Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38387826›Full record

ReviewAmerican journal of ophthalmology2024

Drug Approval for the Treatment of Geographic Atrophy: How We Got Here and Where We Need to Go.

Karl G Csaky, Jason M L Miller, Daniel F Martin, Mark W Johnson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in American journal of ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

57 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Phage Display as a Promising Platform for Peptide Drug Discovery.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Association of Antibiotic Use and New-Onset ICD Coding of Geographic Atrophy.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. AAV NRF2 gene therapy preserves retinal structure and function in rodent models of oxidative damage.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Karl G CsakyFrom the Retina Foundation of the Southwest (K.G.C.), Dallas, Texas, USA. Electronic address: kcsaky@retinafoundation.org.
Jason M L MillerKellogg Eye Center (J.M.L.M., M.W.J.), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA; Cellular and Molecular Biology Program (J.M.L.M.), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Daniel F MartinCole Eye Institute (D.F.M.), Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland Ohio, USA.
Mark W JohnsonKellogg Eye Center (J.M.L.M., M.W.J.), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

Funding

DRCR Retina NetworkUG1EY014231 · NEI · JAEB CENTER FOR HEALTH RESEARCH, INC. · PI Adam R Glassman, DANIEL F MARTIN · 2019 to 2026
$75.4M
Lipid Trafficking and Metabolism in the Retinal Pigment EpitheliumK08EY033420 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Jason Matthew-Lewis Miller · 2022 to 2026
$1.2M
NEI NIH HHS K08 EY033420NEI NIH HHS UG1 EY014231
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo discuss the clinical trial results leading to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of anti-complement therapies for geographic atrophy (GA), perspectives on functional data from the GA clinical trials, and how lessons from the FDA approval may guide future directions for basic and clinical research in AMD.

designSelected literature review with analysis and perspective

methodsWe performed a targeted review of publicly available data from the clinical trials of pegcetacoplan and avacincaptad for the treatment of GA, as well as scientific literature on the natural history of GA and the genetics and basic science of complement in AMD.

resultsThe approval of pegcetacoplan and avacincaptad was based on an anatomic endpoint of a reduction in the rate of GA expansion over time. However, functional data from 2 phase 3 clinical trials for each drug demonstrated no visual benefit to patients in the treatment groups. Review of the genetics of AMD and the basic science of the role for complement in AMD provides only modest support for targeting complement as treatment for GA expansion, and alternative molecular targets for GA treatment are therefore discussed. Reasons for the disconnect between anatomic and functional outcomes in the clinical trials of anti-complement therapies are discussed, providing insight to guide the configuration of future clinical studies for GA.

conclusionAlthough avacincaptad and pegcetacoplan are our first FDA-approved treatments for GA, results from the clinical trials failed to show any functional improvement after 1 and 2 years, respectively, calling into question whether the drugs represent a "clinically relevant outcome." To improve the chances of more impactful therapies in the future, we provide basic-science rationale for pursuing non-complement targets; emphasize the importance of ongoing clinical research that more closely pins anatomic features of GA to functional outcomes; and provide suggestions for clinical endpoints for future clinical trials on GA.

Indexed as

Drug ApprovalGeographic AtrophyUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationAntibodies, BispecificAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedClinical Trials as TopicComplement Inactivating AgentsHumansImmunoglobulin Fab FragmentsUnited StatesVisual AcuityAntibodies, BispecificAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedComplement Inactivating AgentsImmunoglobulin Fab Fragmentslampalizumab

Identifiers

PMID38387826
PMCPMC11162935

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.