Verteporfin photodynamic therapy for neovascular age-related ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

46 Results (2) – objectives A, B, C and DTABLE 10 Numbers of treatments in year 1 (≤ 350 days) in patient groups categorised by eligibility for the TAP trial (i.e.EFT, IFT, UNC)Treatmentsin year 1EFT (N = 1227) IFT (N = 1187) UNC (N = 1629) Total patients (N = 4043)n % n % n % n %1 255 20.8 307 25.9 425 26.1 987 24.42 377 30.7 400 33.7 571 35.1 1348 33.33 364 29.7 292 24.6 384 23.6 1040 25.74 224 18.3 181 15.3 229 14.1 634 15.75 6 0.5 7 0.6 18 1.1 31 0.86 1 0.1 0 0.0 2 0.1 3 0.1TABLE 11 Numbers of treatments in year 2 (> 350 and ≤ 715 days) in patient groups categorised by eligibility for theTAP trial (i.e. EFT, IFT, UNC)Treatments inyear 2EFT (N = 533) IFT (N = 478) UNC (N = 600) Total patients (N = 1611) an % n % n % n %0 392 73.6 348 72.8 425 70.8 1165 72.31 90 16.9 89 18.6 112 18.7 291 18.12 33 6.2 35 7.3 46 7.7 114 7.13 14 2.6 4 0.8 14 2.3 32 2.04 4 0.8 2 0.4 3 0.5 9 0.6a The total number of patients (1611) represents those among the 4043 patients who had their first treatment > 2 years before the date of lastdata submission.Proportion completing first treatment episode1.000.800.600.400.200.000 0.5 1 1.5 2Time (years of follow-up)FIGURE 6 Time to completion of treatment episode; Kaplan–Meier graph showing the cumulative proportion of eyescompleting the first treatment episode.
DOI: 10.3310/hta16060Health Technology Assessment 2012; Vol. 16: No. 647B: Is ‘outcome’ the same in the NHS as in randomised trials?This analysis included 4043 eyes of the 4043 patients who had a diagnosis of nAMD and a firsttreatment > 350 days before the close of the study. As described in Chapter 4, Definition of ‘TAP’eligibility, eyes were classified as EFT, IFT or UNC. BCVA outcome in the EFT subgroup was ofprimary interest in addressing objective B. In order to maximise the power of the analysis, allthree subgroups were included in one mixed regression analysis that included the TAP eligibilitysubgroup and baseline lesion classification (predominantly classic, minimally classic, occultonly; Table 12). The possibility of a differing gradient of change over time by subgroup was testedby fitting an interaction of TAP eligibility subgroup and time, but this was found to be nonsignificantand was excluded from the final model.We compared descriptively the change in BCVA in the two angiographic subtypes in ourstudy with those previously reported for treatment and sham treatment arms in the TAP trials(Figure 7). 4,30 Both the fitted trajectory and the absolute changes in BCVA over time for patientswith predominantly classic lesions in the EFT group were similar to those for patients in the TAPtreatment arm. For eyes with minimally classic lesions in the EFT group, the trajectory of BCVAwas parallel to that observed for the minimally classic subgroup of the TAP treatment arm butshowed less absolute loss of BCVA (Figure 8). 4,30Baseline lesion classification influenced outcome. Within the EFT group, eyes with minimallyclassic CNV had better BCVA at baseline (+1.13 letters; see Table 12) and deteriorated moreslowly than eyes with predominantly classic CNV (+1.13 + 2.08 = +3.2 letters at 1 year; seeTable 12).The influences of several covariates on BCVA were also investigated, partly because the covariatescould have confounded the influences of the TAP eligibility subgroup and baseline lesionclassification, and partly because their possible influences were of interest in their own right. Thecoefficients from the final mixed regression model, shown in Table 12, show that a number ofbaseline covariates did indeed influence BCVA. None of these statistically significant covariatesinteracted with the TAP eligibility subgroup, so they can be considered to apply equally to theEFT, IFT and UNC subgroups.The rate of deterioration of BCVA was influenced by baseline acuity, with faster decline in BCVAover time in eyes with better starting acuity; a patient who read five letters more than averageat baseline read only 2.7 letters more at 1 year. BCVA deteriorated faster in older patients; after1 year of follow-up, BCVA was two letters worse for a person 10 years older than average (88 vs78 years). Women presented with better baseline BCVA and maintained this difference duringfollow-up (+1.8 letters). Ex-smokers and those who had never smoked presented with betterbaseline BCVA (+1.6 and +1.8 letters respectively) and deteriorated more slowly than currentsmokers. The decrease in BCVA by 1 year was one letter fewer in treated eyes of ex-smokers, andthree letters fewer in treated eyes of never smokers, than in treated eyes of current smokers. If thefellow eye had better BCVA than the treated eye, BCVA in the treated eye was worse at baseline(+2.6 letters) and deteriorated faster; the decrease in BCVA by 1 year was five letters worse than ifthe treated eye was classified as the better-seeing eye. The decrease in BCVA over 1 year was 8 to16 letters depending on patients’ characteristics and lesion factors (see C: Is ‘outcome’ the same forpatients excluded from randomised trials? below).© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2012. This work was produced by Reeves et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by theSecretary of State for Health.
Page 5 and 6:
DOI: 10.3310/hta16060Health Technol
Page 12 and 13: xExecutive summaryretreat on criter
Page 14 and 15: xiiExecutive summaryof data, with i
Page 16 and 17: 2 Introductionon-going or new clini
Page 18 and 19: 4 Introductionof VPDT in routine cl
Page 21 and 22: DOI: 10.3310/hta16060Health Technol
Page 31: DOI: 10.3310/hta16060Health Technol
Page 34 and 35: 20 Key changes to the protocolThese
Page 36 and 37: 22 Key changes to the protocolCentr
Page 38 and 39: 24 Key changes to the protocolADVER
Page 40 and 41: 26 Key changes to the protocolPlan
Page 42 and 43: 28 Key changes to the protocolClass
Page 44 and 45: 30 Key changes to the protocolFor i
Page 46 and 47: 32 Key changes to the protocolIn ad
Page 48 and 49: 34 Key changes to the protocolsites
Page 52 and 53: 38 Results (1) - study cohortTABLE
Page 62 and 63: 48 Results (2) - objectives A, B, C
Page 80 and 81: 66 Discussion of resultsStrengths a
Page 82 and 83: 68 Discussion of resultsThe VPDT st
Page 84 and 85: 70 Discussion of resultsOur analyse
Page 86 and 87: 72 Discussion of resultsA further c
Page 88 and 89: 74 Discussion of resultsVPDT. It is
Page 98 and 99: 84 References16. Stelmack J. Qualit
Page 100 and 101: 86 References49. Guymer RH, Chiu AW
Page 102 and 103: 88 References83. Margrain TH. Minim
Page 104 and 105: 90 Appendix 1THE VERTEPORFIN PHOTOD
Page 106 and 107: 92 Appendix 11. Overview of Manual
Page 108 and 109: 94 Appendix 1And, if also collectin
Page 110 and 111:
96 Appendix 1more patients in the v
Page 112 and 113:
98 Appendix 12.4 Limitations of the
Page 114 and 115:
100 Appendix 1Box 2 Key advantages
Page 116 and 117:
102 Appendix 14. Study population4.
Page 118 and 119:
104 Appendix 15. Recruitment to the
Page 120 and 121:
106 Appendix 16. Background data co
Page 122 and 123:
108 Appendix 1Table 1: Schedule of
Page 124 and 125:
110 Appendix 1The Verteporfin Photo
Page 126 and 127:
112 Appendix 1• Additional clinic
Page 128 and 129:
114 Appendix 18. Recording adverse
Page 130 and 131:
116 Appendix 1level of benefit from
Page 132 and 133:
118 Appendix 1• comparison of num
Page 134 and 135:
120 Appendix 110.6 Sub-group analys
Page 136 and 137:
122 Appendix 112. Data issues12.1 D
Page 138 and 139:
124 Appendix 113. Organisation13.1
Page 140 and 141:
126 Appendix 114. References[1] Ref
Page 142 and 143:
128 Appendix 1Barnes RM, Gee L, Tay
Page 144 and 145:
130 Appendix 1Appendix 1: Classifyi
Page 146 and 147:
132 Appendix 1Liverpool re-treatmen
Page 148 and 149:
134 Appendix 1Service StructurePlea
Page 150 and 151:
136 Appendix 1Has your photographer
Page 152 and 153:
138 Appendix 1There are many differ
Page 154 and 155:
140 Appendix 1testing on vision tes
Page 156 and 157:
142 Appendix 1something to do with
Page 158 and 159:
144 Appendix 1College of Ophthalmol
Page 160 and 161:
146 Appendix 1Appendix 5:Protocol f
Page 162 and 163:
148 Appendix 16.2 Subjective Refrac
Page 164 and 165:
150 Appendix 1• The patient shoul
Page 166 and 167:
152 Appendix 1Appendix 6:Protocol f
Page 168 and 169:
154 Appendix 18. It is customary to
Page 170 and 171:
156 Appendix 1Early or Transit Phas
Page 172 and 173:
158 Appendix 1
Page 174 and 175:
160 Appendix 1---------------------
Page 176 and 177:
162 Appendix 1---------------------
Page 178 and 179:
164 Appendix 1---------------------
Page 180 and 181:
166 Appendix 1Appendix 9:Site imple
Page 182 and 183:
168 Appendix 1Option 2 - units inte
Page 184 and 185:
170 Appendix 1Dos and Don’tsDosDo
Page 186 and 187:
172 Appendix 1Resource use question
Page 188 and 189:
174 Appendix 1Appendix 11: Recommen
Page 190 and 191:
176 Appendix 1ADVERSE REACTION AND
Page 192 and 193:
178 Appendix 1acute Trust; note tha
Page 194 and 195:
180 Appendix 1Ophthalmologistrespon
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203:
Page 206 and 207:
192 Appendix 3manufacturer’s pers
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 216:
FeedbackThe HTA programme and the a
show all

Verteporfin photodynamic therapy for neovascular age-related ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?