Objective To evaluate the association of subretinal hyper-reflective material (SHRM) with visual acuity (VA), geographic atrophy (GA) and scar in the Comparison of Age related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials (CATT) Design Prospective cohort study within a randomized clinical trial. Participants The 1185 participants in CATT. Methods Participants were randomly assigned to ranibizumab or bevacizumab treatment monthly or as-needed. Masked readers graded scar and GA on fundus photography and fluorescein angiography images, SHRM on time domain (TD) and spectral domain (SD) optical coherence tomography (OCT) throughout 104 weeks. Measurements of SHRM height and width in the fovea, within the center 1mm2, or outside the center 1mm2 were obtained on SD-OCT images at 56 (n=76) and 104 (n=66) weeks. VA was measured by certified examiners. Main Outcome Measures SHRM presence, location and size, and associations with VA, scar, and GA. Results Among all CATT participants, the percentage with SHRM at enrollment was 77%, decreasing to 68% at 4 weeks after treatment and 54% at 104 weeks. At 104 weeks, scar was present more often in eyes with persistent SHRM than eyes with SHRM that resolved (64% vs. 31%; p<0.0001). Among eyes with detailed evaluation of SHRM at weeks 56 (n=76) and 104 (n=66), mean [SE] VA letter score was 73.5 [2.8], 73.1 [3.4], 65.3 [3.5], and 63.9 [3.7] when SHRM was absent, present outside the central 1mm2, present within the central 1mm2 but not the foveal center, or present at the foveal center (p=0.02). SHRM was present at the foveal center in 43 (30%), within the central 1mm2 in 21 (15%) and outside the central 1mm2 in 19 (13%). When SHRM was present, the median maximum height in microns under the fovea, within the central 1 mm2 including the fovea and anywhere within the scan was 86; 120; and 122, respectively. VA was decreased with greater SHRM height and width (p<0.05). Conclusions SHRM is common in eyes with NVAMD and often persists after anti-VEGF treatment. At 2 years, eyes with scar were more likely to have SHRM than other eyes. Greater SHRM height and width were associated with worse VA. SHRM is an important morphological biomarker in eyes with NVAMD.

Analyses of AREDS2 data on natural history of GA provide representative data on GA evolution and enlargement. GA enlargement, which was influenced by lesion features, was relentless, resulting in rapid central vision loss. The genetic variants associated with faster enlargement were partially distinct from those associated with risk of incident GA. These findings are relevant to further investigations of GA pathogenesis and clinical trial planning.

The study results support the use of the KOOS subscales among patients with articular cartilage lesions.

BackgroundThe purpose of this research was to fully explore the impact of endpoint type (primary vs. nonprimary) on decisions related to patient-reported outcome (PRO) labeling claims supported by PRO measures and to determine if nonprimary PRO endpoints are being fully optimized.This review examines the use of PROs as both primary and nonprimary endpoints in support of demonstration of treatment benefit of new molecular entities (NMEs) and biologic license applications (BLAs) in the United States in the years 2000 to 2012.MethodsAll NMEs and BLAs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between January 2000 and June 2012 were identified using the FDA Drug Approval Reports Web page. Generic products granted tentative approvals were excluded. For all identified products, medical review sections from publicly available drug approval packages were reviewed to identify PRO endpoint status. Product labels (indication, clinical trials sections) were reviewed to determine the number and type of PRO claim.ResultsA total of 308 NMEs/BLAs were identified. Of these, 70 NMEs/BLAs (23%) were granted PRO claims. The majority of product claims were for disease- or condition-specific signs and symptoms. Of the 70 products with PRO claims, a PRO was a primary endpoint for the vast majority (57 [81%]). A total of 19 of the 70 products were granted a PRO claim based on a nonprimary endpoint. While nonprimary endpoints were used most often to support claims of improved signs or symptoms, nonprimary endpoints were much more likely to support claims of higher order impacts.ConclusionsSuccessful PRO labeling claims are typically based on primary endpoints assessing signs and symptoms. Based on this research, studies with PROs as primary endpoints are far more likely to facilitate positive regulatory review and acceptance of PROs in support of labeling claims. Although inclusion of PROs as nonprimary endpoints in clinical trials has its challenges, recent PRO labels granted by the FDA show that they can indeed be candidates for PRO labeling claims as long as they are supported by evidence.