InvestorsHub Logo

drbio45

03/08/14 4:10 PM

#175210 RE: DewDiligence #175208

OPHT/REGN—An interesting slide [from OPHT’s R&D Day] concerned an 11,000-patient study showing that after two years of vegf injections the patient's vision is actually below the baseline of where they were at the start of treatments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The studies in OPHT’s slide set were observational, not randomized controlled trials; thus there may have been bias in selecting the databases to include in those studies. Moreover, some patients in the observational studies received little or no treatment beyond two years, so it’s not surprising that mean visual acuity declined to worse than baseline at some point after stopping treatment. No one has asserted that Lucentis/Avastin/Eylea enable a patient to retain the best visual acuity achieved during treatment after treatment is stopped.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I knew that many patients stopped responding to treatment after two years, but did not know that it was most of them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There’s nothing medically special about the two-year time point—it’s simply the duration of VEGF treatment commonly used in practice.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


look at your response. you are saying that it is no surprise that the treatment didn't work after treatment stopped after two years. Is it reasonable to you that the doctor who makes money everytime he gives an injection and the patient who would go blind, would voluntarily stop the treatments if they were working.

Doesn't it make more sense the the treatment stops working at about two years, so the doctor gives up and the patient figures that it doesn't make sense to keep coming in to the office for an eye injection if the treatment isn't working.

Saying there is nothing special about the two-year time point, it is just the duration of treatment used in practice, doesn't make sense unless the treatment only works for two years.

I don't think people wake up after two years and say, I delayed blindness for two years, I don't mind going blind now.

biocqr

03/08/14 4:26 PM

#175212 RE: DewDiligence #175208

OPHT/REGN > Are you suggesting Tachyphylaxis doesn't factor in to reduction in treatment with anti-VEGFs? That's what your statement sounds like..

There’s nothing medically special about the two-year time point—it’s simply the duration of VEGF treatment commonly used in practice.



Resistance to antivascular endothelial growth factor treatment in age-related macular degeneration

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3692343/

Anti-VEGF resistance
Poor response to anti-VEGF may be due to various factors. In nearly 50% of these ‘resistant’ cases, patients are misdiagnosed for AMD, while polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV) accounts for the majority of the underlying pathology. Tachyphylaxis also appears to play a significant role and these patients may require treatment modifications. Finally, a small number of AMD patients may be genetically predisposed to show resistance to anti-VEGF treatment. Considering the systemic risks and cost of therapy involved, identification of these eyes is essential.11