4.4 Article

PHASE 2 STUDY OF THE SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF BRIMONIDINE DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEM (BRIMO DDS) GENERATION 1 IN PATIENTS WITH GEOGRAPHIC ATROPHY SECONDARY TO AGE-RELATED MACULAR DEGENERATION

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000002789

关键词

age-related macular degeneration; brimonidine; cyto; neuroprotection; cytoprotection; drug delivery; dry age-related macular degeneration; geographic atrophy; implant; nonexudative; sustained drug delivery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Brinidine drug delivery system showed favorable safety and efficacy in treating geographic atrophy secondary to age-related macular degeneration, with reduced lesion growth.
Purpose: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of Brimonidine Drug Delivery System (Brimo DDS), a biodegradable intravitreal implant, in the treatment of geographic atrophy (GA) secondary to age-related macular degeneration. Methods: Phase 2, randomized, multicenter, double-masked, 24-month study. Study eyes were treated (Day 1; Month 6 retreatment) with Brimo DDS 132 mu g (n = 49), Brimo DDS 264 mu g (n = 41), or sham procedure (n = 23). The primary timepoint for efficacy analysis was Month 12. Results: Mean GA area growth at Month 12 was 1.78 mm(2), 1.59 mm(2), and 2.19 mm(2) in the Brimo DDS 132 mu g, 264 mu g, and sham groups, respectively. Geographic atrophy area growth was consistently smaller with Brimo DDS 132 and 264 mu g than sham; between-group differences were significant (P <= 0.032) at Month 3. In patients with baseline lesion area >= 6 mm(2) (two-thirds of patients), GA lesion area and effective radius growth was reduced with Brimo DDS 132 and 264 mu g at Month 12 (P <= 0.050 vs. sham). Treatment-related adverse events were usually injection procedure-related. Conclusion: Brimo DDS demonstrated a favorable safety profile and reduced GA lesion area growth at Month 3. Lesion growth at Month 12 was reduced in patients with baseline GA lesion area >= 6 mm(2). The results support Phase 3 development.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据