This article is more than 5 years old. Information may no longer be current.
Of the ongoing studies regarding treatment for wet AMD, which results are you looking forward to the most?
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts
Two main points from the CATT
 Sophie J. Bakri |
I’m looking forward to the results of the CATT trial for two reasons.
Firstly, it will tell us if Avastin is non-inferior to Lucentis when given on a monthly basis. And that’s a question that the retina community really can’t wait to get the answer to.
The second thing is, it’s going to tell us if each drug is better given on a fixed monthly schedule vs. an as-needed schedule. And again, we don’t really have any good studies that have been done with as-needed Lucentis and Avastin. Hopefully, the CATT trial will give us the answer.
Sophie J. Bakri, MD, is an Associate Professor of Ophthalmology, Vitreoretinal Diseases and Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
Studies may answer questions on treatment frequency
There are two studies. The first is the CATT study. The most important finding in the CATT study will be whether monthly treatments are significantly better than as-needed treatments for either anti-VEGF agent. Right now, all the data from other clinical studies suggest that monthly treatments have better visual results. The question becomes, in a population that’s matched at baseline, is this difference going to be significant from a statistical standpoint and relevant from a clinical standpoint? It’s really less about whether Lucentis and Avastin are comparable; it’s more about how often we need to use these drugs.
 Peter K. Kaiser |
The second study is the DENALI study. Basically, the DENALI study combined with the MONT BLANC study are two sister studies looking at photodynamic therapy in combination with Lucentis vs. Lucentis monotherapy. The big question is, by combining Lucentis with photodynamic therapy, can we get results comparable to Lucentis alone but at a dramatically reduced treatment burden to the patient?
Basically, both studies are going to help us in a similar fashion, which is, are we OK treating patients with fewer anti-VEGF injections? And if we are OK, is it better to be treating in combination with other treatments or not?
Peter K. Kaiser, MD, is an OSN Retina/Vitreous Board Member and chair of the DENALI study.