This article is more than 5 years old. Information may no longer be current.
CATT researcher offers perspective on interpreting trial results
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts
WAILEA, Hawaii — Talking to ophthalmologists about the CATT has proven to be an "extraordinary exercise in how people see data," the study chair for the landmark trial comparing ranibizumab and bevacizumab said here.
Daniel F. Martin, MD, told the audience at Retina 2012 that the bottom-line reaction to the Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials data seemed to be that "primary Avastin users find similarities and Lucentis users see differences."
Dr. Martin said the CATT researchers tried to be as neutral as possible, but Avastin (bevacizumab, Genentech) proponents have voiced concern about bias toward Lucentis (ranibizumab, Genentech) and vice versa.
Dr. Martin noted that the study demonstrated that as-needed dosing produced an average gain of two letters fewer than monthly dosing but resulted in four to five fewer injections per year, lowering the treatment burden.
"Some say there's no role for PRN treatment," Dr. Martin said. "I would argue that PRN is a viable way to treat patients. We all have patients out there that only need three or four injections per year. If you automatically monthly inject you will never find them and lower their treatment burden. I do not want to miss those patients."
Results showed that bevacizumab and ranibizumab showed equivalent visual acuity results and no difference in death, stroke or heart disease at 1 year, according to Dr. Martin. Study limitations made it impossible to discern any difference in non-specific serious adverse events between the two study groups, meriting further study, he said.
- Financial disclosure: Dr. Martin has no relevant financial disclosures.
Hawaiian Eye and Retina 2013 will be held January 20-25, 2013, at the Hilton Waikoloa Village on Hawaii's Big Island. Learn more at OSNHawaiianEye.com or RetinaMeeting.com.