last Observation Carried Forward
SD: Standard deviation
LS: Least square means derived from ANCOVA
D) LS mean difference and confidence interval based on an ANCOVA model with factors treatment group, region (America vs. rest of the world for COPERNICUS and Europe vs. Asia/Pacific for GALILEO) and baseline
BCVA category (> 20/200 and ≤ 20/200)
E) In COPERNICUS study, control group patients could receive aflibercept on an as-needed basis as frequently as every 4 weeks during week 24 to week 52; patients had visits every 4 weeks
F) In COPERNICUS study, both control group and aflibercept 2 mg patients received aflibercept 2 mg on an as-needed basis as frequently as every 4 weeks starting from week 52 to week 96; patients had mandatory quarterlyvisits but may have been seen as frequently as every 4 weeks if necessary
G) In GALILEO study, both control group and aflibercept 2 mg patients received aflibercept 2 mg on an as-needed basis every 8 weeks starting from week 52 to week 68; patients had mandatory visits every 8 weeks
Figure 2. Mean Change from Baseline to Week 76/100 in Visual Acuity by Treatment Group forthe COPERNICUS and GALILEO Studies (Full Analysis Set)
In GALILEO, 86.4% (n = 89) of the aflibercept group and 79.4% (n = 54) of the sham group hadperfused CRVO at baseline. At week 24, this was 91.8% (n = 89) in the aflibercept group and 85.5%(n = 47) in the sham group. These proportions were maintained at week 76, with 84.3% (n = 75) in theaflibercept group and 84.0% (n = 42) in the sham group.
In COPERNICUS, 67.5% (n = 77) of the aflibercept group and 68.5% (n = 50) of the sham group hadperfused CRVO at baseline. At week 24, this was 87.4% (n = 90) in the aflibercept group and 58.6%(n = 34) in the sham group. These proportions were maintained at week 100 with 76.8% (n = 76) inthe aflibercept group and 78% (n = 39) in the sham group. Patients in the sham group were eligible toreceive aflibercept from week 24.
The beneficial effect of aflibercept treatment on visual function was similar in the baseline subgroupsof perfused and non-perfused patients. Treatment effects in other evaluable subgroups (e.g. age,gender, race, baseline visual acuity, CRVO duration) in each study were in general consistent with theresults in the overall populations.
In combined data analysis of GALILEO and COPERNICUS, aflibercept demonstrated clinicallymeaningful changes from baseline in pre-specified secondary efficacy endpoint National Eye Institute
Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25). The magnitude of these changes was similar to thatseen in published studies, which corresponded to a 15-letter gain in Best Corrected Visual Acuity(BCVA).
Macular oedema secondary to BRVO
The safety and efficacy of aflibercept were assessed in a randomised, multi-centre, double-masked,active-controlled study in patients with macular oedema secondary to BRVO (VIBRANT) whichincluded Hemi-Retinal Vein Occlusion. A total of 181 patients were treated and evaluable for efficacy(91 with aflibercept). Patient ages ranged from 42 to 94 years with a mean of 65 years. In the BRVOstudy, approximately 58% (53/91) of the patients randomised to treatment with aflibercept were65 years of age or older, and approximately 23% (21/91) were 75 years of age or older. In the study,patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either 2 mg aflibercept administered every 8 weeksfollowing 6 initial monthly injections or laser photocoagulation administered at baseline (laser controlgroup). Patients in the laser control group could receive additional laser photocoagulation (called‘rescue laser treatment’) beginning at week 12 with a minimum interval of 12 weeks. Based onpre-specified criteria, patients in the laser group could receive rescue treatment with aflibercept 2 mgfrom week 24, administered every 4 weeks for 3 months followed by every 8 weeks.
In the VIBRANT study, the primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients who gained atleast 15 letters in BCVA at week 24 compared to baseline and the aflibercept group was superior tolaser control.
A secondary efficacy endpoint was change in visual acuity at week 24 compared to baseline, whichwas statistically significant in favour of aflibercept in the VIBRANT study. The course of visualimprovement was rapid and peaked at 3 months with maintenance of the effect until month 12.
In the laser group 67 patients received rescue treatment with aflibercept beginning at week 24 (Active
Control/aflibercept 2 mg group), which resulted in improvement of visual acuity by about 5 lettersfrom week 24 to 52.
Detailed results from the analysis of the VIBRANT study are shown in table 4 and figure 3 below.
Table 4. Efficacy outcomes at week 24 and week 52 (Full Analysis Set with LOCF) in VIBRANTstudy
Efficacy VIBRANT
Outcomes 24 Weeks 52 Weeks
Aflibercept 2 mg Active Control Aflibercept 2 mg Active Control
Q4 (laser) Q8 (laser)/Aflibercept(N = 91) (N = 90) (N = 91)D) 2 mgE)(N = 90)
Proportion ofpatients with ≥ 1552.7% 26.7% 57.1% 41.1%letters gain from
Baseline (%)
Weighted
DifferenceA,B) 26.6% 16.2%(%)(13.0, 40.1) (2.0, 30.5)(95% CI)p = 0.0003 p = 0.0296p-value
Mean change in
BCVA as measured17.0 6.9 17.1by ETDRS letter 12.2 (11.9)(11.9) (12.9) (13.1)score from
Baseline (SD)
Efficacy VIBRANT
Outcomes 24 Weeks 52 Weeks
Aflibercept 2 mg Active Control Aflibercept 2 mg Active Control
Q4 (laser) Q8 (laser)/Aflibercept(N = 91) (N = 90) (N = 91)D) 2 mgE)(N = 90)
Difference in LS10.5 5.2meanA,C)(7.1, 14.0) (1.7, 8.7)(95% CI)p < 0.0001 p = 0.0035F)p-value
A) Difference is aflibercept 2 mg Q4 weeks minus Laser Control
B) Difference and 95% CI are calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted for region (North America vs.
Japan) and baseline BCVA category (> 20/200 and ≤ 20/200)
C) LS mean difference and 95% CI based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline BCVA category (> 20/200and ≤ 20/200) and region (North America vs. Japan) as fixed effects, and baseline BCVA as covariate
D) From week 24 on the treatment interval in the aflibercept treatment group was extended for all subjects from 4 weeks to 8weeks through week 48
E) Beginning at week 24 subjects in the Laser Group could receive rescue treatment with aflibercept, if they met at least onepre-specified eligibility criterion. At total of 67 subjects in this group received aflibercept rescue treatment. The fixedregimen for aflibercept rescue was three times aflibercept 2 mg every 4 weeks followed by injections every 8 weeks
F) Nominal p-value
Figure 3. Mean Change in BCVA as Measured by ETDRS Letter Score from Baseline to
Week 52 in VIBRANT Study
At baseline, the proportion of perfused patients in the aflibercept and laser groups was 60% and 68%,respectively. At week 24 these proportions were 80% and 67%, respectively. In the aflibercept groupthe proportion of perfused patients was maintained through week 52. In the laser group, where patientswere eligible for rescue treatment with aflibercept from week 24, the proportion of perfused patientsincreased to 78% by week 52.
Diabetic macular oedema
The safety and efficacy of aflibercept were assessed in two randomised, multi-centre, double-masked,active-controlled studies in patients with DME (VIVIDDME and VISTADME). A total of 862 patientswere treated and evaluable for efficacy, 576 with aflibercept. Patient ages ranged from 23 to 87 yearswith a mean of 63 years. In the DME studies, approximately 47% (268/576) of the patientsrandomised to treatment with aflibercept were 65 years of age or older, and approximately 9%(52/576) were 75 years of age or older. The majority of patients in both studies had Type II diabetes.
In both studies, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to 1 of 3 dosing regimens:
1) aflibercept administered 2 mg every 8 weeks following 5 initial monthly injections (aflibercept2Q8);2) aflibercept administered 2 mg every 4 weeks (aflibercept 2Q4); and3) macular laser photocoagulation (active control).
Beginning at week 24, patients meeting a pre-specified threshold of vision loss were eligible to receiveadditional treatment: patients in the aflibercept groups could receive laser and patients in the controlgroup could receive aflibercept.
In both studies, the primary efficacy endpoint was the mean change from baseline in BCVA at week52 and both aflibercept 2Q8 and aflibercept 2Q4 groups demonstrated statistical significance and weresuperior to the control group. This benefit was maintained through week 100.
Detailed results from the analysis of the VIVIDDME and VISTADME studies are shown in table 5 andfigure 4 below.
Table 5. Efficacy outcomes at week 52 and week 100 (Full Analysis Set with LOCF) in VIVIDDME and VISTADME studies
Efficacy VIVIDDME VISTADME
Outcomes 52 Weeks 100 Weeks 52 Weeks 100 Weeks
Aflibercept Aflibercept Active Aflibercept Aflibercept Active Aflibercept Aflibercept Active Aflibercept Aflibercept Active2 mg Q8A 2 mg Q4 Control 2 mg Q8A 2 mg Q4 Control 2 mg Q8A 2 mg Q4 Control 2 mg Q8A 2 mg Q4 Control(N = 135) (N = 136) (laser) (N = 135) (N = 136) (laser) (N = 151) (N = 154) (laser) (N = 151) (N = 154) (laser)(N = 132) (N = 132) (N = 154) (N = 154)
Mean changein BCVA asmeasured by
E) 10.7 10.5 1.2 9.4 11.4 0.7 10.7 12.5 0.2 11.1 11.5 0.9
ETDRS letterscore from
Baseline
Difference in
B,C,E) 9.1 (6.3, 9.3 (6.5, 8.2 (5.2, 10.7 (7.6, 10.45 (7.7, 12.19 (9.4, 10.1 (7.0, 10.6 (7.1,
LS mean11.8) 12.0) 11.3) 13.8) 13.2) 15.0) 13.3) 14.2)(97.5% CI)
Proportion ofpatients with≥ 15 letters 33% 32% 9% 31.1% 38.2% 12.1% 31% 42% 8% 33.1% 38.3% 13.0%gain from
Baseline
Adjusted
D,C,E) 24% (13.5, 23% (12.6, 19.0% (8.0, 26.1% 23% (13.5, 34% (24.1, 20.1% (9.6, 25.8%
Difference34.9) 33.9) 29.9) (14.8, 37.5) 33.1) 44.4) 30.6) (15.1, 36.6)(97.5% CI)
A) After treatment initiation with 5 monthly injections
B) LS mean and CI based on an ANCOVA model with baseline BCVA measurement as a covariate and a factor for treatment group. Additionally, region (Europe/Australia vs. Japan) had been included as factor for VIVIDDME,and history of MI and/or CVA as a factor for VISTADME
C) Difference is aflibercept group minus active control (laser) group
D) Difference with confidence interval (CI) and statistical test is calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by region (Europe/Australia vs. Japan) for VIVIDDME and medical history of MI or CVA for
VISTADME
E) BCVA: Best Corrected Visual Acuity
ETDRS: Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study
LOCF: Last Observation Carried Forward
LS: Least square means derived from ANCOVA
CI: Confidence interval
Figure 4. Mean Change in BCVA as Measured by ETDRS Letter Score from Baseline to
Week 100 in VIVIDDME and VISTADME Studies
Treatment effects in evaluable subgroups (e.g. age, gender, race, baseline HbA1c, baseline visualacuity, prior anti-VEGF therapy) in each study and in the combined analysis were generally consistentwith the results in the overall populations.
In the VIVIDDME and VISTADME studies, 36 (9%) and 197 (43%) patients received prior anti-VEGFtherapy, respectively, with a 3-month or longer washout period. Treatment effects in the subgroup ofpatients who had previously been treated with a VEGF inhibitor were similar to those seen in patientswho were VEGF inhibitor naïve.
Patients with bilateral disease were eligible to receive anti-VEGF treatment in their fellow eye ifassessed necessary by the physician. In the VISTADME study, 217 (70.7%) of aflibercept patientsreceived bilateral aflibercept injections until week 100; in the VIVIDDME study, 97 (35.8%) ofaflibercept patients received a different anti-VEGF treatment in their fellow eye.
An independent comparative trial (DRCR.net Protocol T) utilised a flexible dosing regimen based onstrict OCT and vision re-treatment criteria. In the aflibercept treatment group (n = 224) at week 52,this treatment regimen resulted in patients receiving a mean of 9.2 injections, which is similar to theadministered number of doses in the aflibercept 2Q8 group in VIVIDDME and VISTADME, while overallefficacy of the aflibercept treatment group in Protocol T was comparable to the aflibercept 2Q8 groupin VIVIDDME and VISTADME. A 13.3 mean letter gain with 42% of patients gaining at least 15 lettersin vision from baseline was observed in Protocol T. Safety outcomes demonstrated that overallincidences of ocular and non-ocular adverse events (including ATEs) were comparable across alltreatment groups in each of the studies and between the studies.
VIOLET, a 100-week multicentre, randomised, open-label, active controlled study in patients with
DME compared three different dosing regimens of aflibercept 2 mg for treatment of DME after at leastone year of treatment at fixed intervals, where treatment was initiated with 5 consecutive monthlydoses followed by dosing every 2 months. The study evaluated non-inferiority of aflibercept 2 mgdosed according to a treat-and-extend regimen (2T&E where injections intervals were kept at aminimum of 8 weeks and gradually extended based on clinical and anatomical outcomes) andaflibercept 2 mg dosed as needed (2PRN where patients were observed every 4 weeks and injectedwhen needed based on clinical and anatomical outcomes), compared to aflibercept 2 mg dosed every 8weeks (2Q8) for the second and third year of treatment.
The primary efficacy endpoint (change in BCVA from baseline to week 52) was 0.5 ± 6.7 letters in the2T&E group and 1.7 ± 6.8 letters in the 2PRN group compared to 0.4 ± 6.7 letters in the 2Q8 group,achieving statistical non-inferiority (p < 0.0001 for both comparisons; NI margin 4 letters). Thechanges in BCVA from baseline to week 100 were consistent with the week 52 results: -0.1 ± 9.1letters in the 2T&E group and 1.8 ± 9.0 letters in the 2PRN group compared to 0.1 ± 7.2 letters in the2Q8 group. The mean number of injections over 100 weeks were 12.3, 10.0 and 11.5 for 2Q8fix,2T&E and 2PRN, respectively.
Ocular and systemic safety profiles in all 3 treatment groups were similar to those observed in thepivotal studies VIVID and VISTA.
In the 2T&E group, the increments and decrements for the injection intervals were at the investigator’sdiscretion; increments of 2 weeks were recommended in the study.
Myopic choroidal neovascularisation
The safety and efficacy of aflibercept were assessed in a randomised, multi-centre, double-masked,sham-controlled study in treatment naïve, Asian patients with myopic CNV. A total of 121 patientswere treated and evaluable for efficacy (90 with aflibercept). Patient ages ranged from 27 to 83 yearswith a mean of 58 years. In the myopic CNV study, approximately 36% (33/91) of the patientsrandomised to treatment with aflibercept were 65 years of age or older, and approximately 10% (9/91)were 75 years of age or older.
Patients were randomly assigned in a 3:1 ratio to receive either 2 mg aflibercept intravitreally or shaminjections administered once at study start with additional injections given monthly in case of diseasepersistence or recurrence until week 24, when the primary endpoint was assessed. At week 24, patientsinitially randomised to sham were eligible to receive the first dose of aflibercept. Following this,patients in both groups continued to be eligible for additional injections in case of disease persistenceor recurrence.
The difference between treatment groups was statistically significant in favour of aflibercept for theprimary endpoint (change in BCVA) and confirmatory secondary efficacy endpoint (proportion ofpatients who gained 15 letters in BCVA) at week 24 compared to baseline. Differences for bothendpoints were maintained through week 48.
Detailed results from the analysis of the MYRROR study are shown in table 6 and figure 5 below.
Table 6. Efficacy outcomes at week 24 (primary analysis) and week 48 in MYRROR study (Full
Analysis Set with LOCFA))
Efficacy Outcomes MYRROR24 Weeks 48 Weeks
Aflibercept Sham Aflibercept Sham/Aflibercept2 mg (N = 31) 2 mg 2 mg(N = 90) (N = 90) (N = 31)
Mean change in BCVAB) as 12.1 -2.0 13.5 3.9measured by ETDRS letter (8.3) (9.7) (8.8) (14.3)score from baseline (SD)B)
Difference in LS meanC,D,E) 14.1 9.5(95% CI) (10.8, 17.4) (5.4, 13.7)
Proportion of patients with 38.9% 9.7% 50.0% 29.0%≥ 15 letters gain frombaseline
Weighted differenceD,F) 29.2% 21.0%(95% CI) (14.4, 44.0) (1.9, 40.1)
A) LOCF: Last Observation Carried Forward
B) BCVA: Best Corrected Visual Acuity
ETDRS: Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study
SD: Standard Deviation
C) LS mean: Least square means derived from ANCOVA model
D) CI: Confidence Interval
E) LS mean difference and 95% CI based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group and country (countrydesignations) as fixed effects, and baseline BCVA as covariant
F) Difference and 95% CI are calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for country(country designations)
Figure 5. Mean Change from Baseline to Week 48 in Visual Acuity by Treatment Group for the
MYRROR Study (Full Analysis Set, LOCF)
Paediatric populationThe European Medicines Agency has waived the obligation to submit the results of studies with thereference medicinal product containing aflibercept in all subsets of the paediatric population in wet
AMD, CRVO, BRVO, DME and myopic CNV populations (see section 4.2 for information onpaediatric use).