Drugs & Aging

, Volume 28, Issue 11, pp 853–865

Therapeutic Efficacy of Bevacizumab for Age-Related Macular Degeneration

What are the Implications of CATT for Routine Management?
Current Opinion


CATT (Comparison of Age-related macular degeneration [AMD] Treatment Trials) examined the efficacy of ranibizumab and bevacizumab for the treatment of neovascular AMD. This prospective, randomized, but unblinded trial revealed a significant improvement in vision with both treatments in terms of visual acuity; importantly, patients with juxtafoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV) and retinal pigment epithelial detachments were not excluded from the study. Monthly treatment with the drugs resulted in similar increases in visual acuity, although angiograms indicated that ranibizumab was superior in terms of reducing retinal fluid and leakage.

As the study also differentiated between a fixed regimen and an as-needed (pro re nata [PRN]) dosing regimen, a larger sample size and Bonferroni statistical correction were necessary. The equivalence of the PRN dosing of bevacizumab to the monthly treatment could not be confirmed. Almost all of the frequent deviations from the protocol (referring to retreatment criteria: 25.7–28.5%) resulted in under-treatment. Since this applied to both drugs equally, under-treatment alone could not explain the larger loss of visual acuity observed in the bevacizumab PRN arm. The PRN regimen was generally associated with a larger lesion size after 12 months compared with the fixed treatment regimens.

The investigators accepted the drawbacks of an incomplete masking to allow co-payment by Medicare. As assessments of drug trials are often politically motivated, the higher demands of a non-inferiority trial compared with a superiority design must be emphasized. A comparison of the per-protocol and last-observation-carried-forward analysis has not yet been published; ongoing subgroup analysis might highlight the impact of different lesion characteristics. While CATT provided further evidence for the efficacy of bevacizumab treatment, differences in adverse events between the two treatments (e.g. a higher rate of serious adverse events with bevacizumab compared with ranibizumab) were reported; however, these still have to be analysed, with the larger sample sizes of previous ranibizumab studies needing to be taken into account. Preclinical studies imply some differences between the drugs in terms of their adverse event profiles. A possible increased risk of adverse events could not be ruled out by previous clinical case series and CATT because the sample sizes and the follow-up intervals were not adequate.

The large discrepancy in the price of bevacizumab versus ranibizumab in the US means a cost-benefit analysis is warranted. A lack of quality-of-life data has prevented calculation of an appropriate bevacizumab price in the context of its performance in the ophthalmological setting.

Thus, CATT suggests that a favourable visual acuity might be achieved by very frequent administration of bevacizumab in patients with neovascular AMD. Although there are certain safety caveats, increased focus on subgroup analyses and obtaining longer follow-up data are expected to yield additional information of clinical relevance.


  1. 1.
    Ziemssen F, Heiduschka P, Schraermeyer U. Re: development of ranibizumab, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor antigen binding fragment, as therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Retina 2007; 27(8): 1154–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Martin DF, Maguire MG, Fine SL. Identifying and eliminating the roadblocks to comparative-effectiveness research. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 105–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    The CATT Research Group. Ranibizumab and bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med 2011; 364: 1897–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    American Academy of Ophthalmology. Statement from the American Academy of Ophthalmology regarding the results of the Comparison of AMD Treatment Trials [press release]. 2011 Apr 28 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.aao.org/newsroom/release/20110428.cfm [Accessed 2011 Sep 12]
  5. 5.
    The Royal College of Ophthalmologists. Press statement on the CATT study [press release]. 2011 Apr 5 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.rcophth.ac.uk/news.asp?itemid=427&itemTitle=Press+Statement+on+the+CATT+Study&section=24&sectionTitle=News [Accessed 2011 Sep 12]
  6. 6.
    Brechner RJ, Rosenfeld PJ, Babish JD, et al. Pharmacotherapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: an analysis of the 100% 2008 Medicare fee-for-service Part B claims file. Am J Ophthalmol 2011; 151(5): 887–895.e1PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ziemssen F, Grisanti S, Bartz-Schmidt KU, et al. Off-label use of bevacizumab for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration: what is the evidence? Drugs Aging 2009; 26(4): 295–320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brown DM, Kaiser PK, Michels M, et al. Ranibizumab versus verteporfin for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 1432–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rosenfeld PJ, Brown DM, Heier JS, et al. Ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 1419–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lalwani GA, Rosenfeld PJ, Fung AE, et al. A variable-dosing regimen with intravitreal ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: year 2 of the PrONTO Study. Am J Ophthalmol 2009; 148: 43–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schmidt-Erfurth U, Eldem B, Guymer R, et al. Efficacy and safety of monthly versus quarterly ranibizumab treatment in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: the EXCITE Study. Ophthalmology 2011 May; 118: 831–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mitchell P, Korobelnik JF, Lanzetta P, et al. Ranibizumab (Lucentis) in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: evidence from clinical trials. Br J Ophthalmol 2010; 94: 2–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pauleikhoff D, Kirchhof B. Retreatment criteria in anti-VEGF therapy of exudative AMD: critical analysis of present regimes and new morphological definition of “lesion activity”. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2011 May; 249: 631–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Muether PS, Hermann MM, Koch K, et al. Delay between medical indication to anti-VEGF treatment in age-related macular degeneration can result in a loss of visual acuity. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2011; 249: 633–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boron WF. NIH funding of the independent investigator. Physiology 2006; 21: 300–1PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shekelle P. Pharmaceutical company-sponsored drug trials: what are we to believe? J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 126–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lichter PR. Continuing medical education, physicians, and Pavlov: can we change what happens when industry rings the bell? Arch Ophthalmol 2008; 126: 1593–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Novack GD. The role of pharmaceutical companies in sponsored research. Ophthalmology 2007; 114: 1037–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jampol LM, Packer S, Mills RP, et al. A perspective on commercial relationships between ophthalmology and industry. Arch Ophthalmol 2009; 127: 1194–202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Miller LE, Stewart ME. The blind leading the blind: use and misuse of blinding in randomized controlled trials. Con-temp Clin Trials 2011; 32: 240–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Eriksson U, Alm A, Larsson E. Is quantitative spectral-domain superior to time-domain optical coherence tomography (OCT) in eyes with age-related macular degeneration? Acta Ophthalmol. Epub 2011 Mar 4: doi: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2011.02112.xGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Querques G, Forte R, Berboucha E, et al. Spectral-domain versus time domain optical coherence tomography before and after ranibizumab for age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmic Res 2011 Mar 8; 46(3): 152–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Khurana RN, Dupas B, Bressler NM. Agreement of time-domain and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography with fluorescein leakage from choroidal neovascularization. Ophthalmology 2010; 117: 1376–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Golbaz I, Ahlers C, Stock G, et al. Quantification of the therapeutic response of intraretinal, subretinal, and subpigment epithelial compartments in exudative AMD during anti-VEGF therapy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011; 52: 1599–605PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Arora S, McKibbin M. One-year outcome after intravitreal ranibizumab for large, serous pigment epithelial detachment secondary to age-related macular degeneration. Eye (Lond) 2011 Aug; 25(8): 1034–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stangos AN, Gandhi JS, Nair-Sahni J, et al. Polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy masquerading as neovascular age-related macular degeneration refractory to ranibizumab. Am J Ophthalmol 2010; 150: 666–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhao W, Weng Y, Wu Q, et al. Quantitative comparison of randomization designs in sequential clinical trials based on treatment balance and allocation randomness. Pharm Stat. Epub 2011 May 5: doi: 10.1002/pst.493Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chylack Jr LT, Wolfe JK, Singer DM, et al. The Lens Opacities Classification System III. The Longitudinal Study of Cataract Study Group. Arch Ophthalmol 1993; 111: 831–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fleming TR. Addressing missing data in clinical trials. Ann Intern Med 2011 Jan 18; 154(2): 113–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Snapinn SM. Noninferiority trials. Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med 2000; 1: 19–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Johanson R, Burr R, Leighton N, et al. Informed choice? Evidence of the persuasive power of professionals. J Public Health Med 2000; 22: 439–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tarn DM, Paterniti DA, Heritage J, et al. Physician communication about the cost and acquisition of newly prescribed medications. Am J Manag Care 2006 Nov; 12(11): 657–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Edwards M, Davies M, Edwards A. What are the external influences on information exchange and shared decision-making in healthcare consultations: a meta-synthesis of the literature. Patient Educ Couns 2009 Apr; 75(1): 37–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tarn DM, Paterniti DA, Williams BR, et al. Which providers should communicate which critical information about a new medication? Patient, pharmacist, and physician perspectives. J Am Geriatr Soc 2009 Mar; 57(3): 462–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Goff SL, Mazor KM, Meterko V, et al. Patients’ beliefs and preferences regarding doctors’ medication recommendations. J Gen Intern Med 2008 Mar; 23(3): 236–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Swindell JS, McGuire AL, Halpern SD. Beneficent persuasion: techniques and ethical guidelines to improve patients’ decisions. Ann Fam Med 2010; 8: 260–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Keane PA, Patel PJ, Ouyang Y, et al. Effects of retinal morphology on contrast sensitivity and reading ability in neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010 Nov; 51(11): 5431–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bressler NM, Chang TS, Suñer IJ, et al. Vision-related function after ranibizumab treatment by better- or worse-seeing eye: clinical trial results from MARINA and ANCHOR. Ophthalmology 2010 Apr; 117(4): 747–56.e4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yu L, Liang XH, Ferrara N. Comparing protein VEGF inhibitors: in vitro biological studies. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2011 May 6; 408(2): 276–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Deissler HL, Deissler H, Lang GE. Inhibition of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is sufficient to completely restore barrier malfunction induced by growth factors in microvascular retinal endothelial cells. Br J Ophthalmol 2011 Aug; 95(8): 1151–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Campbell RJ, Bronskill SE, Bell CM, et al. Rapid expansion of intravitreal drug injection procedures, 2000 to 2008: a population-based analysis. Arch Ophthalmol 2010 Mar; 128: 359–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ferrara N, Damico L, Shams N, et al. Development of ranibizumab, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor antigen binding fragment, as therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Retina 2006; 26(8): 859–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Genentech. Genentech statement on CAT trial data published in the New England Journal of Medicine [press release]. 2011 Apr 28 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.gene.com/gene/news/press-releases/press_statements/ps_042811.html [Accessed 2011 Sep 13]
  44. 44.
    Ziemssen F, Bartz-Schmidt KU, Grisanti S. (Side) effects of VEGF inhibition. Ophthalmologe 2006; 103(6): 484–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    US Social Security Administration. Period life table, 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html [Accessed 2011 Sep 13]
  46. 46.
    Ezzati M, Friedman AB, Kulkarni SC, et al. The reversal of fortunes: trends in county mortality and cross-county mortality disparities in the United States. PLoS Med 2008 Apr 22; 5(4): e66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mitchell P. A systematic review of the efficacy and safety outcomes of anti-VEGF agents used for treating neovascular age-related macular degeneration: comparison of ranibizumab and bevacizumab. Curr Med Res Opin 2011; 27(7): 1465–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Schmucker C, Loke YK, Ehlken C, et al. Intravitreal bevacizumab (Avastin) versus ranibizumab (Lucentis) for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration: a safety review. Br J Ophthalmol 2011; 95(3): 308–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Tolentino M. Systemic and ocular safety of intravitreal anti-VEGF therapies for ocular neovascular disease. Surv Ophthalmol 2011; 56(2): 95–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Curtis LH, Hammill BG, Schulman KA, et al. Risks of mortality, myocardial infarction, bleeding, and stroke associated with therapies for age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol 2010; 128(10): 1273–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Gower EW, Cassard S, Chu L, et al. Adverse event rates following intravitreal injection of Avastin or Lucentis for treating age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011; 52: E-Abstract 6644Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Csaky K, Do DV. Safety implications of vascular endothelial growth factor blockade for subjects receiving intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies. Am J Ophthalmol 2009 Nov; 148(5): 647–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zhu Q, Ziemssen F, Henke-Fahle S, et al. Vitreous levels of bevacizumab and vascular endothelial growth factor-A in patients with choroidal neovascularization. Ophthalmology 2008; 115(10): 1750–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kelly SP, Barua A. A review of safety incidents in England and Wales for vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor medications. Eye 2011; 25(6): 710–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Klettner AK, Kruse ML, Meyer T, etal. Different properties of VEGF-antagonists: bevacizumab but not ranibizumab accumulates in RPE cells. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2009; 247: 1601–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Klettner A, Möhle F, Roider J. Intracellular bevacizumab reduces phagocytotic uptake in RPE cells. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2010; 248: 819–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hawkes N. Cheap drug is as good at treating eye disorder as more expensive product, trial shows. BMJ 2011 May 3; 342: d2794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    la Cour M. Intravitreal VEGF-inhibitors: is Avastin a generic substitute for Lucentis? Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2007; 85(1): 2–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Patel JJ, Mendes MA, Bounthavong M, et al. Cost-utility analysis of bevacizumab versus ranibizumab in neovascular age-related macular degeneration using a Markov model. J Eval Clin Pract. Epub 2010 Sep 16: doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01546.xGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Raftery J, Clegg A, Jones J, et al. Ranibizumab (Lucentis) versus bevacizumab (Avastin): modelling cost effectiveness. Br J Ophthalmol 2007; 91(9): 1244–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Gower EW, Cassard SD, Bass EB, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of three treatments for age-related macular degeneration. Retina 2010 Feb; 30(2): 212–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Neubauer AS, Holz FG, Sauer S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration in Germany: model analysis from the perspective of Germany’s statutory health insurance system. Clin Ther 2010 Jul; 32(7): 1343–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Mitchell P, Annemans L, White R, et al. Cost effectiveness of treatments for wet age-related macular degeneration. Pharmacoeconomics 2011 Feb 1; 29(2): 107–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Hodge W, Brown A, Kymes S, et al. Pharmacologic management of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: systematic review of economic evidence and primary economic evaluation. Can J Ophthalmol 2010; 45: 223–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Stewart MW, Rosenfeld PJ. Predicted biological activity of intravitreal VEGF Trap. Br J Ophthalmol 2008 May; 92(5): 667–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for OphthalmologyUniversity Eye Hospital, Eberhard-Karls University of TuebingenTuebingenGermany

Personalised recommendations