Efficacy and safety of a fixed bimonthly ranibizumab treatment regimen in eyes with neovascular age-related macular degeneration: results from the RABIMO trial

2017 | journal article. A publication with affiliation to the University of Göttingen.

Jump to: Cite & Linked | Documents & Media | Details | Version history

Cite this publication

​Efficacy and safety of a fixed bimonthly ranibizumab treatment regimen in eyes with neovascular age-related macular degeneration: results from the RABIMO trial​
Feltgen, N.; Bertelmann, T.; Bretag, M. ; Pfeiffer, S.; Hilgers, R. ; Callizo, J. & Goldammer, L. et al.​ (2017) 
Graefe s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology255(5) pp. 923​-934​.​ DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-017-3589-x 

Documents & Media

License

GRO License GRO License

Details

Authors
Feltgen, Nicolas; Bertelmann, Thomas; Bretag, Mirko ; Pfeiffer, Sebastian; Hilgers, Reinhard ; Callizo, Josep; Goldammer, Lena; Bemme, Sebastian; Hoerauf, Hans
Abstract
Purpose To evaluate prospectively the efficacy and safety of a fixed bimonthly ranibizumab treatment regimen (RABIMO) in eyes with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) and to compare these results with a pro re nata (PRN) treatment scheme. Methods This was a 12-month, phase IV, single center, randomised, non-inferiority study. Following three initial monthly injections, patients were randomised to receive either ranibizumab bimonthly (RABIMO group) or ranibizumab PRN (PRN group) (n = 20 each). Main outcome measures were best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), number of injections, and adverse events (AEs). Results BCVA [median (interquartile range, IQR)] increased significantly in both groups after 12 months [RABIMO group +8.5 (14); PRN group +6.5 (16) ETDRS letters] when compared to baseline (p < 0.0001; p = 0.0085). At month 12, the RABIMO treatment regimen was non-inferior to the PRN scheme (Delta BCVA = 3.5 ETDRS letters; p < 0.0001). CRT was significantly reduced in both groups after the 12-month study period (p < 0.0001 each), with no significant difference between groups (p = 0.6772). Number of overall injections [median (IQR)] was 8 (0) in the RABIMO versus 4 (5) in the PRN group (p = 0.0037). Three patients in the RABIMO group received one additional unscheduled injection. We observed no significant differences between groups in the number of patients with reported SAEs/AEs (RABIMO group n = 6/15; PRN group n = 7/13) (p = 0.7357/p = 0.4902). Conclusions We found no evidence of significant functional or anatomical differences between the RABIMO and PRN treatment regimens. However, the RABIMO group's number of injections was twice as high as the PRN group's (protocol-driven). In light of potential side effects, the fixed bimonthly treatment regimen might not be advisable for routine clinical care, but it might be a worthwhile treatment option if monthly monitoring is not possible. Eudra-CT number: 2009-017324-11.
Issue Date
2017
Status
published
Publisher
Springer
Journal
Graefe s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 
ISSN
1435-702X; 0721-832X
Sponsor
Novartis Pharma GmbH, Germany

Reference

Citations


Social Media