Elsevier

Ophthalmology

Volume 114, Issue 2, February 2007, Pages 246-252
Ophthalmology

Original Article
Subgroup Analysis of the MARINA Study of Ranibizumab in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.10.045Get rights and content

Objective

An examination of clinically relevant subgroups of patients in the MARINA study of ranibizumab in treatment of minimally classic or occult with no classic choroidal neovascularization (CNV) secondary to age-related macular degeneration (AMD) was done. Objectives were to determine the effectiveness of ranibizumab across subgroups, compare the effectiveness of ranibizumab with that of sham injection within subgroups, and evaluate the relationship between selected baseline characteristics and visual acuity (VA) outcomes.

Design

Retrospective subgroup analyses of 24-month data from the MARINA study.

Participants and Controls

Seven hundred sixteen patients were randomly assigned to 0.3 mg ranibizumab (n = 238), 0.5 mg ranibizumab (n = 240), or sham treatment (n = 238).

Methods

Efficacy outcomes were compared across subgroups based on patients’ gender, age, baseline VA score, baseline CNV lesion size, CNV lesion type, and duration of neovascular AMD using univariate analyses. Multivariate analyses were performed on the change from baseline to 24 months in VA score to assess further the correlation between baseline characteristics and VA outcome.

Main Outcome Measures

Proportion of patients losing <15 letters from baseline, proportion gaining ≥15 letters from baseline, and mean VA score change from baseline.

Results

For each of the 3 VA end points, all subgroups of ranibizumab-treated patients did better on average than the sham-treated patients. Increasing age, larger CNV lesion size at baseline, and a higher baseline VA score were all associated with greater loss of letters in the sham group or less gain of letters in the ranibizumab groups. However, the net benefit of ranibizumab versus sham treatment was greater in patients who scored higher than in those who scored lower in baseline VA.

Conclusions

This subgroup analysis of 24-month data from the MARINA study indicates that ranibizumab treatment was associated with an average increase from baseline VA in all subgroups evaluated, and that ranibizumab treatment was superior to sham treatment across all subgroups. The most important predictors of VA outcomes were, in decreasing order of importance, baseline VA score, CNV lesion size, and age.

Section snippets

Materials and Methods

MARINA was a 2-year, prospective, multicenter (96 sites), randomized, double-masked, sham-injection–controlled study of the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of monthly intravitreal injections of ranibizumab in patients with minimally classic or occult with no classic CNV secondary to AMD. The prespecified primary efficacy analysis was at 12 months, but monthly efficacy assessments continued through 24 months. Institutional review board approval of the study protocol was obtained before

Results

A total of 716 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment between March and December 2003. The randomized groups were well balanced for demographic characteristics (Table 1) and ocular characteristics in the study eye (Table 2) at baseline. In each group, approximately two thirds of the patients were female, and 96% to 97% of patients were white. The mean age in each group was 77 years. The mean ± standard deviation VA score (number of letters read) at baseline was 53.6±14.1,

Discussion

The MARINA study in patients with minimally classic or occult with no classic CNV was the first to demonstrate that a treatment for neovascular AMD could preserve and also improve VA. On average, these effects were sustained over a 2-year treatment period.5 Our retrospective, exploratory analysis of clinically relevant subgroups of patients from the MARINA study indicates that ranibizumab treatment for 24 months was consistently superior to sham treatment in all subgroups examined—gender, CNV

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Steven Butler, PhD, and Carol Y. Chung, PhD, for expert statistical advice and Robert Y. Kim, MD, for clinical scientific advice and review.

References (7)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (365)

View all citing articles on Scopus

Manuscript no. 2006-1033.

Supported financially by Genentech, Inc. and Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.

View full text