Article

Pegaptanib shows evidence of functional, anatomic benefits in eyes with non-ischemic central retinal vein occlusion

Results of a phase II study evaluating pegaptanib sodium (Macugen, OSI Eyetech/Pfizer) intravitreal injection in eyes with macular edema (ME) secondary to nonischemic central retinal vein occlusion suggest a potential role for vascular endothelial growth factor blockade to reduce ME and improve visual acuity.

Key Points

Indian Wells, CA-Intravitreal injection of pegaptanib sodium (Macugen, OSI Eyetech/Pfizer) appears to have positive effects in eyes with non-ischemic central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO), according to results from the Macugen in CRVO Study.

Speaking on behalf of his co-investigators at the annual meeting of the American Society of Retina Specialists, Jack Wells, MD, presented the findings through 1-year of follow-up that showed pegaptanib treatment improved vision in parallel with reducing macular edema (ME).

"Vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF] is believed to play a central role in the complications associated with CRVO, but, to our knowledge, this is the first prospective, randomized clinical trial of anti-VEGF therapy for treatment of ME secondary to CRVO," said Dr. Wells, a vitreoretinal specialist in private practice in Columbia, SC. "We believe the favorable anatomic and functional results observed suggest selective VEGF blockade is a promising therapeutic approach for retinal venous occlusive disease."

Intravitreal injections were given at baseline (week 0) and then every 6 weeks through week 24, for a total of five injections. Primary and secondary efficacy analyses, including ETDRS VA outcomes and changes in optical coherence tomography (OCT)-measured central retinal thickness, were based on data collected at the week 30 and week 52 visits.

Patients were eligible for participation if CRVO had occurred within the previous 6 months and best-corrected VA in the study eye was between 65 and 20 ETDRS letters (approximately 20/50 to 20/400). Presence of ME identified by OCT was required, and central retinal thickness had to be at least 250 µm at the screening and first treatment visit. The major exclusion criteria prohibited enrollment of patients with brisk afferent pupillary defect or ocular neovascularization.

The proportion of eyes gaining 15 or more letters from baseline VA to week 30 was analyzed as the primary efficacy endpoint. The results showed a trend in favor of the pegaptanib arms, with that outcome being achieved in 36% of patients treated with the 0.3-mg dose and in 39% of patients treated with the 1.0-mg dose, compared with 28% of sham-treated patients. The difference was not statistically significant between either treatment group and sham, however.

"The improvement noted in the sham group points out that the natural history of CRVO can be quite favorable and, therefore, emphasizes the need for randomized trials to investigate the efficacy of treatments for this disease," said Dr. Wells.

VA changes

An analysis of change in VA from baseline showed that the benefit of pegaptanib treatment occurred early and was sustained, whereas patients in the sham-treated control group had a loss of vision by week 6 that worsened through week 18 and persisted throughout the follow-up. At week 30, patients treated with pegaptanib 0.3 mg had a mean 7.1 letter gain from baseline VA, and the 1.0-mg group benefited with a mean 9.9-letter gain. The difference in change from baseline vision comparing the pegaptanib 1.0 mg group and the sham group was a mean of 13.1 letters and was statistically significant. The mean difference in change from VA from baseline between the pegaptanib 0.3 mg group and the controls was 10.3 letters, but it did not achieve statistical significance.

The week 30 VA data also were analyzed to compare the percentage of patients who lost 15 or more letters from baseline and the percentage with VA of 35 letters or better (~20/200). For these endpoints, statistically significant differences favored both pegaptanib groups compared with the control arm.

In the sham group, 31% of eyes lost 15 or more letters of vision compared with 9% of eyes in the pegaptanib 0.3 mg group and 6% of eyes treated with pegaptanib 1.0 mg. About 90% of eyes in both pegaptanib groups retained vision of 35 letters or better, compared with only 63% of eyes in the sham group.

Newsletter

Don’t miss out—get Ophthalmology Times updates on the latest clinical advancements and expert interviews, straight to your inbox.

Related Videos
(Image credit: Ophthalmology Times) ASCRS 2025: Parag Majmudar, MD, on bridging the gap between residency and real-world practice
Brett Bielory, MD, discusses his poster at the ASCRS annual meeting, which focuses on an under-diagnosed corneal pathology: neurotrophic keratitis.
ASCRS 2025: Eva Kim, MD, discusses implantable collamer lenses and high myopia.
Abby Markward, MBA, and Hattie Hayes, editor of Ophthalmology Times Europe, discuss the ASCRS and ASOA meetings
Abby Markward discusses the ASCRS Foundation and the ASCRS Annual Meeting
(Image credit: Ophthalmology Times) Inside ASCRS 2025: Francis S. Mah, MD, takes the helm with a vision for research, education, and advocacy
(Image credit: Ophthalmology Times) NeuroOp Guru: Cranial nerve six palsy with chemosis is a critical clue to cavernous carotid fistula
© 2025 MJH Life Sciences

All rights reserved.