A Two-year, Three-arm, Randomized, Double-masked, Multicenter, Phase III Study Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Brolucizumab Versus Aflibercept in Adult Patients With Visual Impairment Due to Diabetic Macular Edema

Descripción detallada

This was a Phase III, randomized, double-masked, multi-center, active-controlled, three-arm study designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of brolucizumab 6 mg and 3 mg compared to the active control, aflibercept 2 mg used per authorized label, in subjects with diabetic macular edema (DME). The study included a screening period of up to 2 weeks to assess eligibility, followed by a doublemasked treatment period (Day 1 to Week 96). The baseline visit was defined as Day 1/Visit 1, and end of treatment visit as Visit 27 (Week 96). After the last treatment visit, a post-treatment follow-up period was planned from Week 96 to Week 100. Subjects were assigned to one of three treatment arms in a 1:1:1 ratio: brolucizumab 6 mg/0.05 mL administered 5 x every 6 weeks (q6w) during loading phase then q12w/every 8 weeks (q8w) during maintenance phase, brolucizumab 3 mg/0.05 mL administered 5 x every 6 weeks (q6w) during loading phase then q12w/q8w during maintenance phase or aflibercept 2 mg/0.05 mL administered 5 x every 4 weeks (q4w) during loading phase then q8w during maintenance phase. Disease Activity Assessments (DAAs) were conducted by the masked investigator for each treatment arm at Week 32 and Week 36, i.e. 8 and 12 weeks after the end of the loading phase for subjects receiving brolucizumab. Assessments were also performed at Week 48, and will then continue to be performed from Week 60 up to Week 96, every 12 weeks. Subjects in the brolucizumab arms who qualified for q12w during the initial q12w interval continued on a q12w treatment frequency unless disease activity was identified at any of the subsequent DAA visits, in which case subjects were switched to a q8w treatment interval until the end of the study. To fulfil the double-masking requirement, each investigational site had masked and unmasked staff. The investigator who performed the injection was unmasked to the treatments as were any other site personnel who had been delegated responsibility for working with the Investigational Product (IP). The unmasked site personnel and unmasked injecting investigator did not perform Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), complete ophthalmic examination (with the exception of post-injection safety assessment), DAAs or administer the Visual Functioning Questionnaire-25 (VFQ-25). Also, the unmasked site personnel and unmasked injecting physician did not perform assessment of any ocular or non-ocular safety parameters, or assess causality of Adverse event (AEs) for subjects during the course of the study except an event reported immediately following Intravitreal treatment (IVT). Once the designated roles were determined, the unmasked investigator/site personnel roles were not switched at any time after randomization to masked role. Every effort was made to limit the number of unmasked study personnel to ensure the integrity of this masked study.