-
1.
Patient profiles as an aim to optimize selection in the second line setting: the role of aflibercept.
González Astorga, B, Salvà Ballabrera, F, Aranda Aguilar, E, Élez Fernández, E, García-Alfonso, P, González Flores, E, Vera García, R, Fernández Montes, A, López Muñoz, AM, Salud Salvia, A
Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico. 2021;(8):1520-1528
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. For metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients, it is recommended, as first-line treatment, chemotherapy (CT) based on doublet cytotoxic combinations of fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) and fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX). In addition to CT, biological (targeted agents) are indicated in the first-line treatment, unless contraindicated. In this context, most of mCRC patients are likely to progress and to change from first line to second line treatment when they develop resistance to first-line treatment options. It is in this second line setting where Aflibercept offers an alternative and effective therapeutic option, thought its specific mechanism of action for different patient's profile: RAS mutant, RAS wild-type (wt), BRAF mutant, potentially resectable and elderly patients. In this paper, a panel of experienced oncologists specialized in the management of mCRC experts have reviewed and selected scientific evidence focused on Aflibercept as an alternative treatment.
-
2.
The Efficacy and Safety of Current Treatments in Diabetic Macular Edema: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Zhang, L, Wang, W, Gao, Y, Lan, J, Xie, L
PloS one. 2016;(7):e0159553
Abstract
PURPOSE To compare the efficacy and safety of current treatments in diabetic macular edema (DME). METHODS PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL were systematically reviewed for randomized controlled trials of current treatments in DME through August 2015. Data on the mean change of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) were extracted, and adverse events (AEs) were collected. RESULTS A total of 21 trials were included in our network meta-analysis. Intravitreal ranibizumab improved BCVA most significantly (OR: +7.01 95%CI (2.56 to 11.39)) in 6 months and intravitreal aflibercept (+8.19 (5.07 to 11.96)) in 12 months. Intravitreal triamcinolone combined with LASER decreased CMT most significantly (-111.34 (-254.61 to 37.93)) in 6 months and intravitreal aflibercept (-110.83 (-190.25 to -35.27)) in 12 months. Compared with the relatively high rate of ocular AEs in the groups with administration of steroids, systematic AEs occurred more frequently in the groups with vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors involved. CONCLUSIONS Our analysis confirms that intravitreal aflibercept is most favorable with both BCVA improvement and CMT decrease than other current therapies in the management of DME within 12 months. Vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors for DME should be used with caution due to systematic AEs. Combined intravitreal triamcinolone with LASER has a stronger efficacy in decreasing CMT than the other interventions in the early stage after injection. More high-quality randomized controlled trials will be necessary.
-
3.
Aflibercept for neovascular age-related macular degeneration.
Sarwar, S, Clearfield, E, Soliman, MK, Sadiq, MA, Baldwin, AJ, Hanout, M, Agarwal, A, Sepah, YJ, Do, DV, Nguyen, QD
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2016;(2):CD011346
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Central vision loss caused by age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of blindness among the elderly in developed countries. Neovascular AMD is characterized by choroidal neovascularization (CNV). Growth of new blood vessels in patients with neovascular AMD is driven by a complex process that involves a signal protein called vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A). Anti-VEGF drugs that block this protein include ranibizumab, bevacizumab, and aflibercept. OBJECTIVES To assess and compare the effectiveness and safety of intravitreal injections of aflibercept versus ranibizumab, bevacizumab, or sham for treatment of patients with neovascular AMD. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (Issue 11, 2015), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to November 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to November 2015), PubMed (1948 to November 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to November 2015), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) (last searched December 4, 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on November 30, 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which aflibercept monotherapy was compared with ranibizumab, bevacizumab, or sham for participants with neovascular AMD who were treatment-naive. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures of The Cochrane Collaboration for screening, data abstraction, and study assessment. Two review authors independently screened records, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included studies; we resolved discrepancies by discussion or with the help of a third review author when needed. MAIN RESULTS We included two RCTs (total of 2457 participants, 2457 eyes). Trial participants had neovascular AMD with active subfoveal choroidal neovascular lesions. Both trials followed the same protocol and compared aflibercept at various doses versus ranibizumab, but they were carried out in different countries. One trial enrolled participants from the United States and Canada, and the second trial was conducted at 172 sites in Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and the Middle East. The overall quality of the evidence was high, and included trials were at low risk for most bias domains assessed; however, both trials were funded by the manufacturers of aflibercept. For the purposes of analysis, we combined aflibercept groups regardless of dosing and analyzed them as a single group.Visual acuity outcomes were similar between aflibercept and ranibizumab groups; at one year, participants in the aflibercept groups showed mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline similar to that of participants in the ranibizumab groups (mean difference (MD) -0.15 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) -1.47 to 1.17; high-quality evidence). At two years, the mean change in BCVA from baseline was 7.2 ETDRS letters for aflibercept groups versus 7.9 for ranibizumab groups. Sufficient data were not available for calculation of confidence intervals.The proportion of participants who gained 15 or more letters of BCVA by one year of follow-up was approximately 32% for both aflibercept and ranibizumab (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.11; high-quality evidence), and by two years of follow-up was approximately 31% (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.12; high-quality evidence). Similar small proportions of participants in the aflibercept and ranibizumab groups lost 15 or more letters of BCVA at one year (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.30; high-quality evidence); this outcome was not reported for two-year follow-up. Data were not reported on the proportion of participants with BCVA worse than 20/200 at one- or two-year follow-up.Participants treated with aflibercept or ranibizumab showed similar improvement in morphological outcomes, as assessed from images (central retinal thickness and CNV size). At one year, the proportion of eyes that achieved dry retina was similar between aflibercept and ranibizumab groups (absence of cystic intraretinal fluid and subretinal fluid on optical coherence tomography (OCT); RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.14; high-quality evidence). In addition, investigators reported no difference in reduction of CNV area between aflibercept- and ranibizumab-treated eyes at one year (MD -0.24 mm(2), 95% CI -0.78 to 0.29; high-quality evidence). Data were not reported for the proportion of eyes with absence of leakage on fluorescein angiography at one- or two-year follow-up.Overall, occurrence of serious systemic adverse events was similar and comparable in aflibercept- and ranibizumab-treated groups at one year (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.25). Risk of any serious ocular adverse event was lower in the aflibercept group than in the ranibizumab group, but the risk estimate is imprecise (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.07). As the result of imprecision, we graded the quality of evidence for all adverse events as moderate. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Results of this review document the comparative effectiveness of aflibercept versus ranibizumab for visual acuity and morphological outcomes in eyes with neovascular AMD. Current available information on adverse effects of each medication suggests that the safety profile of aflibercept is comparable with that of ranibizumab; however, the number of participants who experienced adverse events was small, leading to imprecise estimates of absolute and relative effect sizes. The eight-week dosing regimen of aflibercept represents reduced treatment requirements in comparison with monthly dosing regimens and thus has the potential to reduce treatment burden and risks associated with frequent injections.
-
4.
Aflibercept in diabetic macular edema: evaluating efficacy as a primary and secondary therapeutic option.
Ashraf, M, Souka, A, Adelman, R, Forster, SH
Eye (London, England). 2016;(12):1531-1541
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
The recent results of Protocol T have illustrated the efficacy of aflibercept in the treatment of diabetic macular edema. It also demonstrated that in patients with poor vision (<6/12), aflibercept offers anatomical and visual advantages over ranibizumab and bevacizumab in the first 12 months of treament. At 2 years, the difference between the three drugs decreased with patients with a better baseline VA (69-78) showing a statistically insignificant advantage for ranibizumab compared with aflibercept.These results were achieved using a pro-re nata (PRN) protocol, which was not previously studied in large phase 3 trials, VIVID and VISTA, that chose to compare the 2.0 mg dose in a monthly and bimonthly regimen. In this review article, we analyzed earlier studies such as DAVINCI and VIVID and VISTA to determine which treatment strategy offers the best results; monthly, bimonthly, or PRN. We also studied the different doses for aflibercept used in DAVINCI to determine which is more effective the 0.5 mg dose or the 2.0 mg dose. In addition, we analyzed the recent data from protocol T with regards to visual and anatomic outcomes to try to determine whether these results concur with previous studies. Finally, we discuss the role of aflibercept as a potential alternative to any diabetic macular edema regimen regardless what the primary drug used is.
-
5.
Diagnostic and therapeutic implications of the vascular endothelial growth factor family in cancer.
Riaz, SK, Iqbal, Y, Malik, MF
Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP. 2015;(5):1677-82
Abstract
Cancer progression is attained by uncontrolled cell division and metastasis. Increase in tumor size triggers different vascular channel formation to address cell nutritional demands. These channels are responsible for transferring of nutrients and gaseous to the cancer cells. Cancer vascularization is regulated by numerous factors including vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGFs). These factors play an important role during embryonic development. Members included in this group are VEGFA, VEGFB, VEGFC, PIGF and VEGFD which markedly influence cellular growth and apoptosis. Being freely diffusible these proteins act in both autocrine and paracrine fashions. In this review, genetic characterization these molecules and their putative role in cancer staging has been elaborated. Prognostic significance of these molecules along with different stages of cancer has also been summarized. Brief outline of ongoing efforts to target hot spot target sites against these VEGFs and their cognate limitations for therapeutic implications are also highlighted.
-
6.
Systematic review and mixed treatment comparison of intravitreal aflibercept with other therapies for diabetic macular edema (DME).
Korobelnik, JF, Kleijnen, J, Lang, SH, Birnie, R, Leadley, RM, Misso, K, Worthy, G, Muston, D, Do, DV
BMC ophthalmology. 2015;:52
Abstract
BACKGROUND This was an indirect comparison of the effectiveness of intravitreal aflibercept (IVT-AFL) 2 mg every 8 weeks after 5 initial monthly doses (or if different periods, after an initial monthly dosing period) (2q8) and other diabetic macular edema (DME) therapies at doses licensed outside the USA. METHODS A comprehensive search was undertaken to source relevant studies. Feasibility networks were prepared to identify viable comparisons of 12-month outcomes between IVT-AFL 2q8 and therapies licensed outside the USA, which were assessed for clinical and statistical homogeneity. Pooled effect sizes (mean difference [MD] and relative risk/risk ratio [RR]) were calculated using fixed- and random-effects models. Indirect comparisons were performed using Bucher analysis. If at least one 'head-to-head' study was found then a mixed treatment comparison (MTC) was performed using Bayesian methods. Two 12-month comparisons could be undertaken based on indirect analyses: IVT-AFL 2q8 versus intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) 0.5 mg as needed (PRN) (10 studies) and IVT-AFL 2q8 versus dexamethasone 0.7 mg implants (three studies). RESULTS There was an increase in mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) with IVT-AFL 2q8 over IVR 0.5 mg PRN by 4.67 letters [95% credible interval (CrI): 2.45-6.87] in the fixed-effect MTC model (10 studies) and by 4.82 letters [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.52-7.11] in the Bucher indirect analysis (four studies). IVT-AFL 2q8 doubled the proportion of patients gaining ≥ 10 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters at 12 months compared with dexamethasone 0.7 mg implants (RR = 2.10 [95% CI: 1.29-3.40]) in the fixed-effect model. There were no significant differences in safety outcomes between IVT-AFL 2q8 and IVR 0.5 mg PRN or dexamethasone 0.7 mg implants. CONCLUSIONS Studies of IVT-AFL 2q8 showed improved 12-month visual acuity measures compared with studies of IVR 0.5 mg PRN and dexamethasone 0.7 mg implants based on indirect comparisons. These analyses are subject to a number of limitations which are inherent in indirect data comparisons.
-
7.
New Therapeutic Approaches in Diabetic Retinopathy.
Vaziri, K, Schwartz, SG, Relhan, N, Kishor, KS, Flynn, HW
The review of diabetic studies : RDS. 2015;(1-2):196-210
Abstract
Diabetic retinopathy is a common microvascular complication of diabetes mellitus. It affects a substantial proportion of US adults over age 40. The condition is a leading cause of visual loss. Much attention has been given to expanding the role of current treatments along with investigating various novel therapies and drug delivery methods. In the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME), intravitreal pharmacotherapies, especially anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents, have gained popularity. Currently, anti-VEGF agents are often used as first-line agents in center-involved DME, with recent data suggesting that among these agents, aflibercept leads to better visual outcomes in patients with worse baseline visual acuities. While photocoagulation remains the standard treatment for proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR), recent FDA approvals of ranibizumab and aflibercept in the management of diabetic retinopathy associated with DME may suggest a potential for pharmacologic treatments of PDR as well. Novel therapies, including small interfering RNAs, chemokines, kallikrein-kinin inhibitors, and various anti-angiogenic agents, are currently being evaluated for the management of diabetic retinopathy and DME. In addition to these strategies, novel drug delivery methods such as sustained-release implants and refillable reservoir implants are either under active evaluation or have recently gained FDA approval. This review provides an update on the novel developments in the treatment of diabetic retinopathy.
-
8.
Tyrosine kinase inhibitors directed against the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) have distinct cutaneous toxicity profiles: a meta-analysis and review of the literature.
Massey, PR, Okman, JS, Wilkerson, J, Cowen, EW
Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer. 2015;(6):1827-35
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
PURPOSE Inhibition of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) is associated with cutaneous adverse effects that increase patient morbidity. Our objective was to examine the skin toxicity profile of anti-VEGFR TKIs and determine the changing incidence in clinical trials. METHODS PubMed was queried for phase II or III trials of anti-VEGFR TKIs between 2000 and 2013 involving ≥50 patients. Adverse events were abstracted, with results presented in both fixed and random effects models. Odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated for studies with at least two arms. RESULTS Across 82 included studies, all grades rash (OR, 2.68; 95 % CI, 2.45-2.94), hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) (OR, 2.70; 95 % CI, 2.43-3.00), and pruritus (OR, 1.25; 95 % CI, 1.12-1.39) were associated with anti-VEGFR TKIs. Vandetanib had the highest incidence of rash (41 %), while sorafenib was most commonly associated with HFSR (37 %) and pruritus (14 %). The incidence of HFSR from 2000 to 2013 showed an upward trend (r (2) = 0.042, p = 0.10) and in sunitinib therapy increased significantly (r (2) = 0.237, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION The incidence of HFSR, rash, and pruritus varies considerably by drug. Our data suggest a continued need to address skin toxicities and improve reporting strategies.
-
9.
Sequencing of antiangiogenic agents in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.
Lee, JJ, Chu, E
Clinical colorectal cancer. 2014;(3):135-44
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Significant advances have been made with respect to our understanding of the critical role of agents targeting angiogenic pathways in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The approval of 3 agents that target angiogenic signaling, bevacizumab, ziv-aflibercept, and regorafenib, provides strong evidence that angiogenesis is an important process in mCRC. The addition of bevacizumab to combination chemotherapy in the first- and second-line treatment of mCRC has resulted in meaningful improvement in overall and progression-free survival. The standard of care for mCRC has evolved to incorporate cytotoxic chemotherapy as the backbone regimens (eg, FOLFOX [folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin], FOLFIRI [folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, and irinotecan]) with or without bevacizumab, and epidermal growth factor receptor-targeted therapies (eg, cetuximab, panitumumab) in the setting of wild-type KRAS. The development of ziv-aflibercept in combination with FOLFIRI has improved clinical efficacy in the second-line treatment of mCRC. Regorafenib, a small-molecule multikinase inhibitor, has recently been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration as single-agent therapy in the treatment of refractory and progressive mCRC. Each of these agents has been integrated into an evidence-based-albeit, still evolving-treatment continuum for initial treatment, treatment after first progression, and treatment after second progression. However, the most effective strategy for the use of these agents, and others in development remains unclear. This review provides an overview of the current clinical evidence for the use of antiangiogenic agents targeting in the treatment of mCRC.
-
10.
Anti-VEGF for the management of diabetic macular edema.
Stefanini, FR, Badaró, E, Falabella, P, Koss, M, Farah, ME, Maia, M
Journal of immunology research. 2014;:632307
Abstract
Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is an important cause of vision loss around the world, being the leading cause in the population between 20 and 60 years old. Among patients with DR, diabetic macular edema (DME) is the most frequent cause of vision impairment and represents a significant public health issue. Macular photocoagulation has been the standard treatment for this condition reducing the risk of moderate visual loss by approximately 50%. The role of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in DR and DME pathogenesis has been demonstrated in recent studies. This review addresses and summarizes data from the clinical trials that investigated anti-VEGF for the management of DME and evaluates their impact on clinical practice. The literature searches were conducted between August and October 2013 in PubMed and Cochrane Library with no date restrictions and went through the most relevant studies on pegaptanib, ranibizumab, bevacizumab, and aflibercept for the management of DME. The efficacy and safety of intravitreal anti-VEGF as therapy for DME have recently been proved by various clinical trials providing significantly positive visual and anatomical results. Regarding clinical practice, those outcomes have placed intravitreal injection of anti-VEGF as an option that must be considered for the treatment of DME.