Age-related macular degeneration (AMD), a disease that damages the retina and can destroy central vision, affects approximately 1.6 million Americans. For the past five years, there has been active debate over treatment options for AMD patients because ophthalmologists have not had accurate data regarding the true efficacy of the most commonly used medication. Now a new national study designed and analyzed by Penn Medicine’s Center for Preventive Ophthalmology and Biostatistics, has determined that two medications commonly used to treat AMD, Avastin® (bevacizumab), a drug approved for some cancers that is also commonly used “off-label” to AMD, and Lucentis ® (ranibizumab), an FDA approved drug for the treatment of AMD, are equally effective in treating this potentially debilitating disease.  These results, from the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) study, were published online today in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The CATT study, funded by the National Eye Institute, is a multi-centered randomized clinical trial designed to evaluate the relative safety and efficacy of two drugs used to treat neovascular AMD,” said Maureen G. Maguire, PhD, the study’s corresponding author and director, Center for Preventive Ophthalmology and Biostatistics (CPOB) at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. “The results from this study show for the first time that both drugs are equally as effective in treating AMD.”

Change in visual acuity served as the primary outcome measure for CATT.  Thus far, visual acuity improvement was virtually identical (within one letter difference on an eye chart) for either drug when given monthly.  In addition, no difference was found in the percentage of patients who had an important gain or loss in visual function. Also, when each drug was given on an as needed or pro re nata (PRN) schedule, there also was no difference (within one letter) between drugs.  PRN dosing required four to five fewer injections per year than monthly treatment.  Visual gains were about two letters less with PRN than with monthly treatment but overall visual results were still excellent.

Click here to view the full release.