This article is more than 5 years old. Information may no longer be current.
IVAN, CATT meta-analysis increases power of results
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — In a meta-analysis that combines the 1-year interim results of the IVAN trial with the first-year non-inferiority results of CATT, researchers reaffirmed that there is no difference whether bevacizumab or ranibizumab is used to treat neovascular age-related macular degeneration with regard to visual acuity.
"What does the meta-analysis do? It confirms that visual acuity is equivalent at 1 year with Lucentis and Avastin," Usha Chakravarthy, PhD, FRCS, said at the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology meeting.
Best corrected visual acuity at 2 years is the primary outcome of the alternative treatments to inhibit VEGF in age-related choroidal neovascularization (IVAN) trial; Prof. Chakravarthy reported the 1-year interim results and further added its results to the first-year results of the Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatment Trials.
The data in the CATT and the IVAN trial are comparable because of their similar protocols and objectives, with one difference being that all study participants in IVAN had three monthly doses of their assigned drug before continuing on a monthly regimen or switching to as-needed dosing.
By itself, the IVAN trial at 1 year shows no clinically important difference in visual acuity between Avastin (bevacizumab, Genentech) and Lucentis (ranibizumab, Genentech), no clinically important difference in any secondary functional outcome, no difference between drugs in regard to morphological measures, a greater decrease in serum VEGF with bevacizumab than ranibizumab, and rare arteriothrombolic events that were more frequent with ranibizumab than bevacizumab, according to Prof. Chakravarthy.
- Disclosure: Prof. Chakravarthy has been an investigator in studies funded by Allergan, Bausch + Lomb, Bayer, NeoVista, Novartis and Oraya Therapeutics.