Patient Preference and Treatment Satisfaction With a Port Delivery System for Ranibizumab vs Intravitreal Injections in Patients With Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Margaret A Chang, Audrey Kapre, Derrick Kaufman, David R Kardatzke, Melvin Rabena, Shienal Patel, Ashwini Bobbala, Shamika Gune, Anne Fung, Gene Wallenstein, Margaret A Chang, Audrey Kapre, Derrick Kaufman, David R Kardatzke, Melvin Rabena, Shienal Patel, Ashwini Bobbala, Shamika Gune, Anne Fung, Gene Wallenstein

Abstract

Importance: The port delivery system (PDS) with ranibizumab has demonstrated noninferior and equivalent efficacy compared with monthly intravitreal injections of ranibizumab, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agent, in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), but evaluating patient preference is important to help inform clinical decision-making.

Objective: Evaluate treatment satisfaction for ranibizumab delivered via PDS vs intravitreal injections as well as patient preference among those assigned to PDS.

Design, setting, and participants: Archway was a phase 3 randomized active-comparator open-label clinical trial conducted at 78 sites in the US. Patients 50 years and older with nAMD diagnosed within 9 months of screening with a documented response to anti-VEGF therapy were included. Of 619 patients screened, 418 were enrolled; 415 were included in the primary analysis and 234 were included in the secondary exploratory analysis. The Archway study ran from September 12, 2019, through primary readout on May 22, 2020.

Interventions: Patients were randomized 3:2 to PDS with ranibizumab, 100 mg/mL, with fixed refill exchanges every 24 weeks or intravitreal ranibizumab injections, 0.5 mg, every 4 weeks.

Main outcomes and measures: Treatment satisfaction was measured using the Macular Disease Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire in the PDS and intravitreal injection arms at week 40. Patient preference was assessed using the content-validated PDS Patient Preference Questionnaire (PPPQ), which measured the proportion of patients in the PDS arm with monthly monitoring who preferred treatment with the PDS at week 40 over previous intravitreal injections or concurrent fellow-eye injections. Both outcomes were exploratory end points.

Results: The mean (SD) age of participants at baseline was 75.0 (7.9) years; 234 participants (59%) were women and 162 (41%) were men. At week 40, differences in overall treatment satisfaction scores were minimal for the PDS and intravitreal injection arms (mean, 68.0; 95% CI, 67.4-68.6; n = 237 and mean, 66.1; 95% CI, 64.9-67.3; n = 159, respectively; difference, 1.9; 95% CI, 0.7-3.1). A total of 234 of 248 patients (94.4%) in the PDS arm were included in the PPPQ analysis. At week 40, almost all patients in the PDS arm preferred treatment via PDS (218 of 234 [93.2%]) vs previous intravitreal injections (3 of 234 [1.3%]), including 172 of 234 (73.5%) with a very strong preference for the PDS. In patients who received concurrent fellow-eye injections (n = 78), 72 (92.3%) preferred the PDS.

Conclusions and relevance: Although PDS treatment was preferred by almost all patients assigned to PDS over previous intravitreal injections, both delivery methods have high treatment satisfaction. These findings provide further evidence for the PDS as a meaningful alternative treatment option for patients with nAMD.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03677934.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Chang reported nonfinancial writing support from Genentech during the conduct of the study; nonfinancial support from Allergan, Genentech, Mylan, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Novartis, Ophthea, Ophthotech, and Regeneron; and personal fees from Genentech and REGENXBIO outside the submitted work. Ms Kapre, Dr Kaufman, Dr Kardatzke, Mr Rabena, Ms Patel, Ms Bobbala, Dr Gune, Dr Fung, and Dr Wallenstein reported being employees of Genentech. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure 1.. Macular Disease Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire…
Figure 1.. Macular Disease Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (MacTSQ) Overall Treatment Satisfaction and Subscale Scores for Ranibizumab Via the Port Delivery System (PDS) vs Intravitreal Delivery
The overall MacTSQ score is on a scale of 1 to 72, with scores of at least 60 indicating high satisfaction. Each MacTSQ subscale is on a scale of 1 to 36, with scores of at least 30 indicating high satisfaction. Error bars represent 95% CIs.
Figure 2.. Patient Flow Diagram for the…
Figure 2.. Patient Flow Diagram for the Exploratory Analysis of the Port Delivery System (PDS) Patient Preference Questionnaire (PPPQ)
aDetails of the primary analysis of Archway have been published elsewhere. bPatients in the intravitreal ranibizumab group were not included in the exploratory analysis for PPPQ.
Figure 3.. Treatment Strength of Preference for…
Figure 3.. Treatment Strength of Preference for the Port Delivery System (PDS) Patient Preference Questionnaire
For patients with missing week-40 values, the last postbaseline observation was used. Percentages are based on the total number of patients who completed the measure (n = 234).
Figure 4.. Reason for Treatment Preference in…
Figure 4.. Reason for Treatment Preference in Patients in the Port Delivery System (PDS) Arm as Assessed by the PDS Patient Preference Questionnaire
Patients could select multiple reasons for their preference. For patients with missing week-40 values, the last postbaseline observation was used. Percentages are based on the total number of patients who completed the measure (n = 234).

References

    1. Flaxel CJ, Adelman RA, Bailey ST, et al. . Age-related macular degeneration preferred practice pattern. Ophthalmology. 2020;127(1):1-P65. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2019.09.024
    1. Gohil R, Crosby-Nwaobi R, Forbes A, Burton B, Hykin P, Sivaprasad S. Caregiver burden in patients receiving ranibizumab therapy for neovascular age related macular degeneration. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0129361. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0129361
    1. Prenner JL, Halperin LS, Rycroft C, Hogue S, Williams Liu Z, Seibert R. Disease burden in the treatment of age-related macular degeneration: findings from a time-and-motion study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2015;160(4):725-31.e1. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2015.06.023
    1. Varano M, Eter N, Winyard S, Wittrup-Jensen KU, Navarro R, Heraghty J. Current barriers to treatment for wet age-related macular degeneration (WAMD): findings from the WAMD patient and caregiver survey. Clin Ophthalmol. 2015;9:2243-2250. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S92548
    1. Cohen SY, Mimoun G, Oubraham H, et al. ; LUMIERE Study Group . Changes in visual acuity in patients with wet age-related macular degeneration treated with intravitreal ranibizumab in daily clinical practice: the LUMIERE study. Retina. 2013;33(3):474-481. doi:10.1097/IAE.0b013e31827b6324
    1. Holekamp NM, Liu Y, Yeh WS, et al. . Clinical utilization of anti-VEGF agents and disease monitoring in neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;157(4):825-833.e1. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2013.12.018
    1. Holz FG, Tadayoni R, Beatty S, et al. . Multi-country real-life experience of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy for wet age-related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol. 2015;99(2):220-226. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-305327
    1. Campochiaro PA, Marcus DM, Awh CC, et al. . The port delivery system with ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: results from the randomized phase 2 Ladder clinical trial. Ophthalmology. 2019;126(8):1141-1154. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2019.03.036
    1. Holekamp NM, Campochiaro PA, Chang M, et al. . Archway randomized phase 3 trial of the port delivery system with ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2022;129(3):295-307. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2021.09.016
    1. Khanani AM, Callanan D, Dreyer R, et al. ; of the Ladder Investigators . End-of-study results for the Ladder phase 2 trial of the port delivery system with ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmol Retina. 2021;5(8):775-787. doi:10.1016/j.oret.2020.11.004
    1. Braithwaite T, Calvert M, Gray A, Pesudovs K, Denniston AK. The use of patient-reported outcome research in modern ophthalmology: impact on clinical trials and routine clinical practice. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2019;10:9-24. doi:10.2147/PROM.S162802
    1. Dean S, Mathers JM, Calvert M, et al. . “The patient is speaking”: discovering the patient voice in ophthalmology. Br J Ophthalmol. 2017;101(6):700-708. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-309955
    1. Gohil R, Crosby-Nwaobi R, Forbes A, Burton BJ, Hykin P, Sivaprasad S. Treatment satisfaction of patients undergoing ranibizumab therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in a real-life setting. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:949-955. doi:10.2147/PPA.S105536
    1. Mitchell J, Bradley C. Design and development of the MacTSQ measure of satisfaction with treatment for macular conditions used within the IVAN trial. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2017;2(1):5. doi:10.1186/s41687-018-0031-z
    1. Lindhiem O, Bennett CB, Trentacosta CJ, McLear C. Client preferences affect treatment satisfaction, completion, and clinical outcome: a meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev. 2014;34(6):506-517. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2014.06.002
    1. Pivot X, Gligorov J, Müller V, et al. ; PrefHer Study Group . Preference for subcutaneous or intravenous administration of trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (PrefHer): an open-label randomised study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(10):962-970. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70383-8
    1. Rummel M, Kim TM, Aversa F, et al. . Preference for subcutaneous or intravenous administration of rituximab among patients with untreated CD20+ diffuse large B-cell lymphoma or follicular lymphoma: results from a prospective, randomized, open-label, crossover study (PrefMab). Ann Oncol. 2017;28(4):836-842. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdw685
    1. World Medical Association . WMA Declaration of Helsinki—ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Accessed September 3, 2021.
    1. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use . ICH harmonised guideline integrated addendum to ICH E6(R1): guideline for Good Clinical Practice ICH E6(R2) ICH consensus guideline. Accessed September 3, 2021.
    1. Tschosik E, Kapre A, Ferrara D, Chang M. Content validity of the port delivery System with ranibizumab Patient Preference Questionnaire. Presented at: Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology; April 28-May 2, 2019; Vancouver, BC, Canada.
    1. McClard CK, Wang R, Windham V, et al. . Questionnaire to Assess Life Impact of Treatment by Intravitreal Injections (QUALITII): development of a patient-reported measure to assess treatment burden of repeat intravitreal injections. BMJ Open Ophthalmol. 2021;6(1):e000669. doi:10.1136/bmjophth-2020-000669
    1. Ehlken C, Ziemssen F, Eter N, et al. . Systematic review: non-adherence and non-persistence in intravitreal treatment. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2020;258(10):2077-2090. doi:10.1007/s00417-020-04798-2
    1. Baxter JM, Fotheringham AJ, Foss AJ. Determining patient preferences in the management of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a conjoint analysis. Eye (Lond). 2016;30(5):698-704. doi:10.1038/eye.2016.18
    1. Bhagat D, Kirby B, Bhatt H, Jager R, George M, Sheth V. Patient preferences associated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies for neovascular age-related macular degeneration and diabetic macular edema. Clin Ophthalmol. 2020;14:2975-2982. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S273564
    1. Mueller S, Agostini H, Ehlken C, Bauer-Steinhusen U, Hasanbasic Z, Wilke T. Patient preferences in the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a discrete choice experiment. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(4):876-883. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.12.001
    1. Droege KM, Caramoy A, Kersten A, et al. . Patient preference of ranibizumab treatment regimen for neovascular age-related macular degeneration—monthly injections versus pro re nata. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014;252(1):31-34. doi:10.1007/s00417-013-2412-6
    1. Pina Marín B, Gajate Paniagua NM, Gómez-Baldó L, Gallego-Pinazo R. Burden of disease assessment in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration in Spain: results of the AMD-MANAGE study. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2022;32(1):385-394. Published online March 15, 2021. doi:10.1177/11206721211001716
    1. McNamara M, Turner-Bowker DM, Westhead H, et al. . Factors driving patient preferences for growth hormone deficiency (GHD) injection regimen and injection device features: a discrete choice experiment. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2020;14:781-793. doi:10.2147/PPA.S239196
    1. Metz M, Semsek D, Rogmans G, et al. . Patient, nurse, and physician preferences: final results of the CONVENIENCE study evaluating pegfilgrastim prophylaxis via pre-filled syringe or on-body injector in cancer patients. Support Care Cancer. 2021;29(11):6633-6643. doi:10.1007/s00520-021-06230-9

Source: PubMed

3
Tilaa