Serious adverse reactions related to the injection procedure have occurred in < 0.1% of intravitreal injections, including endophthalmitis

Because clinical trials are conducted under widely varying conditions, adverse reaction rates observed in the clinical trials of a drug cannot be directly compared to rates in the clinical trials of another drug and may not reflect the rates observed in practice.

The data below reflect exposure to 0.5 mg LUCENTIS in 440 patients with neovascular AMD in Studies AMD-1, AMD-2, and AMD-3; in 259 patients with macular edema following RVO. The data also reflect exposure to 0.3 mg LUCENTIS in 250 patients with DME and DR at baseline

Safety data observed in 224 patients with mCNV, as well as Studies AMD-4 and D-3, were consistent with these results. On average, the rates and types of adverse reactions in patients were not significantly affected by dosing regimen.

As with all therapeutic proteins, there is the potential for an immune response in patients treated with LUCENTIS. The immunogenicity data reflect the percentage of patients whose test results were considered positive for antibodies to LUCENTIS in immunoassays and are highly dependent on the sensitivity and specificity of the assays.

The pre-treatment incidence of immunoreactivity to LUCENTIS was 0%-5% across treatment groups. After monthly dosing with LUCENTIS for 6 to 24 months, antibodies to LUCENTIS were detected in approximately 1%-9% of patients.

The clinical significance of immunoreactivity to LUCENTIS is unclear at this time. Among neovascular AMD patients with the highest levels of immunoreactivity, some were noted to have iritis or vitritis. Intraocular inflammation was not observed in patients with DME and DR at baseline, or RVO patients with the highest levels of immunoreactivity.

The following adverse reaction has been identified during post-approval use of LUCENTIS. Because this reaction was reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate the frequency or establish a causal relationship to drug exposure.

The safety and efficacy of LUCENTIS were assessed in three randomized, double-masked, sham- or active-controlled studies in patients with neovascular AMD. A total of 1323 patients (LUCENTIS 879, control 444) were enrolled in the three studies.

The safety and efficacy of LUCENTIS were assessed in two randomized, double-masked, 1-year studies in patients with macular edema following RVO. Sham controlled data are available through Month 6. Patient age ranged from 20 to 91 years, with a mean age of 67 years. A total of 789 patients (LUCENTIS 0.3 mg, 266 patients; LUCENTIS 0.5 mg, 261 patients; sham, 262 patients) were enrolled, with 739 (94%) patients completing through Month 6. All patients completing Month 6 were eligible to receive LUCENTIS injections guided by pre-specified re-treatment criteria until the end of the studies at Month 12.

In Study RVO-1, patients with macular edema following branch or hemi-RVO, received monthly LUCENTIS 0.3 mg or 0.5 mg intravitreal injections or monthly sham injections for 6 months. All patients were eligible for macular focal/grid laser treatment beginning at Month 3 of the 6-month treatment period. Macular focal/grid laser treatment was given to 26 of 131 (20%) patients treated with 0.5 mg LUCENTIS and 71 of 132 (54%) patients treated with sham.

In Study RVO-2, patients with macular edema following central RVO received monthly LUCENTIS 0.3 mg or 0.5 mg intravitreal injections or monthly sham injections for 6 months.

At Month 6, after monthly treatment with 0.5 mg LUCENTIS, the following clinical results were observed:

Efficacy and safety data of LUCENTIS are derived from studies D-1 and D-2 (See

The safety and efficacy of LUCENTIS were assessed in two randomized, double-masked, 3-year studies. The studies were sham-controlled through Month 24. Patient age ranged from 21 to 91 years, with a mean age of 62 years. A total of 759 patients (LUCENTIS 0.3 mg, 250 patients; LUCENTIS 0.5 mg, 252 patients; sham, 257 patients) were enrolled, with 582 (77%) completing through Month 36.

In Studies D-1 and D-2, patients received monthly LUCENTIS 0.3 mg or 0.5 mg intravitreal injections or monthly sham injections during the 24-month controlled treatment period. From Months 25 through 36, patients who previously received sham were eligible to receive monthly LUCENTIS 0.5 mg and patients originally randomized to monthly LUCENTIS 0.3 mg or 0.5 mg continued to receive their assigned dose. All patients were eligible for macular focal/grid laser treatment beginning at Month 3 of the 24-month treatment period or panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) as needed. Through Month 24, macular focal/grid laser treatment was administered in 94 of 250 (38%) patients treated with LUCENTIS 0.3 mg and 185 of 257 (72%) patients treated with sham; PRP was administered in 2 of 250 (1%) patients treated with LUCENTIS 0.3 mg and 30 of 257 (12%) patients treated with sham.

Compared to monthly LUCENTIS 0.3 mg, no additional benefit was observed with monthly treatment with LUCENTIS 0.5 mg. At Month 24, after monthly treatment with LUCENTIS 0.3 mg, the following clinical results were observed:

Visual acuity outcomes observed at Month 24 in patients treated with LUCENTIS 0.3 mg were maintained with continued treatment through Month 36 in both DME studies. Patients in the sham arms who received LUCENTIS 0.5 mg beginning at Month 25 achieved lesser VA gains compared to patients who began treatment with LUCENTIS at the beginning of the studies.

In Studies D-1 and D-2, patients received monthly injections of LUCENTIS for 12 or 36 months, after which 500 patients opted to continue in the long-term follow-up study. Of 298 patients who had at least 12 months of follow-up from Month 36, 58 (19.5%) patients maintained vision with no further therapy. The remaining 202 patients were followed for less than 12 months.

Efficacy and safety data of LUCENTIS are derived from Studies D-1 and D-2

Of the 759 patients enrolled in Studies D-1 and D-2, 746 patients had a baseline assessment of fundus photography. Patients had baseline Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scores (ETDRS-DRSS) ranging from 10 to 75. At baseline, 62% of patients had non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) (ETDRS-DRSS less than 60) and 31% had proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) (ETDRS-DRSS greater than or equal to 60). The ETDRS-DRSS could not be graded in 5% of patients at baseline, and 2% of patients had absent or questionable DR at baseline. Approximately 20% of the overall population had prior PRP.

After monthly treatment with LUCENTIS 0.3 mg, the following clinical results were observed (

At Month 24, DR improvement by ≥3-steps in ETDRS-DRSS from baseline in subgroups examined (e.g., age, gender, race, baseline visual acuity, baseline HbA1c, prior DME therapy at baseline, baseline DR severity (NPDR, PDR)) were generally consistent with the results in the overall population.

The difference in the proportion of patients treated with LUCENTIS 0.3 mg compared to sham who achieved DR improvement based on the ETDRS-DRSS was observed as early as Month 3 for ≥2-step improvement or at Month 12 for ≥3-step improvement.

Study D-3 enrolled DR patients with and without DME; 88 (22%) eyes with baseline DME and 306 (78%) eyes without baseline DME and balanced across treatment groups. Study D-3 was a randomized, active-controlled study where patient age ranged from 20 to 83 with a mean age of 51 years. A total of 394 study eyes from 305 patients, including 89 who had both eyes randomized, were enrolled (LUCENTIS, 191 study eyes; pan-retinal photocoagulation; 203 study eyes). All eyes in the LUCENTIS group received a baseline 0.5 mg intravitreal injection followed by 3 monthly intravitreal injections, after which treatment was guided by pre-specified re-treatment criteria. Patients had baseline ETDRS-DRSS ranging from 20 to 85. At baseline, 11% of eyes had NPDR (ETDRS-DRSS less than 60), 50% had mild-to-moderate PDR (ETDRS-DRSS equal to 60, 61, or 65), and 37% had high-risk PDR (ETDRS-DRSS greater than or equal to 71).

An analysis of data from Study D-3 demonstrated that at Year 2 in the LUCENTIS group, 31.7% and 28.4% of eyes in the subgroups with baseline DME and without baseline DME, respectively, had ≥ 3-step improvement from baseline in ETDRS-DRSS.

The efficacy and safety data of LUCENTIS were assessed in a randomized, double-masked, active-controlled 3-month study in patients with mCNV. Patients age ranged from 18 to 87 years, with a mean age of 55 years. A total of 276 patients (222 patients in the LUCENTIS treated Groups I and II; 55 patients in the active control PDT group) were enrolled. Patients randomized to the LUCENTIS groups received injections guided by pre-specified re-treatment criteria. The retreatment criteria in Group I were vision stability guided, with the Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) at the current visit being assessed for changes compared with the two preceding monthly BCVA values. The retreatment criteria in Group II were disease activity guided, based on BCVA decrease from the previous visit that was attributable to intra- or sub-retinal fluid or active leakage secondary to mCNV as assessed by OCT and/or FA compared to the previous monthly visit.

Visual gains for the two LUCENTIS 0.5 mg treatment arms were superior to the active control arm. The mean change in BCVA from baseline at Month 3 was: +12.1 letters for Group I, +12.5 letters for Group II and +1.4 letters for the PDT group. (

The proportion of patients who gained ≥15 letters (ETDRS) by Month 3 was 37.1% and 40.5% for LUCENTIS Groups I and II, respectively and 14.5% for the PDT group. The mean number of injections between baseline and Month 3 was 2.5 and 1.8 for Groups I and II, respectively. 41% of patients received 1, 2 or 3 injections between baseline and Month 3 with no injections afterwards.