EXTENDED REPORT

Pegaptanib and ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review

A L Takeda, J Colquitt, A J Clegg and J Jones

Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre (SHTAC), University of Southampton, Southampton UK

Correspondence to:
Dr Andrea Takeda, Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre, Wessex Institute for Health Research and Development, Mailpoint 728, Boldrewood, University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 7PX; a.l.takeda{at}soton.ac.uk

Aims: To assess the clinical effectiveness of pegaptanib sodium and ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

Methods: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) identified through searching 12 electronic databases, bibliographies and consultation with experts and manufacturers. RCTs were eligible if they assessed the effects of pegaptanib or ranibizumab with best supportive care, sham injection or photodynamic therapy (PDT) on patients with subfoveal choroidal neovascularisation associated with wet AMD and examined outcomes including visual acuity and adverse events.

Results: Three RCTs of ranibizumab (MARINA, ANCHOR, FOCUS) and two of pegaptanib (VISION study) met the inclusion criteria. The RCTs included patients with different lesion types. The studies showed statistically significant benefit on different measures of visual acuity for patients receiving pegaptanib, ranibizumab or ranibizumab with PDT compared to control (sham injection, PDT or sham injection with PDT) after 12 months. These differences appeared to be clinically significant. Although adverse events were common among those receiving pegaptanib or ranibizumab, they were considered mild to moderate in nature. Meta-analysis of ranibizumab trials and indirect comparison of the two drugs were not possible due to differences in the study populations’ lesion types. However, results from the RCTs of ranibizumab tended to show a greater effect on visual acuity than results from the RCT of pegaptanib.

Conclusions: Pegaptanib and ranibizumab appear to slow or stop the progression of neovascular AMD. Uncertainty remains over the relative benefits of pegaptanib compared with ranibizumab and other unlicensed drugs (eg, Avastin), due to the nature of the evidence. Head-to-head RCTs and economic evaluations comparing these alternatives are needed.

Abbreviations: AMD, age-related macular degeneration; CNV, choroidal neovascularisation; PDT, photodynamic therapy; RCT, randomised controlled trials; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

BJO at a glance

Creig Hoyt
Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2007 91: 1099. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Guma, M., Rius, J., Duong-Polk, K. X., Haddad, G. G., Lindsey, J. D., Karin, M. (2009). Genetic and pharmacological inhibition of JNK ameliorates hypoxia-induced retinopathy through interference with VEGF expression. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106: 8760-8765 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Davuluri, G., Espina, V., Petricoin, E. F. III, Ross, M., Deng, J., Liotta, L. A., Glaser, B. M. (2009). Activated VEGF Receptor Shed Into the Vitreous in Eyes With Wet AMD: A New Class of Biomarkers in the Vitreous With Potential for Predicting the Treatment Timing and Monitoring Response. Arch Ophthalmol 127: 613-621 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Rein, D. B., Wittenborn, J. S., Zhang, X., Honeycutt, A. A., Lesesne, S. B., Saaddine, J., for the Vision Health Cost-Effectiveness Study Gro, (2009). Forecasting Age-Related Macular Degeneration Through the Year 2050: The Potential Impact of New Treatments. Arch Ophthalmol 127: 533-540 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Lai, T Y Y, Chan, W-M, Liu, D T L, Luk, F O J, Lam, D S C (2008). Intravitreal bevacizumab (Avastin) with or without photodynamic therapy for the treatment of polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 92: 661-666 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Lommatzsch, A. (2008). Management of choroidal vascularisation. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 92: 445-446 [Full Text]