Efficacy of Intravitreal Pegcetacoplan vs Avacincaptad Pegol in Patients With Geographic Atrophy

<b>Purpose:</b> To evaluate the efficacy of intravitreal (IVT) pegcetacoplan monthly vs avacincaptad pegol monthly (primary analysis), and pegcetacoplan every other month vs avacincaptad pegol monthly (secondary analysis), for geographic atrophy (GA). <b>Methods:</b> Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) were conducted across global phase 3 trials using individual patient data from 2 pegcetacoplan trials (OAKS, NCT03525613; DERBY, NCT03525600) and published aggregate data from the avacincaptad pegol GATHER2 trial (NCT04435366). GATHER2 inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to the OAKS and DERBY individual patient data. Key baseline variables were balanced using propensity score weighting. GA lesion growth at month 12 was assessed. Results from the MAIC were combined using meta-analysis. <b>Results:</b> The primary analysis included 103 patients from OAKS and 102 patients from DERBY who met the GATHER2 inclusion and exclusion criteria, and 447 patients from GATHER2. In OAKS vs GATHER2, the adjusted difference in GA lesion growth at month 12 between pegcetacoplan monthly and avacincaptad pegol was -0.716 mm<sup>2</sup> (95% CI, -1.385 to -0.046; <i>P</i> = .04), statistically favoring pegcetacoplan monthly. In DERBY vs GATHER2, the adjusted difference was -0.234 mm<sup>2</sup> (95% CI, -1.354 to 0.885; <i>P</i> = .68), directionally favoring pegcetacoplan monthly. After meta-analysis, the pooled effect for pegcetacoplan monthly vs avacincaptad pegol was -0.589 mm<sup>2</sup> (95% CI, -1.164 to -0.014; <i>P</i> = 0.04), statistically favoring pegcetacoplan monthly. A numerically greater reduction in GA lesion growth was observed with pegcetacoplan every other month vs avacincaptad pegol monthly (95% CI, -1.130 to -0.300; <i>P</i> = .25). <b>Conclusions:</b> Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons support a greater reduction in GA growth with pegcetacoplan monthly vs avacincaptad pegol monthly and no significant difference between pegcetacoplan every other month and avacincaptad pegol monthly.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of VitreoRetinal Diseases
Published
2025-10-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/24741264251379842
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Retinal Diseases and Treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.71
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Efficacy of Intravitreal Pegcetacoplan vs Avacincaptad Pegol in Patients With Geographic Atrophy

Sujata P. Sarda, Kirthana Sarathy, Dilsher S. Dhoot, David Eichenbaum et al.
1 citations
Journal of VitreoRetinal Diseases
Retinal Diseases and Treatments
1.71
article

Efficacy of Intravitreal Pegcetacoplan vs Avacincaptad Pegol in Patients With Geographic Atrophy

Sujata P. Sarda, Kirthana Sarathy, Dilsher S. Dhoot, David Eichenbaum, Varun Chaudhary, Charles C. Wykoff, Paul Hahn, Michele Intorcia, Mei Sheng Duh, Caroline R. Baumal, Maryaline Catillon, Chunyi Xu, Priyanka Bobbili, Daniel L. Jones, Rose Chang, Michael A. Klufas
article en
1 citations

Abstract

<b>Purpose:</b> To evaluate the efficacy of intravitreal (IVT) pegcetacoplan monthly vs avacincaptad pegol monthly (primary analysis), and pegcetacoplan every other month vs avacincaptad pegol monthly (secondary analysis), for geographic atrophy (GA). <b>Methods:</b> Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) were conducted across global phase 3 trials using individual patient data from 2 pegcetacoplan trials (OAKS, NCT03525613; DERBY, NCT03525600) and published aggregate data from the avacincaptad pegol GATHER2 trial (NCT04435366). GATHER2 inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to the OAKS and DERBY individual patient data. Key baseline variables were balanced using propensity score weighting. GA lesion growth at month 12 was assessed. Results from the MAIC were combined using meta-analysis. <b>Results:</b> The primary analysis included 103 patients from OAKS and 102 patients from DERBY who met the GATHER2 inclusion and exclusion criteria, and 447 patients from GATHER2. In OAKS vs GATHER2, the adjusted difference in GA lesion growth at month 12 between pegcetacoplan monthly and avacincaptad pegol was -0.716 mm<sup>2</sup> (95% CI, -1.385 to -0.046; <i>P</i> = .04), statistically favoring pegcetacoplan monthly. In DERBY vs GATHER2, the adjusted difference was -0.234 mm<sup>2</sup> (95% CI, -1.354 to 0.885; <i>P</i> = .68), directionally favoring pegcetacoplan monthly. After meta-analysis, the pooled effect for pegcetacoplan monthly vs avacincaptad pegol was -0.589 mm<sup>2</sup> (95% CI, -1.164 to -0.014; <i>P</i> = 0.04), statistically favoring pegcetacoplan monthly. A numerically greater reduction in GA lesion growth was observed with pegcetacoplan every other month vs avacincaptad pegol monthly (95% CI, -1.130 to -0.300; <i>P</i> = .25). <b>Conclusions:</b> Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons support a greater reduction in GA growth with pegcetacoplan monthly vs avacincaptad pegol monthly and no significant difference between pegcetacoplan every other month and avacincaptad pegol monthly.

Journal of VitreoRetinal DiseasesVol. 10(1)
University of Southern California (US), University of South Florida (US), California Retina Consultants (US), Methodist Hospital (US), Retina Consultants of Texas (US), Retina Associates (US), Apellis Pharmaceuticals (United States) (US), Retina Vitreous Associates of Florida (US), St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (CA), Hamilton Health Sciences (CA), Analysis Group (United States) (US), Wills Eye Hospital (US), McMaster University (CA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Retinal Diseases and Treatments
1.71
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.