CATT Study Update 2: Avastin vs. Lucentis – It’s Official!
I have confirmed that the Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials (CATT) is set to get underway shortly. An official involved with the CATT study has informed me that a training meeting for some of the clinical center staff – investigators, clinical center personnel and OCT technicians – will be meeting in Philadelphia on September 25-26th to co-ordinate the methods to be used in undertaking the study and evaluating its results. More than 180 people are expected to attend.
Stay tuned for further developments.
The Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials (CATT) is a set of multicenter, randomized clinical trials of treatments for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD), the leading cause of blindness in the United States. The Lucentis-Avastin comparison trial is supported by the National Eye Institute (NEI) of the National Institute of Health (NIH).
The study will enroll about 1,200 patients with newly diagnosed AMD, randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups: (1) Lucentis with monthly dosing; (2) Avastin with monthly dosing; (3) Lucentis with three injections followed by additional injections of Lucentis as needed; and (4) three injections of Avastin followed by additional injections of Avastin as needed. The regimens are based upon the fact that Avastin is generally given on a variable basis and Lucentis has only been formally tested in a fixed regimen. The main objective will be changes in visual acuity, with secondary objectives including change in lesion size, fluid found in optical coherence tomography and cost, which the primary investigator, Dr. Daniel Martin of Emory University emphasized is not the sole purpose of the study.
The study will follow patients for two years and will take about four years to complete. Enrollment is now scheduled to begin in late 2007, and one year follow-up data will be reported in 2009. The study will be conducted in 40 centers in the US. NEI/NIH is emphasizing that this is more than just a cost study, and that the primary goals are to better understand the safety and efficacy of intravitreal Avastin and to develop better dosing/re-treatment guidelines for both Avastin and Lucentis.
Stay tuned for further developments.
The Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials (CATT) is a set of multicenter, randomized clinical trials of treatments for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD), the leading cause of blindness in the United States. The Lucentis-Avastin comparison trial is supported by the National Eye Institute (NEI) of the National Institute of Health (NIH).
The study will enroll about 1,200 patients with newly diagnosed AMD, randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups: (1) Lucentis with monthly dosing; (2) Avastin with monthly dosing; (3) Lucentis with three injections followed by additional injections of Lucentis as needed; and (4) three injections of Avastin followed by additional injections of Avastin as needed. The regimens are based upon the fact that Avastin is generally given on a variable basis and Lucentis has only been formally tested in a fixed regimen. The main objective will be changes in visual acuity, with secondary objectives including change in lesion size, fluid found in optical coherence tomography and cost, which the primary investigator, Dr. Daniel Martin of Emory University emphasized is not the sole purpose of the study.
The study will follow patients for two years and will take about four years to complete. Enrollment is now scheduled to begin in late 2007, and one year follow-up data will be reported in 2009. The study will be conducted in 40 centers in the US. NEI/NIH is emphasizing that this is more than just a cost study, and that the primary goals are to better understand the safety and efficacy of intravitreal Avastin and to develop better dosing/re-treatment guidelines for both Avastin and Lucentis.
posted by Irv Arons @ 4:54 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
Irv, looking forward to seeing more.
Long time coming. Wished they did this earlier, but better late than never.
Such blatant influence by drug manufacturers to protect their financial interests at the expense of the taxpayer is shameful.
You cant blame them for doing it, that's what they are supposed to do, but it's amazing that it has taken so many years for this to get resolved.
Post a Comment
<< Home