14 CLINICAL STUDIES
-
14.1 Neovascular (Wet) Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD)
The safety and efficacy of aflibercept were assessed in two randomized, multi-center, double-masked ...
14 CLINICAL STUDIES
14.1 Neovascular (Wet) Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD)
The safety and efficacy of aflibercept were assessed in two randomized, multi-center, double-masked, active-controlled studies in patients with wet AMD. A total of 2412 patients were treated and evaluable for efficacy (1817 with aflibercept) in the two studies (VIEW1 and VIEW2). In each study, up to week 52, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to 1 of 4 dosing regimens: 1) aflibercept administered 2 mg every 8 weeks following 3 initial monthly doses (aflibercept 2Q8); 2) aflibercept administered 2 mg every 4 weeks (aflibercept 2Q4); 3) aflibercept 0.5 mg administered every 4 weeks (aflibercept 0.5Q4); and 4) ranibizumab administered 0.5 mg every 4 weeks (ranibizumab 0.5 mg Q4). Protocol-specified visits occurred every 28±3 days. Patient ages ranged from 49 to 99 years with a mean of 76 years.
In both studies, the primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients who maintained vision, defined as losing fewer than 15 letters of visual acuity at week 52 compared to baseline. Both aflibercept 2Q8 and aflibercept 2Q4 groups were shown to have efficacy that was clinically equivalent to the ranibizumab 0.5 mg Q4 group in year 1.
Detailed results from the analysis of the VIEW1 and VIEW2 studies are shown in Table 4 and Figure 8 below.
Table 4: Efficacy Outcomes at Week 52 (Full Analysis Set with LOCF) in VIEW1 and VIEW2 Studies
BCVA = Best Corrected Visual Acuity; CI = Confidence Interval; ETDRS = Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study; LOCF = Last Observation Carried Forward (baseline values are not carried forward); 95.1% confidence intervals were presented to adjust for safety assessment conducted during the study
a After treatment initiation with 3 monthly doses
b Aflibercept group minus the ranibizumab group
Treatment effects in evaluable subgroups (e.g., age, gender, race, baseline visual acuity) in each study were in general consistent with the results in the overall populations.
Figure 8: Mean Change in Visual Acuity from Baseline to Week 96* in VIEW1 and VIEW2 Studies

*Patient dosing schedules were individualized from weeks 52 to 96 using a modified 12-week dosing regimen.
VIEW1 and VIEW2 studies were both 96 weeks in duration. However after 52 weeks patients no longer followed a fixed dosing schedule. Between week 52 and week 96, patients continued to receive the drug and dosage strength to which they were initially randomized on a modified 12 week dosing schedule (doses at least every 12 weeks and additional doses as needed). Therefore, during the second year of these studies there was no active control comparison arm.
14.2 Macular Edema Following Central Retinal Vein Occlusion (CRVO)
The safety and efficacy of aflibercept were assessed in two randomized, multi-center, double-masked, sham-controlled studies in patients with macular edema following CRVO. A total of 358 patients were treated and evaluable for efficacy (217 with aflibercept) in the two studies (COPERNICUS and GALILEO). In both studies, patients were randomly assigned in a 3:2 ratio to either 2 mg aflibercept administered every 4 weeks (2Q4), or sham injections (control group) administered every 4 weeks for a total of 6 injections. Protocol-specified visits occurred every 28±7 days. Patient ages ranged from 22 to 89 years with a mean of 64 years.
In both studies, the primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients who gained at least 15 letters in BCVA compared to baseline. At week 24, the aflibercept 2 mg Q4 group was superior to the control group for the primary endpoint.
Results from the analysis of the COPERNICUS and GALILEO studies are shown in Table 5 and Figure 9 below.
Table 5: Efficacy Outcomes at Week 24 (Full Analysis Set with LOCF) in COPERNICUS and GALILEO Studies
a Difference is Aflibercept 2 mg Q4 weeks minus Control
b Difference and CI are calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for baseline factors; 95.1% confidence intervals were presented to adjust for the multiple assessments conducted during the study
c p<0.01 compared with Control
d LS mean and CI based on an ANCOVA model
Figure 9: Mean Change in BCVA as Measured by ETDRS Letter Score from Baseline to Week 24 in COPERNICUS and GALILEO Studies

Treatment effects in evaluable subgroups (e.g., age, gender, race, baseline visual acuity, retinal perfusion status, and CRVO duration) in each study and in the combined analysis were in general consistent with the results in the overall populations.
14.3 Macular Edema Following Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion (BRVO)
The safety and efficacy of aflibercept were assessed in a 24-week, randomized, multi-center, double-masked, controlled study in patients with macular edema following BRVO. A total of 181 patients were treated and evaluable for efficacy (91 with aflibercept) in the VIBRANT study. In the study, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either 2 mg aflibercept administered every 4 weeks (2Q4) or laser photocoagulation administered at baseline and subsequently as needed (control group). Protocol-specified visits occurred every 28±7 days. Patient ages ranged from 42 to 94 years with a mean of 65 years.
In the VIBRANT study, the primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients who gained at least 15 letters in BCVA at week 24 compared to baseline. At week 24, the aflibercept 2 mg Q4 group was superior to the control group for the primary endpoint.
Detailed results from the analysis of the VIBRANT study are shown in Table 6 and Figure 10 below.
Table 6: Efficacy Outcomes at Week 24 (Full Analysis Set with LOCF) in VIBRANT Study
a Difference is Aflibercept 2 mg Q4 weeks minus Control
b Difference and CI are calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted for region (North America vs. Japan) and baseline BCVA category (> 20/200 and ≤ 20/200)
c p<0.01 compared with Control
d LS mean and CI based on an ANCOVA model
Figure 10: Mean Change in BCVA as Measured by ETDRS Letter Score from Baseline to Week 24 in VIBRANT Study

Treatment effects in evaluable subgroups (e.g., age, gender, and baseline retinal perfusion status) in the study were in general consistent with the results in the overall populations.
14.4 Diabetic Macular Edema (DME)
The safety and efficacy of aflibercept were assessed in two randomized, multi-center, double-masked, controlled studies in patients with DME. A total of 862 randomized and treated patients were evaluable for efficacy. Protocol-specified visits occurred every 28±7 days. Patient ages ranged from 23 to 87 years with a mean of 63 years.
Of those, 576 were randomized to aflibercept groups in the two studies (VIVID and VISTA). In each study, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to 1 of 3 dosing regimens:
1) aflibercept administered 2 mg every 8 weeks following 5 initial monthly injections (aflibercept 2Q8); 2) aflibercept administered 2 mg every 4 weeks (aflibercept 2Q4); and 3) macular laser photocoagulation (at baseline and then as needed). Beginning at week 24, patients meeting a pre‑specified threshold of vision loss were eligible to receive additional treatment: patients in the aflibercept groups could receive laser and patients in the laser group could receive aflibercept.
In both studies, the primary efficacy endpoint was the mean change from baseline in BCVA at week 52 as measured by ETDRS letter score. Efficacy of both aflibercept 2Q8 and aflibercept 2Q4 groups was statistically superior to the control group. This statistically superior improvement in BCVA was maintained at week 100 in both studies.
Results from the analysis of the VIVID and VISTA studies are shown in Table 7 and Figure 11 below.
Table 7: Efficacy Outcomes at Weeks 52 and 100 (Full Analysis Set with LOCF) in VIVID and VISTA Studies
a After treatment initiation with 5 monthly injections
b LS mean and CI based on an ANCOVA model with baseline BCVA measurement as a covariate and a factor for treatment group. Additionally, protocol specified stratification factors were included in the model
c Difference is Aflibercept group minus Control group
d p<0.01 compared with Control
e Difference with confidence interval (CI) and statistical test is calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by protocol specified stratification factors
Figure 11: Mean Change in BCVA as Measured by ETDRS Letter Score from Baseline to Week 100 in VIVID and VISTA Studies

Treatment effects in the subgroup of patients who had previously been treated with a VEGF inhibitor prior to study participation were similar to those seen in patients who were VEGF inhibitor naïve prior to study participation.
Treatment effects in evaluable subgroups (e.g., age, gender, race, baseline HbA1c, baseline visual acuity, prior anti-VEGF therapy) in each study were in general consistent with the results in the overall populations.
14.5 Diabetic Retinopathy (DR)
Efficacy and safety data of aflibercept in diabetic retinopathy (DR) are derived from the VIVID, VISTA, and PANORAMA studies.
VIVID AND VISTA
In the VIVID and VISTA studies, an efficacy outcome was the change in the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale (ETDRS-DRSS). The ETDRS-DRSS score was assessed at baseline and approximately every 6 months thereafter for the duration of the studies [see Clinical Studies (14.4)].
All enrolled patients had DR and DME at baseline. The majority of patients enrolled in these studies (77%) had moderate-to-severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) based on the ETDRS-DRSS. At week 100, the proportion of patients improving by at least 2 steps on the ETDRS-DRSS was significantly greater in both aflibercept treatment groups (2Q4 and 2Q8) when compared to the control group.
Results from the analysis of ETDRS-DRSS at week 100 in the VIVID and VISTA studies are shown in Table 8 below.
Table 8: Proportion of Patients Who Achieved a ≥2-Step Improvement from Baseline in the ETDRS-DRSS Score at Week 100 in VIVID and VISTA Studies
Non-gradable post-baseline ETDRS-DRSS values were treated as missing and were imputed using the last gradable ETDRS-DRSS values (including baseline values if all post-baseline values were missing or non-gradable)
a After treatment initiation with 5 monthly injections
b The number of evaluable patients included all patients who had valid ETDRS-DRSS data at baseline
c Difference with confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by protocol specified stratification factors
d Difference is Aflibercept minus Control group
e p<0.01 compared with Control
Results of the evaluable subgroups (e.g., age, gender, race, baseline HbA1c, baseline visual acuity) on the proportion of patients who achieved a ≥2-step improvement on the ETDRS-DRSS from baseline to week 100 were, in general, consistent with those in the overall population.
PANORAMA
The PANORAMA study assessed the safety and efficacy of aflibercept in a randomized, multi-center, double-masked, controlled study in patients with moderately severe to severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) (ETDRS-DRSS of 47 or 53), without central-involved DME (CI-DME). A total of 402 randomized patients were evaluable for efficacy. Protocol-specified visits occurred every 28±7 days for the first 5 visits, then every 8 weeks (56±7 days). Patient ages ranged from 25 to 85 years with a mean of 55.7 years.
Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to 1 of 3 dosing regimens: 1) 3 initial monthly aflibercept 2 mg injections followed by one injection after 8 weeks and then one injection every 16 weeks (aflibercept 2Q16); 2) 5 monthly aflibercept 2 mg injections followed by one injection every 8 weeks (aflibercept 2Q8); and 3) sham treatment.
The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients who improved by ≥2 steps on the DRSS from baseline to week 24 in the combined aflibercept groups and at week 52 in the 2Q16 and 2Q8 groups individually versus sham. A key secondary endpoint was the proportion of patients developing the composite endpoint of proliferative diabetic retinopathy or anterior segment neovascularization through week 52.
At week 52, efficacy in the 2Q16 and 2Q8 groups was superior to the sham group (see Table 9 and Table 10). The proportion of patients with a ≥2-step improvement over time is shown in Figure 12.
Table 9: Proportion of Patients Who Achieved a ≥2-Step Improvement from Baseline in the ETDRS-DRSS Score at Weeks 24 and 52 in PANORAMA
Non-gradable post-baseline ETDRS-DRSS values were treated as missing and were imputed using the last gradable ETDRS-DRSS values (including baseline values if all post-baseline values were missing or non-gradable)
a Difference is Aflibercept group minus sham
b Difference with CI was calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by baseline DRSS stratification variable
c p<0.01 compared with Control. p-value was calculated using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by baseline DRSS stratification variable
Figure 12: Proportion of Patients Who Achieved a ≥2-Step Improvement from Baseline in the ETDRS-DRSS Score Through Week 52 in PANORAMA

Table 10: Effect of Aflibercept on Worsening of Diabetic Retinopathy in PANORAMA through Week 52
PDR = Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy; ASNV = Anterior Segment Neovascularization
a As diagnosed by either the Reading Center or Investigator through week 52
b Estimated using Kaplan-Meier method
c Defined as ≥2-step worsening on the ETDRS-DRSS score through week 52
d p<0.01 compared with Control
Close