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

doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2024.02.021

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

Am J Ophthalmol. 2024 Feb 21:263:231-239. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2024.02.021. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Karl G Csaky¹, Jason M L Miller², Daniel F Martin³, Mark W Johnson⁴

Affiliations

¹ From the Retina Foundation of the Southwest (K.G.C.), Dallas, Texas, USA. Electronic address: kcsaky@retinafoundation.org.
² Kellogg 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.
³ Cole Eye Institute (D.F.M.), Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland Ohio, USA.
⁴ Kellogg Eye Center (J.M.L.M., M.W.J.), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

PMID: 38387826
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2024.02.021

Abstract

Purpose: To 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.

Design: Selected literature review with analysis and perspective METHODS: We 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.

Results: The 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.

Conclusion: Although 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.