Pharmacotherapeutic group: Ophthalmologicals / Antineovascularisation agents, ATC code: S01LA05
Aflibercept is a recombinant fusion protein consisting of portions of human VEGF receptor 1 and 2 extracellular domains fused to the Fc portion of human IgG1.
Aflibercept is produced in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) K1 cells by recombinant DNA technology.
Mechanism of action
Vascular endothelial growth factor‑A (VEGF‑A) and placental growth factor (PlGF) are members of the VEGF family of angiogenic factors that can act as potent mitogenic, chemotactic, and vascular permeability factors for endothelial cells. VEGF acts via two receptor tyrosine kinases, VEGFR‑1 and VEGFR‑2, present on the surface of endothelial cells. PlGF binds only to VEGFR‑1, which is also present on the surface of leucocytes. Excessive activation of these receptors by VEGF‑A can result in pathological neovascularisation and excessive vascular permeability. PlGF can act independently to activate the VEGFR‑1 to promote an inflammatory response within the retina, and is known to increase in pathological states such as nAMD, diabetic retinopathy (DR), DMO, and retinal vein occlusion (RVO).
Pharmacodynamic effects
Aflibercept acts as a soluble decoy receptor that binds VEGF‑A and PlGF with higher affinity than their natural receptors, and thereby can inhibit the binding and activation of these cognate VEGF receptors.
In animal studies, aflibercept can prevent pathological neovascularization and vascular leakage in a number of different models of ocular disease.
nAMD
nAMD is characterised by pathological choroidal neovascularisation (CNV). Leakage of blood and fluid from CNV may cause retinal oedema and/or sub‑/intra‑retinal haemorrhage, resulting in loss of visual acuity.
The pharmacodynamic effects of aflibercept 114.3 mg/ml administered every 12 (8Q12) and every 16 (8Q16) weeks are described in comparison with aflibercept 40 mg/ml administered every 8 weeks (2Q8) for the nAMD indication. These effects are shown as the change in CNV size from baseline to week 12; change in total lesion area from baseline to weeks 48, 60 and 96; and change from baseline in central retinal thickness (CRT).
In the pooled group of patients treated with 8Q12 or 8Q16, reductions in CNV size (LS mean, based on a mixed model for repeated measurements [MMRM]) at week 12 were ‑1.63 mm2 compared to ‑1.17 mm2 for patients treated with 2Q8.
Pharmacodynamic effects were generally maintained through week 156.
Table 2: Pharmacodynamic parameter (full analysis set) in the PULSAR study
| Efficacy outcomes | Week | Eylea 8Q12 (N = 335) | Eylea 8Q16 (N = 338) | Eylea 2Q8 (N = 336) |
| Change in total lesion area from baseline [mm2] |
| LS mean A | 12 | -0.55 | ‑0.30 |
| Arithmetic mean (SD), observed | 48 | ‑0.4 (2.9) | ‑0.2 (3.1) | 0.1 (3.6) |
| LS mean (SE) A | -0.46 (0.19) | -0.35 (0.20) | 0.09 (0.22) |
| Difference in LS means (95% CI) A,B | -0.55 (‑1.04, ‑0.06) | -0.44 (‑0.94, ‑0.06) | |
| Arithmetic mean (SD), observed | 60 | ‑0.5 (2.8) | ‑0.4 (3.2) | ‑0.3 (3.2) |
| LS mean (SE) A | -0.48 (0.20) | -0.54 (0.21) | ‑0.24 (0.20) |
| Difference in LS means (95% CI) A,B | -0.24 (‑0.72, 0.24) | -0.29 (‑0.79, 0.20) | |
| Arithmetic mean (SD), observed | 96 | ‑0.3 (3.3) | ‑0.3 (3.2) | ‑0.2 (3.4) |
| LS mean (SE) A | -0.43 (0.20) | -0.42 (0.20) | ‑0.18 (0.20) |
| Difference in LS means (95% CI) A,B | -0.25 (‑0.72, 0.21) | -0.24 (‑0.71, 0.22) | |
A LS mean, CI and p‑value based on an MMRM with baseline measurement as covariate, treatment group as factor, visit and stratification variables used for randomisation (geographical region, categorical baseline BCVA) as fixed factors as well as terms for the interaction between baseline measurement and visit and for the interaction between treatment and visit.
B Absolute difference is Eylea 8Q12‑ or 8Q16‑groups minus 2Q8‑groups, respectively.
CI: Confidence interval
LS: Least square
SD: Standard deviation
SE: Standard error
Figure 1: LS mean change in central retinal thickness (CRT) from baseline through week 96 (full analysis set) in the PULSAR study

DMO
Diabetic macular oedema is characterised by increased vasopermeability and damage to the retinal capillaries which may result in loss of visual acuity.
The pharmacodynamic effects of aflibercept 114.3 mg/ml administered every 12 (8Q12) and every 16 (8Q16) weeks are described in comparison with aflibercept 40 mg/ml administered every 8 weeks (2Q8) for the DMO indication. These effects are shown as the change in the leakage area from baseline to weeks 48, 60 and 96.
Pharmacodynamic effects were generally maintained through week 156.
Table 3: Pharmacodynamic parameter (full analysis set) in the PHOTON study
| Efficacy Outcomes | Week | Eylea 8Q12 (N = 328) | Eylea 8Q16 (N = 163) | Eylea 2Q8 (N = 167) |
| Change in leakage areaA from baseline [mm2] |
| Arithmetic mean (SD), observed | 48 | ‑13.9 (13.91) | ‑9.4 (11.50) | ‑9.2 (12.11) |
| 60 | ‑13.9 (13.54) | ‑12.0 (13.26) | ‑14.4 (12.89) |
| 96 | ‑12.8 (10.98) | ‑9.4 (10.61) | ‑11.9 (11.26) |
A based on fluorescein angiography measurement
SD: Standard deviation
Figure 2: LS mean change in central retinal thickness (CRT) from baseline through week 96 (full analysis set) in the PHOTON study

Immunogenicity
After dosing with Eylea 114.3 mg/ml for up to 96 weeks treatment‑emergent antibodies to Eylea 114.3 mg/ml were detected in 2.5% to 4.4% of patients treated for DMO and nAMD. No evidence of anti‑drug antibodies impact on pharmacokinetics, efficacy or safety was observed.
RVO
In RVO, retinal ischaemia occurs and signals the release of VEGF which in turn destabilises the tight junctions and promotes endothelial cell proliferation. Up-regulation of VEGF is associated with the breakdown of the blood retina barrier and this increased vascular permeability results in retinal oedema, stimulation of endothelial cell growth and neovascularisation.
Table 4: Pharmacodynamic parameter (full analysis set) in the QUASAR study
| Efficacy outcomes | Week | Eylea 8Q8/3 (N = 293) | Eylea 2Q4 (N = 301) |
| Change in CRT from baseline [microns] |
| Arithmetic mean (SD), observed | 36 | ‑365.9 (239.9) | ‑397.3 (257.7) |
| LS mean (SE) A | -370.9 (3.1) | ‑370.8 (3.9) |
| Difference in LS means (95% CI) A,B | -0.1 (‑10.0, 9.8) | |
| Arithmetic mean (SD), observed | 64 | ‑355.5 (239.5) | ‑373.0 (252.1) |
| LS mean (SE) A | -361.1 (4.3) | ‑353.7 (5.2) |
| Difference in LS means (95% CI) A,B | -7.4 (‑20.7, 5.9) | |
A LS mean, CI and p‑value based on an MMRM with baseline CRT measurement as covariate, treatment group as factor, visit and stratification variables used for randomisation (geographical region, categorical baseline BCVA and RVO type) as fixed factors as well as terms for the interaction between baseline CRT and visit and for the interaction between treatment and visit.
B Absolute difference is Eylea 8Q8/3‑group minus 2Q4‑group.
CI: Confidence interval
CRT: Central retinal thickness
LS: Least square
SD: Standard deviation
SE: Standard error
Figure 3: LS mean change in central retinal thickness (CRT) from baseline through week 64 (full analysis set) in the QUASAR study

Clinical efficacy and safety
nAMD
Study objectives
The safety and efficacy of Eylea 114.3 mg/ml were assessed in a randomised, multi‑centre, double‑masked, active‑controlled study (PULSAR) in patients with treatment naïve nAMD.
The primary objective was to determine if treatment with Eylea 114.3 mg/ml at intervals of 12 (8Q12) or 16 weeks (8Q16) provides non‑inferior best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) change compared to Eylea 40 mg/ml every 8 weeks in patients with nAMD.
The secondary objectives were to determine the effect of Eylea 114.3 mg/ml versus Eylea 40 mg/ml on anatomic and other visual measures of response, and to evaluate the safety, immunogenicity, and pharmacokinetics of aflibercept.
The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in BCVA measured by the early treatment diabetic retinopathy study (ETDRS) letter score at week 48.
The key secondary endpoints were the change in BCVA from baseline at week 60 and the proportion of patients with no intraretinal fluid (IRF) and no subretinal fluid (SRF) in central subfield at week 16.
Further secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients gaining at least 15 letters in BCVA from baseline at week 48, the proportion of patients achieving an ETDRS letter score of at least 69 (approximate 20/40 Snellen equivalent) at week 48, and the change from baseline in National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire-25 (NEI-VFQ-25) total score at week 48, among others.
In the PULSAR study a total of 1 009 patients were treated. The patients were assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to 1 of 3 parallel treatment groups:
1. Eylea 114.3 mg/ml administered every 12 weeks (8Q12)
2. Eylea 114.3 mg/ml administered every 16 weeks (8Q16)
3. Eylea 40 mg/ml administered every 8 weeks (2Q8)
All patients received 3 initial injections of the assigned dose at 4‑week intervals.
Per study protocol the interval of the 8Q12‑ and 8Q16‑groups was to be shortened if both of the following criteria were met:
1. >5 letters loss in BCVA from week 12, and
2. >25 microns increase in CRT from week 12 or new foveal haemorrhage or new foveal neovascularisation.
Regardless of whether patient intervals were maintained or shortened in year 1, per study protocol all patients in the 8Q12‑ and 8Q16‑groups were eligible for interval extension (by 4 weeks increments), beginning at week 52, if the following criteria were met:
1. <5 letters loss in BCVA from week 12, and
2. no fluid in the central subfield on optical coherence tomography (OCT), and
3. no new onset of foveal haemorrhage or foveal neovascularisation.
For patients who did not meet the criteria for shortening or extension of the interval, the dosing interval was maintained. The minimum interval between injections was 8 weeks in all groups.
Patients with bilateral disease were eligible to receive Eylea 40 mg/ml treatment or another anti‑VEGF medicinal product in their fellow eye.
Patient characteristics at baseline
Patient ages ranged from 50 to 96 years with a mean of 74.5 years.
Approximately 92% (309/335) and 87% (295/338) of the patients randomised to the 8Q12‑ and 8Q16‑groups, respectively, were 65 years of age or older and approximately 51% (172/335) and 51% (171/338) were 75 years of age or older.
Results
Patients in the 8Q12‑, 8Q16‑ and 2Q8‑groups who completed week 48 received a median (mean) of 6.0 (6.1), 5.0 (5.2) and 7.0 (6.9) injections, respectively.
At week 48, in the 8Q12‑group, 79.4% of patients maintained Q12 intervals while in the 8Q16‑group 76.6% of patients maintained Q16 intervals.
Patients in the 8Q12‑, 8Q16‑ and 2Q8‑groups who completed week 60 received a median (mean) of 7.0 (7.1), 6.0 (6.2) and 9.0 (8.8) injections, respectively.
At week 60, 43.1% of patients in the 8Q12‑group were extended to a treatment interval of 16 weeks, and 38.5% of patients in the 8Q16‑group were extended to a treatment interval of 20 weeks.
Patients in the 8Q12‑, 8Q16‑ and 2Q8‑groups who completed week 96 received a median (mean) of 9.0 (9.7), 8.0 (8.2) and 13.0 (12.8) injections, respectively.
At week 96, in the pooled 8Q12‑ and 8Q16‑groups 71.0% of patients had attained treatment intervals of ≥16 weeks, 46.8% of patients had attained treatment intervals of ≥20 weeks, and 27.8% of patients had attained treatment intervals of 24 weeks, while maintaining visual and anatomic outcomes.
Treatment with 8Q12 and 8Q16 was shown to be non‑inferior and clinically equivalent to treatment with 2Q8 in terms of the primary efficacy endpoint 'mean change in BCVA at week 48' and the key secondary efficacy endpoint 'mean change in BCVA at week 60'. The treatment effect with Eylea 114.3 mg/ml in mean change in BCVA was maintained through week 96.
Furthermore, treatment with Eylea (pooled 8Q12‑ and 8Q16‑groups) was shown to be superior to treatment with 2Q8 in terms of the key secondary efficacy endpoint 'proportion of patients with no intraretinal fluid (IRF) and no subretinal fluid (SRF) in the central subfield at week 16' (see table 4).
Table 5: Efficacy outcomes from the PULSAR study
| Efficacy outcomes | Week | Eylea 8Q12 (N = 335) | Eylea 8Q16 (N = 338) | Eylea 2Q8 (N = 336) |
| Change in BCVA from baseline as measured by ETDRS letter score D |
| Arithmetic mean (SD), observed | 48 | 6.7 (12.6) | 6.2 (11.7) | 7.6 (12.2) |
| LS mean (SE) A | 6.06 (0.77) | 5.89 (0.72) | 7.03 (0.74) |
| Difference in LS means (95% CI) A,B | -0.97 (‑2.87, 0.92) | -1.14 (‑2.97, 0.69) | |
| p‑value (one‑sided non‑inferiority test at a margin of 4 letters) A,B | 0.0009 | 0.0011 | |
| Arithmetic mean (SD), observed | 60 | 6.6 (13.6) | 6.6 (11.7) | 7.8 (12.6) |
| LS mean (SE) A | 6.37 (0.74) | 6.31 (0.66) | 7.23 (0.68) |
| Difference in LS means (95% CI) A,B | -0.86 (‑2.57, 0.84) | -0.92 (‑2.51, 0.66) | |
| p‑value (one‑sided non‑inferiority test at a margin of 4 letters) A,B | 0.0002 | <0.0001 | |
| Arithmetic mean (SD), observed | 96 | 5.9 (14.2) | 5.6 (13.7) | 7.4 (13.8) |
| LS mean (SE) A | 5.59 (0.77) | 5.52 (0.75) | 6.60 (0.73) |
| Difference in LS means (95% CI) A,B | -1.01 (‑2.82, 0.80) | -1.08 (‑2.87, 0.71) | |
| Patients with no IRF and no SRF in the central subfield D |
| Proportion (LOCF) | 16 | 63.3% | 51.6% |
| Adjusted difference in proportion (95% CI) B,C | 11.7% (5.3%, 18.2%) | |
| p‑value (one‑sided superiority test) B, C | 0.0002 | |
| Proportion (LOCF) | 48 | 71.1% | 66.8% | 59.4% |
| Adjusted difference in proportion (95% CI) B,C | 11.7% (4.5%, 18.9%) | 7.5% (0.1%, 14.8%) | |
| Proportion (LOCF) | 60 | 74.6% | 72.2% | 74.6% |
| Adjusted difference in proportion (95% CI) B,C | 0.0% (‑6.6%, 6.7%) | ‑2.2% (‑8.9%, 4.4%) | |
| Proportion (LOCF) | 96 | 69.6% | 63.6% | 66.5% |
| Adjusted difference in proportion (95% CI) B,C | 3.0% (‑4.1%, 10.1%) | ‑3.0% (‑10.2%, 4.2%) | |
| Patients achieving an ETDRS letter score of at least 69 (approximate 20/40 Snellen equivalent) D |
| Proportion (LOCF) | 48 | 56.9% | 54.3% | 57.9% |
| Adjusted difference in proportion (95% CI) B,C | ‑0.2% (‑6.6%, 6.2%) | ‑2.2% (‑8.4%, 4.0%) | |
| Proportion (LOCF) | 60 | 56.3% | 54.6% | 58.2% |
| Adjusted difference in proportion (95% CI) B,C | ‑1.1% (‑7.5%, 5.3%) | ‑2.3% (‑8.7%, 4.1%) | |
| Proportion (LOCF) | 96 | 53.3% | 53.1% | 56.7% |
| Adjusted difference in proportion (95% CI) B,C | ‑2.7% (‑9.4%, 4.0%) | ‑2.4% (‑9.1%, 4.2%) | |
| Patients who gained at least 15 letters in BCVA from baseline D |
| Proportion (LOCF) | 48 | 20.7% | 21.7% | 22.1% |
| Adjusted difference in proportion (95% CI) B,C | ‑1.7% (‑7.8%, 4.3%) | ‑0.9% (‑7.0%, 5.1%) | |
| Proportion (LOCF) | 60 | 23.7% | 23.1% | 23.3% |
| Adjusted difference in proportion (95% CI) B,C | 0.1% (‑6.2%, 6.3%) | ‑0.7% (‑6.9%, 5.5%) | |
| Proportion (LOCF) | 96 | 22.2% | 22.8% | 24.2% |
| Adjusted difference in proportion (95% CI) B,C | ‑2.4% (‑8.4%, 3.6%) | ‑2.0% (‑8.0%, 4.1%) | |
| Last intended treatment intervals |
| Patients at ≥Q12 treatment interval E |
| Proportion (pooled 8Q12‑ and 8Q16‑groups) | 96 | 87.8% | n/a |
| Proportion | 86.6% | 89.0% | n/a |
| Patients at ≥Q16 treatment interval E |
| Proportion (pooled 8Q12‑ and 8Q16‑groups) | 96 | 71.0% | n/a |
| Proportion | 63.6% | 78.4% | n/a |
| Patients at ≥Q20 treatment interval E |
| Proportion (pooled 8Q12‑ and 8Q16‑groups) | 96 | 46.8% | n/a |
| Proportion | 40.5% | 53.1% | n/a |
| Patients at Q24 treatment interval E |
| Proportion (pooled 8Q12‑ and 8Q16‑groups) | 96 | 27.8% | n/a |
| Proportion | 24.7% | 30.8% | n/a |
A LS mean, CI and p‑value based on an MMRM with baseline best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) measurement as covariate, treatment group as factor, visit and stratification variables used for randomisation (geographical region, categorical baseline BCVA) as fixed factors as well as terms for the interaction between baseline BCVA and visit and for the interaction between treatment and visit.
B Absolute difference is Eylea 8Q12‑ or 8Q16‑groups minus 2Q8‑groups, respectively.
C Mantel‑Haenszel weighted treatment difference with stratification variables used for randomization (geographical region, categorical baseline BCVA) and CI calculated using normal approximation.
D Full analysis set
E Safety analysis set; patients considered as completer for the respective timepoint
CI: Confidence interval
LOCF: Last observation carried forward
LS: Least square
SD: Standard deviation
SE: Standard error
Treatment intervals were analysed in a pre‑specified exploratory manner.
Figure 4: LS mean change in BCVA as measured by ETDRS letter score from baseline through week 96 (full analysis set) in the PULSAR study

Figure 5: Last intended treatment interval at week 96

Aflibercept at all doses (8Q12, 8Q16, 2Q8) demonstrated meaningful increase from baseline in the pre‑specified secondary efficacy endpoint national eye institute visual function questionnaire (NEI VFQ‑25).
No clinically meaningful differences were found between the 8Q12‑, 8Q16‑ and 2Q8‑groups in changes of NEI VFQ‑25 total score at week 48 and week 96 from baseline.
Efficacy results in evaluable subgroups for age, gender, geographic region, ethnicity, race, baseline BCVA, and lesion type were consistent with the results in the overall population.
Efficacy was generally maintained through week 96.
Results - PULSAR extension phase
At the end of the main phase of the study at week 96, patients could enrol into the 60 week, open‑label extension phase. 417 patients originally assigned to 8Q12 and 8Q16 continued on Eylea 114.3 mg/ml while maintaining their latest intervals. 208 patients originally assigned to 2Q8 at the beginning of the study were switched to Eylea 114.3 mg/ml starting at 12‑week intervals. Treatment intervals could be further adjusted based on the physician's judgement of visual and/or anatomic outcomes.
In those patients originally assigned to 8Q12 and 8Q16, the treatment effect with Eylea 114.3 mg/ml was generally maintained throughout 3 years (week 156). The LS mean change from baseline in the pooled 8Q12‑ and 8Q16‑groups in BCVA was +3.41 letters and in CRT was ‑148.05 microns at week 156.
In those patients originally assigned to 2Q8, the treatment effect with Eylea 114.3 mg/ml was similar. The LS mean change from baseline in BCVA was +4.58 letters and in CRT was ‑145.21 microns at week 156.
Patients in the 8Q12‑ and 8Q16‑groups who completed week 156 received a median (mean) of 13.0 (13.5) and 11.0 (12.2) injections, respectively.
Patients who switched to Eylea 114.3 mg/ml and completed week 156 received a total median (mean) of 18.0 (17.7) injections, of which 5.0 (4.9) injections were administered after the switch to Eylea 114.3 mg/ml within the 60 weeks of the study extension phase.
The overall safety profile in the extension phase was similar to that observed in the main phase.
Table 6: Efficacy outcomes from the PULSAR extension phase at week 156
| Efficacy outcomes | 8Q12 continued on Eylea 114.3 mg/ml (N = 185) | 8Q16 continued on Eylea 114.3 mg/ml (N = 190) | 2Q8 switched to Eylea 114.3 mg/ml (N = 208) |
| Change in BCVA from baseline (LS mean) | +3.57 letters | +3.23 letters | +4.58 letters |
| Change in CRT from baseline (LS mean) | ‑148.42 microns | ‑147.54 microns | ‑145.21 microns |
| Last intended treatment interval A |
| ≥12 weeks | 76.2% | 78.4% | 78.5% |
| ≥16 weeks | 53.5% | 62.1% | 42.5% |
| ≥20 weeks | 37.8% | 42.6% | 16.1% |
| 24 weeks | 23.8% | 24.2% | NA B |
A based on patients completing week 156
B NA for patients originally randomised to 2Q8, due to study design/length of study
DMO
Study objectives
The safety and efficacy of Eylea 114.3 mg/ml were assessed in a randomised, multi‑centre, double‑masked, active‑controlled study (PHOTON) in patients with DMO.
The primary objective was to determine if treatment with Eylea 114.3 mg/ml at intervals of 12 (8Q12) or 16 weeks (8Q16) provides non‑inferior BCVA change compared to Eylea 40 mg/ml every 8 weeks.
The secondary objectives were to determine the effect of Eylea 114.3 mg/ml versus Eylea 40 mg/ml on anatomic and other visual measures of response, and to evaluate the safety, immunogenicity, and pharmacokinetics of aflibercept.
The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in BCVA measured by the early treatment diabetic retinopathy study (ETDRS) letter score at week 48.
One key secondary endpoint was the change in BCVA from baseline at week 60.
Further secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients gaining at least 15 letters in BCVA from baseline at week 48, the proportion of patients achieving an ETDRS letter score of at least 69 (approximate 20/40 Snellen equivalent) at week 48, and the change from baseline in National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire‑25 (NEI‑VFQ‑25) total score at week 48, among others.
In the PHOTON study a total of 658 patients were treated. The patients were assigned in a 2:1:1 ratio to 1 of 3 parallel treatment groups:
1. Eylea 114.3 mg/ml administered every 12 weeks (8Q12)
2. Eylea 114.3 mg/ml administered every 16 weeks (8Q16)
3. Eylea 40 mg/ml administered every 8 weeks (2Q8)
Patients who were switched from other anti‑VEGF medicinal products to Eylea 114.3 mg/ml received the last injection of the previous treatment at least 12 weeks prior to initiating the Eylea 114.3 mg/ml treatment.
All patients in the 8Q12‑ and 8Q16‑groups received 3 initial injections and all patients in the 2Q8‑group received 5 initial injections at 4‑week intervals.
Per study protocol the interval of the 8Q12‑ and 8Q16‑groups was to be shortened if both of the following criteria were met:
1. >10 letter loss in BCVA from week 12 in association with persistent or worsening DMO, and
2. >50 microns increase in CRT from week 12.
Regardless of whether patient intervals were maintained or shortened in year 1, per study protocol all patients in the 8Q12‑ and 8Q16‑groups were eligible for interval extension (by 4 weeks increments), beginning at week 52, if the following criteria were met:
1. <5 letter loss in BCVA from week 12, and
2. CRT <300 microns on SD‑OCT (or <320 microns if measured including RPE).
For patients who did not meet the criteria for shortening or extension of the interval, the dosing interval was maintained. The minimum interval between injections was 8 weeks in all groups.
Patients with bilateral disease were eligible to receive Eylea 40 mg/ml treatment in their fellow eye.
Patient characteristics at baseline
Patient ages ranged from 24 to 90 years with a mean of 62.3 years.
Approximately 44% (143/328) and 44% (71/163) of the patients randomised to the 8Q12‑ and 8Q16‑groups, respectively, were 65 years of age or older and approximately 11% (36/328) and 14% (14/163) were 75 years of age or older.
The proportion of patients who were treated previously for DMO was balanced between the treatment groups (43.6% in 8Q12‑, 43.6% in 8Q16‑, 44.3% in 2Q8‑group).
Results
Patients in the 8Q12‑, 8Q16‑ and 2Q8‑groups who completed week 48 received a median (mean) of 6.0 (6.0), 5.0 (5.0) and 8.0 (7.9) injections, respectively.
At week 48, in the 8Q12‑group, 91.0% of patients maintained Q12 intervals while in the 8Q16‑group 89.1% of patients maintained Q16 intervals.
Patients in the 8Q12‑, 8Q16‑ and 2Q8‑groups who completed week 60 received a median (mean) of 7.0 (7.0), 6.0 (6.0) and 10.0 (9.8) injections, respectively. At week 60, 42.6% of patients in the 8Q12‑group were extended to a treatment interval of 16 weeks, and 34.2% of patients in the 8Q16‑group were extended to a treatment interval of 20 weeks.
Patients in the 8Q12‑, 8Q16‑ and 2Q8‑groups who completed week 96 received a median (mean) of 9.0 (9.5), 8.0 (7.8) and 14.0 (13.8) injections, respectively.
At week 96, in the pooled 8Q12‑ and 8Q16‑groups 72.4% of patients had attained treatment intervals of ≥16 weeks, 44.3% of patients had attained treatment intervals of ≥20 weeks, and 26.8% of patients had attained treatment intervals of 24 weeks, while maintaining visual and anatomic outcomes.
Treatment with Eylea (both 8Q12‑ and 8Q16‑groups) was shown to be non‑inferior and clinically equivalent to treatment with 2Q8 in terms of the primary efficacy endpoint 'mean change in BCVA at week 48' and the key secondary efficacy endpoint 'mean change in BCVA at week 60'. The treatment effect with Eylea 114.3 mg/ml in mean change in BCVA was maintained through week 96.
Table 7: Efficacy outcomes from the PHOTON study
| Efficacy outcomes | Week | Eylea 8Q12 (N = 328) | Eylea 8Q16 (N = 163) | Eylea 2Q8 (N = 167) |
| Change in BCVA from baseline as measured by ETDRS letter score D |
| Arithmetic mean (SD), observed | 48 | 8.77 (8.95) | 7.86 (8.38) | 9.21 (8.99) |
| LS mean (SE) A | 8.10 (0.61) | 7.23 (0.71) | 8.67 (0.73) |
| Difference in LS means (95% CI) A,B | ‑0.57 (‑2.26, 1.13) | ‑1.44 (‑3.27, 0.39) | |
| p‑value (one‑sided non‑inferiority test at a margin of 4 letters) A,B | <0.0001 | 0.0031 | |
| Arithmetic mean (SD), observed | 60 | 9.05 (9.27) | 7.96 (9.14) | 9.62 (9.58) |
| LS mean (SE) A | 8.52 (0.63) | 7.64 (0.75) | 9.40 (0.77) |
| Difference in LS means (95% CI) A,B | ‑0.88 (‑2.67, 0.91) | ‑1.76 (‑3.71, 0.19) | |
| p‑value (one‑sided non‑inferiority test at a margin of 4 letters) A,B | 0.0003 | 0.0122 | |
| Arithmetic mean (SD), observed | 96 | 8.82 (9.93) | 7.50 (9.86) | 8.41 (11.10) |
| LS mean (SE) A | 8.15 (0.63) | 6.59 (0.77) | 7.70 (0.89) |
| Difference in LS means (95% CI) A,B | 0.45 (‑1.55, 2.45) | ‑1.11 (‑3.27, 1.05) | |
| Patients achieving an ETDRS letter score of at least 69 (approximate 20/40 Snellen equivalent) D |
| Proportion (LOCF) | 48 | 65.3% | 62.6% | 63.0% |
| Adjusted difference in proportion (95% CI) B,C | 2.45% (‑6.47%, 11.36%) | ‑0.67% (‑11.16%, 9.82%) | |
| Proportion (LOCF) | 60 | 64.7% | 62.0% | 60.6% |
| Adjusted difference in proportion (95% CI) B,C | 4.34% (‑4.72%, 13.40%) | 1.63% (‑8.91%, 12.17%) | |
| Proportion (LOCF) | 96 | 66.9% | 61.3% | 63.0% |
| Adjusted difference in proportion (95% CI) B,C | 4.01% (‑4.99%, 13.01%) | ‑1.51% (‑11.91%, 8.89%) | |
| Patients who gained at least 15 letters in BCVA from baseline D |
| Proportion (LOCF) | 48 | 18.7% | 16.6% | 23.0% |
| Adjusted difference in proportion (95% CI) B,C | ‑4.64% (‑12.30%, 3.02%) | ‑7.14% (‑15.45%, 1.17%) | |
| Proportion (LOCF) | 60 | 21.5% | 16.0% | 26.1% |
| Adjusted difference in proportion (95% CI) B,C | ‑5.01% (‑13.04%, 3.02%) | ‑10.78% (‑19.27%, ‑2.29%) | |
| Proportion (LOCF) | 96 | 24.5% | 19.6% | 26.1% |
| Adjusted difference in proportion (95% CI) B,C | ‑1.88% (‑10.03%, 6.28%) | ‑7.07% (‑15.94%, 1.80%) | |
| Last intended treatment intervals |
| Patients at ≥Q12 treatment interval E |
| Proportion (pooled 8Q12‑ and 8Q16‑groups) | 96 | 92.9% | n/a |
| Proportion | 91.8% | 95.0% | n/a |
| Patients at ≥Q16 treatment interval E |
| Proportion (pooled 8Q12‑ and 8Q16‑groups) | 96 | 72.4% | n/a |
| Proportion | 64.1% | 87.8% | n/a |
| Patients at ≥Q20 treatment interval E |
| Proportion (pooled 8Q12‑ and 8Q16‑groups) | 96 | 44.3% | n/a |
| Proportion | 43.0% | 46.8% | n/a |
| Patients at Q24 treatment interval E |
| Proportion (pooled 8Q12‑ and 8Q16‑groups) | 96 | 26.8% | n/a |
| Proportion | 23.8% | 32.4% | n/a |
A LS mean, CI and p‑value based on an MMRM with baseline best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) measurement as covariate, treatment group as factor, visit and stratification variables used for randomisation (geographical region, categorical baseline BCVA) as fixed factors as well as terms for the interaction between baseline BCVA and visit and for the interaction between treatment and visit.
B Absolute difference is Eylea 8Q12‑ or 8Q16‑groups minus 2Q8‑groups, respectively.
C Mantel‑Haenszel weighted treatment difference with stratification variables used for randomization (geographical region, categorical baseline BCVA) and CI calculated using normal approximation.
D Full analysis set
E Safety analysis set; patients considered as completer for the respective timepoint
CI: Confidence interval
LOCF: Last observation carried forward
LS: Least square
SD: Standard deviation
SE: Standard error
Treatment intervals were analysed in a pre‑specified exploratory manner.
Figure 6: LS mean change in BCVA as measured by ETDRS letter score from baseline through week 96 (full analysis set) in the PHOTON study

Figure 7: Last intended treatment interval at week 96

Eylea at all doses (8Q12, 8Q16, 2Q8) demonstrated meaningful increase from baseline in the pre‑specified secondary efficacy endpoint national eye institute visual function questionnaire (NEI VFQ‑25).
No clinically meaningful differences were found between the 8Q12‑, 8Q16‑ and 2Q8‑groups in changes of NEI VFQ‑25 total score at week 48 and week 96 from baseline.
Efficacy results in evaluable subgroups for age, gender, geographic region, ethnicity, race, baseline BCVA and baseline CRT and prior DMO treatment were consistent with the results in the overall population.
Efficacy was generally maintained through week 96.
Treatment effects in the sub‑group of previously treated patients were similar to those seen in patients who were treatment naïve.
Results - PHOTON extension phase
At the end of the main phase of the study at week 96, patients could enrol into the 60 week, open‑label extension phase. 195 patients originally assigned to 8Q12 and 8Q16 continued on Eylea 114.3 mg/ml while maintaining their latest intervals. 70 patients originally assigned to 2Q8 at the beginning of the study were switched to Eylea 114.3 mg/ml starting at 12‑week intervals. Treatment intervals could be further adjusted based on the physician's judgement of visual and/or anatomic outcomes.
In those patients originally assigned to 8Q12 and 8Q16, the treatment effect with Eylea 114.3 mg/ml was generally maintained throughout 3 years (week 156). The LS mean change from baseline in the pooled 8Q12‑ and 8Q16‑groups in BCVA was +7.2 letters and in CRT was ‑192.4 microns at week 156.
In those patients originally assigned to 2Q8, the treatment effect with Eylea 114.3 mg/ml was similar. The LS mean change from baseline in BCVA was +6.5 letters and in CRT was ‑197.4 microns at week 156.
Patients in the 8Q12‑ and 8Q16‑groups who completed week 156 received a median (mean) of 13.0 (13.2) and 11.0 (11.4) injections, respectively.
Patients who switched to Eylea 114.3 mg/ml and completed week 156 received a total median (mean) of 19.0 (18.6) injections, of which 5.0 (4.8) injections were administered after the switch to Eylea 114.3 mg/ml within the 60 weeks of the study extension phase.
The overall safety profile in the extension phase was similar to that observed in the main phase.
Table 8: Efficacy outcomes from the PHOTON extension phase at week 156
| Efficacy outcomes | 8Q12 continued on Eylea 114.3 mg/ml (N = 103) | 8Q16 continued on Eylea 114.3 mg/ml (N = 49) | 2Q8 switched to Eylea 114.3 mg/ml (N = 70) |
| Change in BCVA from baseline (LS mean) | +6.8 letters | +8.1 letters | +6.5 letters |
| Change in CRT from baseline (LS mean) | ‑190.3 microns | ‑198.1 microns | ‑197.4 microns |
| Last intended treatment interval A |
| ≥12 weeks | 85.4% | 91.8% | 82.8% |
| ≥16 weeks | 62.1% | 81.6% | 50.0% |
| ≥20 weeks | 40.8% | 63.3% | 19.0% |
| 24 weeks | 20.4% | 42.9% | NA B |
A based on patients completing week 156
B NA for patients originally randomised to 2Q8, due to study design/length of study
RVO
Study objectives
The safety and efficacy of Eylea 114.3 mg/ml were assessed in a randomised, multi centre, double masked, active controlled study (QUASAR) in patients with treatment naïve macular oedema secondary to RVO.
The primary objective was to determine if treatment with Eylea 114.3 mg/ml at intervals of 8 weeks (8Q8) provides non‑inferior best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) change compared to Eylea 40 mg/ml every 4 weeks (2Q4).
The secondary objectives included to determine if treatment with 8Q8 requires less injections compared to 2Q4, to determine the effect of Eylea 114.3 mg/ml versus Eylea 40 mg/ml on anatomic and other visual measures of response, and to evaluate the safety and pharmacokinetics of aflibercept.
The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in BCVA measured by the early treatment diabetic retinopathy study (ETDRS) letter score at week 36.
The key secondary endpoint was the number of active injections from baseline to week 64.
Further secondary endpoints were the number of active injections from baseline to week 36, the proportion of patients gaining at least 15 letters in BCVA from baseline at week 36, the proportion of patients achieving an ETDRS letter score of at least 69 (approximate 20/40 Snellen equivalent) at week 36, and the change from baseline in National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire‑25 (NEI‑VFQ‑25) total score at week 36, among others.
In the QUASAR study a total of 892 patients were treated. The patients were assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to 1 of 3 parallel treatment groups:
1. Eylea 114.3 mg/ml administered every 8 weeks, after 3 initial injections at 4‑weeks intervals (8Q8/3)
2. Eylea 114.3 mg/ml administered every 8 weeks, after 5 initial injections at 4‑weeks intervals (8Q8/5)
3. Eylea 40 mg/ml administered every 4 weeks (2Q4)
From week 16 (8Q8/3), week 24 (8Q8/5) and week 40 (2Q4, if previously extended to Q8), patients were eligible to have their dosing interval shortened by 4 weeks if both of the following criteria were met at a dosing visit:
1. >5 letter loss in BCVA from reference visit, and
2. >50 microns increase in CRT from reference visit.
Extension of interval was allowed starting from week 32 (2Q4 and 8Q8/3) or week 40 (8Q8/5) by 4 weeks increments if both of the following criteria were met at a dosing visit:
1. <5 letter loss in BCVA from reference visit, and
2. CRT <320 microns on SD‑OCT (or <300 microns if excluding RPE).
Reference visits were at week 12 for 8Q8/3 and week 20 for 8Q8/5 and 2Q4.
For patients who did not meet the criteria for shortening or extension of the interval, the dosing interval was maintained. The minimum interval between injections was 4 weeks in all groups.
Patients with bilateral disease were eligible to receive Eylea 40 mg/ml treatment or another anti‑VEGF medicinal product in their fellow eye.
Patient characteristics at baseline
Patients ages ranged from 23 to 95 years with a mean of 65.9 years.
Approximately 57% (168/293) and 57% (170/298) of the patients randomized to the 8Q8/3- and 8Q8/5- groups, respectively, were 65 years of age or older and approximately 26% (76/293) and 25% (74/298) were 75 years of age or older.
425 (48%) of enrolled patients had CRVO/HRVO and 467 (52%) had BRVO. The proportions of patients per subtype were similar across treatment groups.
Results
Treatment with Eylea 114.3 mg/ml was shown to be non‑inferior and clinically equivalent to treatment with 2Q4 in terms of the primary efficacy endpoint 'change from baseline in BCVA measured by the ETDRS letter score at week 36.
Furthermore, treatment with Eylea 114.3 mg/ml was shown to be superior to treatment with 2Q4 in terms of the key secondary efficacy endpoint 'number of active injections from baseline to week 64'. The Eylea 8Q8/3‑group required 3.2 fewer injections than the 2Q4‑group.
At week 36, 93.9% of patients in the 8Q8/3‑group had attained treatment intervals of ≥8 weeks, while maintaining visual and anatomic outcomes.
At week 64, 56.1% of patients in the 8Q8/3‑group had completed treatment intervals of 16 weeks, while maintaining visual and anatomic outcomes.
At week 64, 40.5% of patients in the 8Q8/3‑group had last intended treatment intervals of 20 weeks, while maintaining visual and anatomic outcomes.
Table 9: Efficacy outcomes from the QUASAR study
| Efficacy outcomes | Week | Eylea 8Q8/3 (N = 293) | Eylea 2Q4 (N = 301) |
| Change in BCVA from baseline as measured by ETDRS letter score A |
| Arithmetic mean (SD), observed | 36 | 17.0 (11.8) | 17.8 (13.1) |
| LS mean (SE) B | 17.4 (0.7) | 17.5 (0.7) |
| Difference in LS means (95% CI) B, C | ‑0.1 (‑2.0, 1.9) | |
| p‑value (one‑sided non‑inferiority test at a margin of 4 letters) B, C | <0.0001 | |
| Arithmetic mean (SD), observed | 64 | 17.3 (12.7) | 17.4 (14.6) |
| LS mean (SE) B | 17.8 (0.7) | 17.3 (0.8) |
| Difference in LS means (95% CI) B, C | 0.5 (‑1.6, 2.7) | |
| CRVO/HRVO D |
| Arithmetic mean (SD), observed | 36 | 16.5 (12.7) | 16.2 (14.7) |
| LS mean (SE) B | 16.6 (1.1) | 15.9 (1.2) |
| Difference in LS means (95% CI) B, C | 0.6 (‑2.6, 3.9) | |
| Arithmetic mean (SD), observed | 64 | 16.5 (13.8) | 14.8 (16.8) |
| LS mean (SE) B | 17.2 (1.2) | 15.2 (1.3) |
| Difference in LS means (95% CI) B, C | 2.0 (‑1.5, 5.6) | |
| BRVO D |
| Arithmetic mean (SD), observed | 36 | 17.4 (10.9) | 19.4 (11.0) |
| LS mean (SE) B | 18.3 (0.8) | 19.0 (0.8) |
| Difference in LS means (95% CI) B, C | ‑0.8 (‑2.9, 1.4) | |
| Arithmetic mean (SD), observed | 64 | 18.1 (11.8) | 20.1 (11.4) |
| LS mean (SE) B | 18.4 (0.9) | 19.6 (0.8) |
| Difference in LS means (95% CI) B, C | ‑1.1 (‑3.5, 1.2) | |
| Patients achieving an ETDRS letter score of at least 69 (approximate 20/40 Snellen equivalent) A |
| Proportion (OC) | 36 | 72.7% | 67.8% |
| 64 | 70.4% | 70.2% |
| Patients who gained at least 15 letters in BCVA from baseline A |
| Proportion (OC) | 36 | 58.8% | 59.8% |
| 64 | 61.7% | 60.4% |
| Patients who lost at least 15 letters in BCVA from baseline A |
| Proportion (OC) | 36 | 1.2% | 1.5% |
| 64 | 1.2% | 2.4% |
| Patients with no IRF and no SRF in the central subfield A |
| Proportion (OC) | 36 | 81.2% | 83.7% |
| 64 | 76.3% | 66.0% |
| Number of active injections |
| Arithmetic mean (SD), observed E | 36 | 6.1 (0.6) | 8.8 (0.8) |
| LS mean (SE) F | 6.1 (0.0) | 8.8 (0.0) |
| Difference in LS means (95% CI) F, C | ‑2.7 (‑2.8, ‑2.6) | |
| Arithmetic mean (SD), observed E | 64 | 8.4 (1.2) | 11.7 (1.6) |
| LS mean (SE) F | 8.5 (0.1) | 11.7 (0.1) |
| Difference in LS means (95% CI) F, C | ‑3.2 (‑3.5, ‑3.0) | |
| p‑value (two‑sided superiority test) G, C | <0.0001 | |
| Maintenance of treatment intervals |
| Patients maintained with ≥Q8 treatment interval E |
| Proportion | 36 | 88.5% | n/a |
| 64 | 88.1% | 70.0% H |
| Last completed treatment intervals |
| Patients at Q4 treatment interval E |
| Proportion | 64 | 4.8% | 13.0% |
| Patients at ≥Q8 treatment interval E |
| Proportion | 64 | 95.2% | 87.0% |
| Patients at ≥Q12 treatment interval E |
| Proportion | 64 | 81.4% | 67.8% |
| Patients at Q16 treatment interval E |
| Proportion | 64 | 56.1% | n/a |
| Last intended treatment intervals |
| Patients at ≥Q8 treatment interval E |
| Proportion | 36 | 93.9% | 75.6% |
| 64 | 95.9% | 92.2% |
| Patients at Q12 treatment interval E |
| Proportion | 36 | 69.1% | n/a |
| 64 | 21.9% | 27.8% |
| Patients at ≥Q12 treatment interval E |
| Proportion | 64 | 86.2% | 77.8% |
| Patients at ≥Q16 treatment interval E |
| Proportion | 64 | 64.3% | 50.0% |
| Patients at Q20 treatment interval E |
| Proportion | 64 | 40.5% | n/a |
A Full analysis set
B LS mean, CI and p‑value based on an MMRM with baseline best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) measurement as covariate, treatment group as factor, visit and stratification variables used for randomisation (geographical region, categorical baseline BCVA and RVO type) as fixed factors as well as terms for the interaction between baseline BCVA and visit and for the interaction between treatment and visit.
C Absolute difference is Eylea 8Q8/3‑group minus 2Q4‑group.
D The number of patients with CRVO/HRVO was 134 and 152 in the 8Q8/3‑ and 2Q4‑treatement groups, respectively. The number of patients with BRVO was 159 and 149 in the 8Q8/3‑ and 2Q4‑treatement groups, respectively.
E Safety analysis set; patients considered as completer for the respective timepoint
F LS mean and CI based on a multiple imputation procedure applying a linear regression model adjusted for baseline BCVA, baseline central subfield thickness (CST), and the stratification variables used for randomisation (geographical region, categorical baseline BCVA and RVO type) on each imputed dataset and combination of results using Rubin`s rule.
G p‑value based on a multiple imputation procedure applying a non‑parametric rank analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline BCVA, baseline CST, and the stratification variables used for randomisation (geographical region, categorical baseline BCVA and RVO type) on each imputed dataset and combination of results using Rubin`s rule.
H patients in the 2Q4‑treatement group who extended at week 32 and were maintained at ≥Q8 through week 64.
CI: Confidence interval
ETDRS: early treatment diabetic retinopathy study
OC: observed cases, data after the occurrence of an intercurrent event excluded in line with the primary estimand strategy
LS: Least square
MMRM: mixed model for repeated measurements
SD: Standard deviation
SE: Standard error
Figure 8: LS mean change in BCVA as measured by ETDRS letter score from baseline through week 64 (full analysis set) in the QUASAR study

Eylea at all doses (8Q8/3, 2Q4) showed meaningful increase from baseline in the pre‑specified secondary efficacy endpoint national eye institute visual function questionnaire (NEI VFQ‑25). The magnitude of these changes was in line to that seen in published studies, reflected by improvements in visual related quality of life.
No clinically meaningful differences were found between the 8Q8/3‑, and 2Q4‑groups in changes of NEI VFQ‑25 total score at week 36 and week 64 from baseline.
Efficacy results in pre‑specified evaluable subgroups for RVO sub‑types, age, gender, geographic region, ethnicity, race, baseline BCVA and baseline CRT were consistent with the results in the overall population.
Efficacy was generally maintained through week 64.
On the pre‑specified secondary endpoint 'participants dosed only 8Q8 through week 36 in the Eylea 114.3 mg/ml 8Q8 group', 88.5% of patients in the 8Q8/3‑group were maintained on their original randomisation treatment interval of 8 weeks, while maintaining visual and anatomic outcomes.
Figure 9: Last intended treatment interval at week 64

Paediatric population
The European Medicines Agency has waived the obligation to submit the results of studies with aflibercept in all subsets of the paediatric population in nAMD, DMO and RVO (see section 4.2 for information on paediatric use).