
==== Front
BMJ Open Ophthalmol
BMJ Open Ophthalmol
bmjophth
bmjophth
BMJ Open Ophthalmology
2397-3269
BMJ Publishing Group BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR

39209742
10.1136/bmjophth-2024-001854
bmjophth-2024-001854
Editorial
1506
New horizons in geographic atrophy treatment: enthusiasm and caution surrounding complement inhibitors
Lai Eric 1eric.lai@yale.edu

Lee Timothy 2tlee18504@gmail.com

Lee Claire 3claiire.lee@gmail.com

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8996-3855
Schechet Sidney A 3schechets@gmail.com

1 Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
2 Ophthalmology, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
3 Elman Retina Group, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Dr; schechets@gmail.com
None declared.

2024
29 8 2024
9 1 e001854Copyright © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Clinical Trial
Degeneration
Macula
Pharmacology
Retina
Treatment Medical
The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government. The identification of specific products or scientific instrumentation is considered an integral part of this scientific endeavor and does not constitute endorsement or implied endorsement on the part of the authors, DoD, or any component agency.
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Current literature estimates that around 196 million people around the world have age-related macular degeneration (AMD), making AMD the leading cause of blindness in adults greater than 50 years of age in developed countries.1 Geographic atrophy (GA) is characterised by progressive degenerative lesions of the retina in the advanced stages of non-exudative AMD. These atrophic lesions are typically caused by the death of photoreceptors, retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) and choriocapillaris.2 Although the mechanism is not fully understood, the pathophysiology of GA is well documented to involve the complement system, where overactivation of complement components leads to opsonisation and induction of inflammatory cytokines, resulting in the destruction of the aforementioned structures.3 One of the hallmark features of exudative AMD is choroidal neovascularisation (CNV), characterised by abnormal growth and leakage of choroidal vasculature breaking through Bruch’s membrane, triggered by the activation of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF).4 Multiple therapies are available for exudative AMD, with intravitreal anti-VEGF drugs being the most widely used.5

AMD is a complex, multifactorial disease with various environmental and genetic risk factors associated with disease development. Risk factors that predispose patients to GA include age, race, family history and smoking history.6 7 Once GA begins, the rate of progression and areas to be affected are unpredictable, slow and irreversible. With the progressive spread of these atrophic lesions to involve the fovea, patients will experience irreversible central vision loss.8 Current literature reports that the median enlargement rate of GA is 2.1 mm2 per year,7 while the deterioration of visual acuity in patients with GA due to legal blindness was quantified to a median of 6.2 years.9

To monitor the progression of GA, the main imaging modalities include fundus autofluorescence to visualise changes in the RPE, ocular coherence tomography to analyse morphological changes within each layer of the retina and microperimetry to assess macular function.10 Recent studies show promise in using deep-learning models to predict GA progression; however, more data is necessary prior to clinical implementation.11

Historically, there were no treatment options for GA besides conservative measures such as smoking cessation and multivitamins to help reduce the risk of progression.12 In 2023, two complement-inhibiting agents, pegcetacoplan (Syfovre) and avacincaptad pegol (Izervay), were approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in patients with GA secondary to non-exudative AMD, marking a significant paradigm shift.13 14 Here, we highlight crucial and controversial findings in respective phase III clinical trials, compare similarities and differences between agents and discuss the potential future implications of these drugs in treating GA.

Complement inhibitors approved for GA treatment

With its approval in early 2023, pegcetacoplan (Syfovre), a C3 and C3b inhibitor, became the first FDA-approved drug for GA treatment. Two phase III trials, OAKS and DERBY, investigated the efficacy of pegcetacoplan on patients with GA through four randomly assigned groups: 15 mg pegcetacoplan injections monthly, pegcetacoplan injections every other month (EOM), sham injections monthly and sham injections EOM.13

At 24 months, OAKS found a 22% (–0.90 mm2) and 18% (–0.74 mm2) decrease in the growth of GA lesions in those who received pegcetacoplan monthly and EOM, respectively, compared with sham. At 24 months, DERBY showed a 19% (–0.75 mm2) and 16% (–0.63 mm2) decrease in GA lesion growth with monthly and EOM pegcetacoplan injections, respectively, compared with sham. Both studies combined showed a 21% (–0.82 mm2) and 17% (–0.69 mm2) decrease in the growth of GA lesions with pegcetacoplan monthly injections and EOM, respectively, versus sham (table 1). The growth difference between monthly versus EOM increases by 1% every 6 months until month 18, past which the growth difference differs by 6% at month 24.

Table 1 Efficacy endpoints and adverse effect profiles of pegcetacoplan and avacincaptad pegol in various clinical phase III studies

	Pegcetacoplan (Syfovre)	Avacincaptad pegol (Izervay)	
Mechanism of action	C3 and C3b Inhibitor	C5 Inhibitor	
Efficacy endpoints:		OAKS	DERBY	OAKS+DERBY	GALE	GATHER2	
monthsnthly injections	12 months	21%	12%	16%	---	12 months	14%		
(percent decrease in GA lesions)	24 months	22.00%	19.00%	21.00%	---	24 months	14%		
36 months	---	---	---	25%		
Efficacy endpoints: EOM		OAKS	DERBY	OAKS+DERBY	GALE	GATHER2	
Injection	12 months	16%	11%	14%	---	12 months	---		
(percent decrease in GA lesions)	24 months	18%	16%	17%	---	24 months	19%		
36 months	---	---	---	20%		
Rate of intraocular	12 months (OAKS+DERBY)		0.22%		0%	
Inflammation (IOI)	24 months (OAKS+DERBY)		0.24%		
36 months (GALE)		0.28%		
Rate of endophthalmitis	12 months (OAKS+DERBY)		0.05%		0%	
24 months (OAKS+DERBY)		0.03%		
36 months (GALE)		0.03%		
New onset exudative AMD		MONTHLY	EOM	SHAM		MONTHLY	EOM	SHAM	
OAKS (24 months)	11%	8%	2%	12 months	4%	5%	3%	
DERBY (24 months)	13%	6%	4%	24 months	7%	5%	---	
OAKS+DERBY (24 months)	12%	7%	3%		
GALE (36 months)	20%	9%	7%	
AMDage-related macular degenerationEOMevery other monthGAgeographic atrophy

However, both studies failed to show improvement in functional visual outcomes at 24 months, with no significant differences seen in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), functional reading independence index scores, mean threshold sensitivity by mesopic microperimetry or the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25) distance activity subscale between the pegcetacoplan treatment and sham groups.13 Regarding safety, for OAKS and DERBY combined, there was a 0.24% rate of intraocular inflammation (IOI), including reports of retinal vasculitis and a 0.03% rate of infectious endophthalmitis, that is, at 24 months. Of note, there was a 1.7% risk of ischaemic optic neuropathy (ION) in the monthly treated group compared with that of 0.2% in the EOM group at 24 months.

Interestingly, at the end of 24 months, new-onset exudative AMD was reported in 11%, 8% and 2% of OAKS patients and 13%, 6% and 4% of DERBY patients receiving pegcetacoplan monthly, EOM and sham, respectively. Despite the first-ever effectiveness of pegcetacoplan in decreasing the rate of GA, the side effect profile with its lack of functional improvements has stirred debates throughout the retina community.

In June 2024, the combined GALE study examining the efficacy of pegcetacoplan over 36 months was presented at the Clinical Trial Summit Meeting.15 Overall, treatment with pegcetacoplan either monthly or EOM yielded a 25% (−1.49 mm2) and 20% (−1.21 mm2) reduction, respectively, compared with the respective projected sham treatment intervals at the end of 36 months. In patients without subfoveal GA involvement, monthly or EOM pegcetacoplan delivered a 42% and 28% reduction, respectively, in the mean growth rate between the 24-month and 36-month periods. For patients with subfoveal GA involvement, treatment with pegcetacoplan monthly or EOM yielded a 31% and 25% reduction, respectively, in the rate of growth of the GA lesion compared with the respective projected sham treatment intervals. In terms of safety through the 36-month mark, there was a total adverse rate of 0.03% for IE and 0.28% for IOI, with no further reports of retinal vasculitis between the 24-month and 36-month marks. Additionally, treatment with pegcetacoplan through the 36-month period showed the development of fewer scotomatous points on microperimetry for monthly (p=0.0156) and EOM (p=0.1233) treatment groups, making Syfovre the first-approved GA therapy to demonstrate visual function benefit at 36 months.

Similarly, avacincaptad pegol (Izervay) is a complement factor C5 inhibitor approved by the FDA in late 2023 for the treatment of GA following its phase III clinical trial, GATHER2.14 Of note, the scope of the GATHER2 study did not include patients with subfoveal GA in comparison to that of the OAKS and DERBY trials. In GATHER2, patients with GA were randomly assigned to two groups: the monthly avacincaptad pegol 2 mg treatment group or the sham group. At the end of the 12-month study period, the monthly avacincaptad pegol treatment group had a significantly slower GA growth rate, with a mean GA growth rate of 0.336±0.032 mm/year in comparison to that of the sham treatment group, with a growth rate of 0.392±0.033 mm/year. The difference in growth between treatment and sham groups resulted in a difference of 0.056 mm/year or 14%.14 However, there were no significant differences in BCVA and low-luminance BCVA when comparing avacincaptad pegol and sham groups.

There were no adverse effects of retinal vasculitis, IOI or ION in GATHER2. Interestingly, patients in the avacincaptad pegol treatment group also developed greater rates of macular neovascularisation compared with the sham group, with 15 patients (7%) compared with 9 patients (4%), respectively, and exudative macular neovascularisation occurring in 11 patients (5%) in the treatment group and 7 patients (3%) in the sham group.

In April 2024, the 24-month results for the GATHER 2 trial were announced, revealing that avacincaptad pegol continued to lower the rate of GA lesion growth over 24 months compared with sham.16 Monthly and EOM dosing demonstrated a 14% and 19% reduction in GA growth at 24 months compared with sham treatments, respectively, doubling the treatment effect over 2 years. Consistent with the 12-month results, there were no cases of retinal vasculitis or ION. However, CNV rates were slightly higher in the monthly group, with reports of 7.4% in 24 months compared with 4% in 12 months, while the CNV rates in the EOM group were stable at around 5% in both 12-month and 24-month data.

Discussion

The FDA approval of both pegcetacoplan and avacincaptad pegol serves as a monumental step in the treatment of GA in advanced AMD. Both agents inhibit the complement pathway involved in AMD, although there are different steps in the pathway. Pegcetacoplan inhibits C3 and C3b, which are complement factors involved earlier in the cascade, compared with avacincaptad pegol, which inhibits the downstream C5 complement factor (figure 1).13 14

Figure 1 Pegcetacoplan and avacincaptad pegol mechanisms of action in complement cascade inhibition.

Fleckenstein et al have shown that the rate of progression for GA can range from 0.53 mm2/year to 2.6 mm2/year, with a median of 1.78 mm2/year in linear progression.17 At their respective endpoints, all studies (OAKS, DERBY, GALE and GATHER2) revealed a significant decrease in GA growth rate in the treatment groups compared with sham groups, demonstrating promising results in delaying GA growth rates.13 14 However, neither agent demonstrated an overall significant improvement in functional outcomes in either treatment group at the end of their respective primary endpoints. The only significant improvement in visual function was the development of fewer scotomatous points from monthly pegcetacoplan use in the 36-month GALE extension trial.15 Due to the overall lack of functional benefits, some retina specialists question whether the benefits of treatment with these novel agents outweigh the risks of potential complications and the significant burdens that may arise with receiving regularly scheduled intravitreal injections.18 19 Furthermore, a recent meta-analysis by Lin et al questions the role of the complement cascade in the pathogenesis of GA.20 Regardless, the aforementioned studies have demonstrated the role of complement inhibitors in reducing the rate of GA. Further long-term data regarding the impact of these novel agents on patients’ visual function and other metrics would be necessary to see if there is an actual benefit to quality of life.21

A large concern in all studies is the finding of new-onset exudative AMD or CNV conversion observed in both agents.13 14 Although the association between complement inhibition and CNV development remains unclear, perhaps patients with pre-existing subclinical CNV are potentially unmasked in those receiving complement inhibitor agents. Another theory is that given VEGF’s role in CNV development, perhaps treatment of eyes with GA may result in surviving cells continuously producing VEGF, leading to a higher risk of CNV development.22

Additionally, retinal vasculitis has been reported in association with pegcetacoplan since its launch. On 15 July 2023, the American Society of Retina Specialists Research and Safety in Therapeutics committee issued an update on adverse events of IOI and retinal vasculitis following pegcetacoplan injection. Witkin et al confirmed 14 eyes of 13 patients diagnosed with retinal vasculitis resulting in vision loss after receiving the first pegcetacoplan injection, including two eyes requiring enucleation.23 The aetiology of retinal vasculitis after pegcetacoplan injection remains unknown. As a result, an additional extension of the phase III trial, GALE, was initiated as an extension of prior studies to continue monitoring and reporting of adverse effects. These findings highlight that in patients receiving complement inhibitor treatment, particularly for treatment-naive eyes, close monitoring is required for the potential development of CNV and other adverse effects.23 At this time, no postapproval real-world data have been published on these adverse events as well as reports of vasculitis as a result of avacincaptad pegol administration.

Another key point in the discussion is that currently, there are no standardised guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of GA among eyecare providers. Since extrafoveal GA lesions can progress more rapidly than foveal lesions, early identification and intervention in the GA disease course are critical. While the OAKS and DERBY studies included eyes with foveal-involving GA, the GATHER2 study with avacincaptad pegol did not include patients with foveal involvement, potentially reflective of GA in earlier presentations or newly diagnosed patients. GA size, stage and location are important when considering treatment options,24 with pegcetacoplan having evidence of delaying GA growth in patients with subfoveal and extrafoveal lesions, while avacincaptad pegol may be more suitable for patients with non-foveal lesions based on current data. Avacincaptad pegol currently appears to have a more favourable safety profile compared with pegcetacoplan, pending real-world data since launch. Additionally, there are currently no standardised prognostic comparative imaging modalities to follow the therapeutic responses in a clinical setting. While GA can be confirmed with imaging, it is difficult to track progression in the clinic and demonstrate to patients these agents’ efficacy and clinical course with and without treatment.

In the retinal community, complement inhibitor agents represent a promising frontier in treating GA; however, there remains scepticism and concern about these drugs’ overall effectiveness and risks.25 The decision to offer these agents involves a nuanced risk-benefit assessment. While the long-term safety profile of these agents is still being evaluated, raising uncertainties about their overall tolerability and durability of treatment effects, our current approach is to not offer these agents to patients with significant comorbidities or high risk of wet AMD conversion, including those with wet AMD in the fellow eye, fibrovascular pigment epithelial detachment and a history of active smoking, retinal vasculitis or ION. Additionally, the financial burden associated with novel therapies can be considerable, adding another layer of consideration. Conversely, the potential benefits of complement inhibitors include their ability to slow or halt the progression of GA, thereby preserving vision and improving quality of life for affected individuals.

Ultimately, the decision whether to offer complement inhibitors calls for an individualised approach to each patient. Our approach is to educate and inform patients about this new treatment option, with in-depth discussions on its potential efficacy and adverse effects, followed by shared decision-making with patients if they’d like to pursue this option. Until further data establishes their efficacy and safety conclusively, clinicians may opt for established treatments or supportive care measures. This approach ensures that patient care remains balanced and informed, prioritising both safety and the potential for meaningful therapeutic outcomes.

Conclusion

Pegcetacoplan (Syfovre) and avacincaptad pegol (Izervay) are the first and only FDA-approved intravitreal therapies for the treatment of AMD-associated GA, with both agents demonstrating promise in decreasing the growth rate of GA lesions. The current utilisation of either agent in clinical practice is limited by the lack of significant improvement in visual functional outcomes and association with treatment-adverse events, including the development of CNV, ischaemic optic neuropathy and intraocular inflammation. The development of these agents has inspired new hope for both clinicians and patients alike for battling against the previously untreatable GA disease. While the retinal community continues to debate the feasibility and treatment algorithms with these novel agents, further studies are necessary to closely monitor the long-term efficacy and safety profile of these agents, as well as advance the field with newer generation complement inhibitors to offer a wider selection of therapeutic options in treating GA.

Funding: The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Patient consent for publication: Not applicable.

Ethics approval: Not applicable.

Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
==== Refs
References

1 Wong WL Su X Li X et al Global prevalence of age-related macular degeneration and disease burden projection for 2020 and 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis Lancet Glob Health 2014 2 e106 16 10.1016/S2214-109X(13)70145-1 25104651
2 Boyer DS Schmidt-Erfurth U van Lookeren Campagne M et al THE PATHOPHYSIOLOGY OF GEOGRAPHIC ATROPHY SECONDARY TO AGE-RELATED MACULAR DEGENERATION AND THE COMPLEMENT PATHWAY AS A THERAPEUTIC TARGET Retina (Philadelphia, Pa) 2017 37 819 35 10.1097/IAE.0000000000001392 27902638
3 Ambati J Atkinson JP Gelfand BD Immunology of age-related macular degeneration Nat Rev Immunol 2013 13 438 51 10.1038/nri3459 23702979
4 Kwak N Okamoto N Wood JM et al VEGF is major stimulator in model of choroidal neovascularization Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000 41 3158 64 10967078
5 Ba J Peng R-S Xu D et al Intravitreal anti-VEGF injections for treating wet age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis Drug Des Devel Ther 2015 9 5397 405 10.2147/DDDT.S86269
6 Armstrong RA Mousavi M Overview of Risk Factors for Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) J Stem Cells 2015 10 171 91 27125062
7 Sunness JS Margalit E Srikumaran D et al The long-term natural history of geographic atrophy from age-related macular degeneration: enlargement of atrophy and implications for interventional clinical trials Ophthalmology 2007 114 271 7 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.09.016 17270676
8 Keenan TD Agrón E Domalpally A et al Progression of Geographic Atrophy in Age-related Macular Degeneration: AREDS2 Report Number 16 Ophthalmology 2018 125 1913 28 10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.05.028 30060980
9 Lindblad AS Lloyd PC Clemons TE et al Change in area of geographic atrophy in the Age-Related Eye Disease Study: AREDS report number 26 Arch Ophthalmol 2009 127 1168 74 10.1001/archophthalmol.2009.198 19752426
10 Holz FG Sadda SR Staurenghi G et al Imaging Protocols in Clinical Studies in Advanced Age-Related Macular Degeneration: recommendations from Classification of Atrophy Consensus Meetings Ophthalmology 2017 124 464 78 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.12.002 28109563
11 Mai J Lachinov D Reiter GS et al Deep Learning-Based Prediction of Individual Geographic Atrophy Progression from a Single Baseline OCT Ophthalmol Sci 2024 4 100466 10.1016/j.xops.2024.100466 38591046
12 Patel HR Hariprasad SM Eichenbaum D Geographic atrophy: clinical impact and emerging treatments Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2015 46 8 13 10.3928/23258160-20150101-01 25559503
13 Heier JS Lad EM Holz FG et al Pegcetacoplan for the treatment of geographic atrophy secondary to age-related macular degeneration (OAKS and DERBY): two multicentre, randomised, double-masked, sham-controlled, phase 3 trials The Lancet 2023 402 1434 48 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01520-9
14 Khanani AM Patel SS Staurenghi G et al Efficacy and safety of avacincaptad pegol in patients with geographic atrophy (GATHER2): 12-month results from a randomised, double-masked, phase 3 trial Lancet 2023 402 1449 58 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01583-0 37696275
15 SYFOVRE (pegcetacoplan injection) CP Reduction in lesion growth rate through year 3 Available https://www.syfovreecp.com/gale-efficacy/#subfoveal Accessed 1-Jul-2024
16 Astellas Pharma Inc News release FDA accepts astellas’ supplemental new drug application for IZERVAY 2024 Available https://www.astellas.com/en/news/29016
17 Fleckenstein M Mitchell P Freund KB et al The Progression of Geographic Atrophy Secondary to Age-Related Macular Degeneration Ophthalmology 2018 125 369 90 10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.08.038 29110945
18 Spaide RF Vavvas DG Patel NA A cost-effectiveness analysis of pegcetacoplan for the treatment of geographic A trophy Ophthalmol Retina 2024 8 e24 10.1016/j.oret.2024.04.006 38739069
19 Spaide RF Vavvas DG COMPLEMENT INHIBITION FOR GEOGRAPHIC ATROPHY: Review of Salient Functional Outcomes and Perspective Retina 2023 43 1064 9 10.1097/IAE.0000000000003796 36996460
20 Lin JB Serghiou S Miller JW et al Systemic Complement Activation Profiles in Nonexudative Age-Related Macular Degeneration: a Meta-Analysis J Clin Med 2022 11 2371 10.3390/jcm11092371 35566495
21 Spaide RF Vavvas DG Health Span vs Lifespan in Geographic a trophy JAMA Ophthalmol 2024 142 558 9 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2024.1209 38722647
22 Wykoff CC Rosenfeld PJ Waheed NK et al Characterizing New-Onset Exudation in the Randomized Phase 2 FILLY Trial of Complement Inhibitor Pegcetacoplan for Geographic Atrophy Ophthalmology 2021 128 1325 36 10.1016/j.ophtha.2021.02.025 33711380
23 Witkin AJ Jaffe GJ Srivastava SK et al Retinal Vasculitis After Intravitreal Pegcetacoplan: report From the ASRS Research and Safety in Therapeutics (ReST) Committee J Vitreoretin Dis 2024 8 9 20 10.1177/24741264231220224 38223782
24 Antonio-Aguirre B Arevalo JF Treating patients with geographic atrophy: are we there yet? Int J Retina Vitreous 2023 9 72 10.1186/s40942-023-00493-6 37986170
25 Amin KV Hariprasad SM Danzig CJ Complement Inhibitors for the Treatment of Geographic Atrophy Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2023 54 66 70 10.3928/23258160-20230106-01 36780634
