Hubbry Logo
Anti-VEGFAnti-VEGFMain
Open search
Anti-VEGF
Community hub
Anti-VEGF
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Anti-VEGF
Anti-VEGF
Anti-VEGF
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Anti–vascular endothelial growth factor therapy
SpecialtyOncology

Anti–vascular endothelial growth factor therapy, also known as anti-VEGF (/vɛdʒˈɛf/) therapy or medication, is the use of medications that block vascular endothelial growth factor. This is done in the treatment of certain cancers and in age-related macular degeneration. They can involve monoclonal antibodies such as bevacizumab, antibody derivatives such as ranibizumab (Lucentis), or orally-available small molecules that inhibit the tyrosine kinases stimulated by VEGF: sunitinib, sorafenib, axitinib, and pazopanib (some of these therapies target VEGF receptors rather than the VEGFs).

Both antibody-based compounds and the first three orally available compounds are commercialized. The latter two, axitinib and pazopanib, are in clinical trials.[clarification needed]

Bergers and Hanahan concluded in 2008 that anti-VEGF drugs can show therapeutic efficacy in mouse models of cancer and in an increasing number of human cancers. But, "the benefits are at best transitory and are followed by a restoration of tumour growth and progression."[1]

Later studies into the consequences of VEGF inhibitor use have shown that, although they can reduce the growth of primary tumours, VEGF inhibitors can concomitantly promote invasiveness and metastasis of tumours.[2][3]

AZ2171 (cediranib), a multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor has been shown to have anti-edema effects by reducing the permeability and aiding in vascular normalization.[4]

A 2014 Cochrane Systematic Review studied the effectiveness of ranibizumab and pegaptanib, on patients who have macular edema caused by central retinal vein occlusion.[5] Participants in both treatment groups showed improvement in visual acuity measures and a reduction in macular edema symptoms over six months.[5]

Cancer

[edit]
FDA-approved anti-VEGF drugs
Drug Use
axitinib cancer
bevacizumab cancer, AMD
brolucizumab AMD
cabozantinib cancer
lapatinib cancer
lenvatinib cancer
pazopanib cancer
ponatinib cancer
ramucirumab cancer
ranibizumab AMD
regorafenib cancer
sorafenib cancer
sunitinib cancer
vandetanib cancer

The most common indication for anti-VEGF therapy is cancer, and they are FDA and EMA approved for many forms of cancer. These medications are one of the most used forms of targeted therapy and are typically used in combination with other medications.[6]

[edit]

Ranibizumab, a monoclonal antibody fragment (Fab) derived from bevacizumab, has been developed by Genentech for intraocular use. In 2006, FDA approved the drug for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (wet AMD). The drug had undergone three successful clinical trials by then.[7]

In the October 2006 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Rosenfield, et al. reported that monthly intravitreal injection of ranibizumab led to significant increase in the level of mean visual acuity compared to that of sham injection. It was concluded from the two-year, phase III study that ranibizumab is effective in the treatment of minimally classic (MC) or occult wet AMD (age-related macular degeneration) with low rates of ocular adverse effects.[8]

Another study published in the January 2009 issue of Ophthalmology provides the evidence for the efficacy of ranibizumab. Brown, et al. reported that monthly intravitreal injection of ranibizumab led to significant increase in the level of mean visual acuity compared to that of photodynamic therapy with verteporfin. It was concluded from the two year, phase III study that ranibizumab was superior to photodynamic therapy with verteporfin in the treatment of predominantly classic (PC) Wet AMD with low rates of ocular adverse effects.[9]

Although the efficacy of ranibizumab is well-supported by extensive clinical trials,[citation needed] the cost effectiveness of the drug is questioned. Since the drug merely stabilizes patient conditions, ranibizumab must be administered monthly. At a cost of $2,000.00 per injection, the cost to treat wet AMD patients in the United States is greater than $10.00 billion per year. Due to high cost, many ophthalmologists have turned to bevacizumab as the alternative intravitreal agent in the treatment of wet AMD.

In 2007, Raftery, et al. reported in the British Journal of Ophthalmology that, unless ranibizumab is 2.5 times more effective the bevacizumab, ranibizumab is not cost-effective. It was concluded that the price of ranibizumab would have to be drastically reduced for the drug to be cost-effective.[10]

Off-label use of intravitreal bevacizumab has become a widespread treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration.[11] Although the drug is not FDA-approved for non-oncologic uses, some studies[which?] suggest that bevacizumab is effective in increasing visual acuity with low rates of ocular adverse effects. However, due to small sample size and lack of randomized control trial, the result is not conclusive.

In October 2006, the National Eye Institute (NEI) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced that it would fund a comparative study trial of ranibizumab and bevacizumab to assess the relative efficacy and ocular adversity in treating wet AMD. In 2008, this study, called the Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatment Trials (CATT Study), enrolled about 1,200 patients with newly diagnosed wet AMD. The patients were assigned randomly to different treatment groups, and the data was collected from 2008 to 2009. So far, the result has been at least 41 papers and 10 editorials/commentaries published in major medical journals. An additional paper is in press and work proceeds on 10 more. The overall conclusions demonstrated no statistical difference between the treatment groups outcomes after eight years [12]

By May 2012, anti-VEGF treatment with Avastin has been accepted by Medicare, is quite reasonably priced, and effective. Lucentis has a similar but smaller molecular structure to Avastin, and is FDA-approved (2006) for treating MacD, yet remains more costly, as is the more recent (approved in 2011) aflibercept (Eylea). Tests on these treatments are ongoing relative to the efficacy of one over another.

Research

[edit]

VEGF is also inhibited by thiazolidinediones (used for diabetes mellitus type 2 and related disease), and this effect on granulosa cells gives the potential of thiazolidinediones to be used in ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.[13]

The evidence base supporting the use of anti-VEGF agents such as ranibizumab and bevacizumab on lowering intraocular pressure in people with neovascular glaucoma is inconclusive, as more research is needed to compare anti-VEGF treatments with conventional treatments.[14] There is also limited amounts of evidence from clinical trials that invesitgated at the effectiveness and also the safety rating associated with using anti-VEGF medications for more than a year for treating diabetic macular oedema.[15] There is also no evidence that it improves mortality from any cause.[15]

Anti-VEGF subconjunctival injections have been proposed as a means of controlling wound healing during glaucoma surgery, however the evidence for or against this therapeutic approach is limited and several studies are ongoing.[16]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Anti-VEGF

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Anti-vascular endothelial (anti-VEGF) therapies are biologic agents that selectively bind and neutralize VEGF proteins, thereby inhibiting (new formation) and reducing , processes central to pathological conditions involving excessive vessel growth. These include full-length monoclonal antibodies like , antibody fragments such as , and fusion proteins like that act as VEGF traps. Initially developed for , anti-VEGF agents gained prominence in for treating neovascular (wet) age-related (), diabetic , and retinal vein occlusion by blocking VEGF-driven choroidal neovascularization and . The foundational milestone was the 2004 FDA approval of for metastatic , marking the first systemic anti-VEGF drug, followed by its off-label intravitreal use in ocular diseases due to cost advantages over purpose-engineered alternatives. , affinity-matured for intraocular delivery, received approval in 2006 specifically for wet , demonstrating superior gains compared to prior or laser approaches in pivotal trials like and . , approved in 2011, extended binding to multiple VEGF isoforms and , offering potentially longer durability in conditions like . These therapies have transformed outcomes, with studies showing mean visual improvements of 6-11 letters on ETDRS charts and anatomical regression of neovascular lesions in most patients, though requiring frequent intravitreal injections (often monthly initially) to sustain benefits. Despite efficacy, anti-VEGF treatments carry risks including (infection rates ~0.05% per injection), , and intraocular inflammation, alongside debates over systemic absorption leading to , arterial , or —effects more pronounced with than but not conclusively linked to increased mortality in large cohorts of ocular patients. Long-term challenges encompass (reduced response over time), high costs (e.g., annual expenses exceeding $10,000 per eye for branded agents), and treatment burden, prompting into sustained-release formulations and biosimilars. Empirical affirm their role as first-line interventions, grounded in VEGF's causal primacy in these pathologies, yet underscore the need for personalized regimens to mitigate non-response rates observed in 10-20% of cases.

Definition and Mechanism of Action

Biological Role of VEGF

(VEGF-A), the prototypic member of the VEGF family and commonly denoted as VEGF, functions primarily as a potent inducer of , promoting the proliferation, migration, survival, and tube formation of endothelial cells to form new blood vessels from existing vasculature. It exerts these effects mainly through binding to the receptor VEGFR-2 (also known as KDR or Flk-1), which activates downstream signaling cascades including PI3K/AKT for cell survival and MAPK/ERK for proliferation and migration, while VEGFR-1 (Flt-1) serves largely as a receptor with higher affinity but weaker signaling due to its low activity. VEGF-A also increases by disrupting endothelial junctions via VEGFR-2 at specific residues (e.g., Y951), enabling plasma essential for tissue and nutrient exchange during remodeling. In physiological contexts, VEGF-A is critical for embryonic vasculogenesis—the de novo assembly of endothelial cells into primitive vascular networks—and subsequent , with expression initiating as early as embryonic day 7 in mesoderm-derived tissues like the and heart. Genetic studies demonstrate its indispensability: heterozygous VEGF-A knockout mice exhibit embryonic lethality between days E11 and E12 from defective vessel maturation and organ , while complete VEGFR-2 ablation causes death at E8.5–9.0 due to failure in endothelial cell differentiation and plexus formation. Hypoxia-inducible factor 1 (HIF-1) transcriptionally upregulates VEGF-A under low-oxygen conditions, linking vascular growth to metabolic demands during development. Beyond embryogenesis, VEGF-A sustains adult physiological angiogenesis in , where it recruits endothelial cells to hypoxic injury sites for formation, and in reproductive physiology, driving vascularization during the . It also contributes to endochondral ossification by supporting hypertrophic survival and vascularization during skeletal growth. The broader VEGF family modulates complementary processes: VEGF-C and VEGF-D primarily stimulate lymphangiogenesis through VEGFR-3 on lymphatic endothelial cells, facilitating sprouting and immune surveillance, whereas VEGF-B and (PlGF) exhibit supportive roles in vascular stability and arteriogenesis with less direct angiogenic potency. These functions underscore VEGF's role as a tightly regulated paracrine factor, with isoform-specific activities (e.g., VEGF-A165 binding neuropilin co-receptors for enhanced signaling) fine-tuning responses to tissue needs.

Pharmacological Inhibition Strategies

Pharmacological inhibition of (VEGF) targets the VEGF/VEGFR signaling axis to suppress pathological , primarily through ligand neutralization, soluble receptor decoys, and inhibition. These strategies prevent VEGF from activating endothelial cell receptors, thereby inhibiting vascular proliferation, permeability, and survival signals essential for tumor growth and neovascularization in conditions like wet age-related . Ligand-binding approaches utilize or antibody fragments that directly sequester VEGF isoforms, blocking their interaction with VEGFRs. , a recombinant humanized , binds all isoforms of VEGF-A with high affinity, preventing receptor dimerization and downstream signaling via PI3K/AKT and MAPK pathways. , an affinity-matured Fab fragment derived from the same parent antibody, similarly neutralizes VEGF-A but is optimized for intravitreal delivery due to its smaller size and lack of Fc-mediated effects. , an RNA aptamer, selectively inhibits the VEGF165 isoform, offering isoform-specific blockade approved initially for . Decoy receptor strategies employ fusion proteins mimicking VEGFR extracellular domains to competitively trap VEGF ligands. , a dimeric fusion of VEGFR1 and VEGFR2 domains linked to an Fc portion, binds VEGF-A, VEGF-B, and (PlGF) with higher affinity than native receptors, effectively sequestering multiple angiogenic factors and disrupting their in the . This broad-spectrum trapping enhances anti-angiogenic efficacy compared to VEGF-A-specific agents, as evidenced by preclinical models showing superior tumor vascular regression. Intracellular inhibition via small-molecule inhibitors (TKIs) targets the kinase domains of VEGFR1-3, among other receptors, to block autophosphorylation and . Agents like and competitively bind the ATP-binding site of VEGFR2, inhibiting downstream cascades that promote endothelial proliferation and migration; these multi-targeted TKIs also affect PDGF and RAF s, broadening their anti-angiogenic and anti-tumor effects. Unlike extracellular binders, TKIs penetrate tissues more readily but carry risks of off-target toxicities due to non-specific kinase inhibition. Clinical data from phase III trials confirm that VEGFR TKIs extend in by normalizing tumor vasculature and enhancing delivery.

Historical Development

Discovery and Early Research on VEGF

(), initially identified as (), emerged from investigations into tumor-induced vascular leakage in the 1970s and 1980s. Harold F. Dvorak and colleagues observed extensive deposition in tumor stroma, attributing it to a tumor-secreted protein that enhanced without involving or other known mediators. In 1983, Donald R. Senger, working with Dvorak's group at Beth Israel Hospital, purified from supernatants of line 10 hepatoma cells cultured to produce fluid; this 34- to 42-kDa protein induced plasma protein in skin with potency approximately 50,000 times greater than , directly promoting accumulation . Early biochemical characterization revealed as a disulfide-linked dimeric , stable under various conditions, and present in human tumor fluids, linking it to pathological fluid retention in malignancies. Parallel efforts in the late identified VPF's mitogenic properties for endothelial cells. In 1989, Napoleone Ferrara and colleagues at isolated a novel heparin-binding polypeptide from bovine pituitary follicular cells that selectively stimulated proliferation of vascular endothelial cells but not other cell types, designating it (VEGF) based on its specificity and angiogenic potential in the corneal pocket assay. Concurrently, W. Leung's team at cloned the human VEGF cDNA, revealing a family of isoforms (VEGF121, VEGF165, VEGF189) differing in heparin-binding domains and solubility, with VEGF165 emerging as the predominant circulating form. Independent work by Connolly et al. at confirmed VPF's identity with VEGF through amino-terminal sequencing, establishing that the permeability-inducing factor from tumors was the same endothelial mitogen, thus unifying its roles in leakage and growth stimulation. Early research in the early 1990s elucidated VEGF's central function in physiological and pathological . Studies demonstrated upregulated VEGF mRNA in hypoxic tissues and the developing , correlating with neovascularization, while neutralization experiments in rabbit cornea and chick chorioallantoic membrane assays confirmed its direct induction of endothelial proliferation, migration, and vessel formation . Ferrara's group further showed VEGF's by tumor cells under hypoxic conditions, positioning it as a key paracrine driver of tumor vascularization, distinct from broader growth factors like basic fibroblast growth factor. These findings, grounded in purification, sequencing, and functional assays, laid the foundation for recognizing VEGF as a primary regulator of vascular development and , despite challenges in distinguishing its effects from overlapping angiogenic signals.

First-Generation Agents and Approvals

The first anti-VEGF agent approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was (Avastin), a recombinant humanized targeting all isoforms of (VEGF-A). It received FDA approval on February 26, 2004, for use in combination with intravenous fluorouracil-based for first-line treatment of metastatic in patients whose disease had progressed following prior therapy. This approval was based on phase III trials demonstrating improved overall survival and compared to alone, marking the inaugural clinical validation of VEGF inhibition in . Bevacizumab's via intravenous infusion distinguished it from subsequent intravitreal agents, though its off-label intraocular use for ocular conditions emerged later due to observed anti-angiogenic effects in preclinical models. Shortly thereafter, sodium (Macugen), an selectively inhibiting the VEGF165 isoform, became the first FDA-approved anti-VEGF therapy for ocular neovascularization. Approved on December 17, 2004, it was indicated for intravitreal treatment of neovascular (wet) age-related () in patients with vision loss due to subfoveal . Phase III trials (VISION studies) supported this approval, showing a dose-dependent reduction in vision loss progression by approximately 20% compared to sham injections, though gains in were modest and limited by isoform selectivity. Pegaptanib's pegylated structure enabled a longer intravitreal half-life than native aptamers, but its restricted targeting of one VEGF isoform contributed to suboptimal efficacy relative to pan-VEGF inhibitors that followed. Ranibizumab (Lucentis), a Fab fragment derived from the same parent antibody as but affinity-matured for higher VEGF binding potency and smaller size for better ocular penetration, represented the next milestone. The FDA granted approval on June 30, 2006, for intravitreal treatment of neovascular , based on the phase III and trials. These studies reported mean visual acuity improvements of 7-11 letters on the Early Treatment Study chart at one year, with 30-40% of patients gaining 15 or more letters, significantly outperforming controls and establishing intravitreal anti-VEGF as a standard for exudative . Ranibizumab's approval highlighted advancements in antibody engineering for localized delivery, reducing systemic exposure risks associated with full-length antibodies like , which remained unapproved for intraocular use at the time but saw increasing off-label adoption due to cost and comparable efficacy in observational data. These first-generation agents—, , and —laid the foundation for anti-VEGF therapy, with approvals spanning and and demonstrating VEGF inhibition's causal role in angiogenesis-driven pathologies. Their development prioritized isoform-specific or pan-VEGF blockade via aptamers or derivatives, informed by early pharmacokinetic studies emphasizing intravitreal and systemic tolerability. Subsequent expansions of indications, such as 's approvals for non-small cell (2006) and other solid tumors, built on this base but retained the core first-generation pharmacophores until bispecific traps emerged in later iterations.

Evolution to Second-Generation Therapies

The limitations of first-generation anti-VEGF agents, such as and , which primarily consisted of monoclonal antibodies or fragments targeting VEGF-A isoforms, included frequent dosing requirements due to relatively short intravitreal half-lives (around 4-9 days for ), suboptimal real-world adherence leading to poorer visual outcomes compared to clinical trials, and potential resistance mechanisms involving upregulation of alternative angiogenic factors like VEGF-C and VEGF-D. These challenges, particularly the treatment burden from monthly or bimonthly intravitreal injections in and limited benefits in due to tumor evasion pathways, drove the development of second-generation therapies with enhanced binding affinities, broader ligand neutralization, and improved . A pivotal advancement was aflibercept (Eylea), a soluble decoy receptor fusion protein engineered by fusing VEGF receptor extracellular domains to the Fc portion of human IgG1, enabling high-affinity binding (Kd ≈ 0.5-1 pM) to VEGF-A, VEGF-B, and placental growth factor (PlGF), thereby addressing the narrower specificity of first-generation agents. Developed by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi, aflibercept demonstrated noninferiority to monthly ranibizumab in the phase 3 VIEW1 and VIEW2 trials (2010), allowing dosing every 8 weeks after initial loading, which reduced injection frequency while maintaining visual acuity gains in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). FDA approval for nAMD followed in November 2011 at 2 mg intravitreal dose, with subsequent approvals for diabetic macular edema (2014), retinal vein occlusion (2015), and higher-dose 8 mg formulations (2023) for extended intervals up to 12-16 weeks in nAMD and diabetic macular edema, further alleviating burden through superior durability in trials like PULSAR and PHOTON. In , ziv-aflibercept (Zaltrap), an intravenous formulation, was approved in August 2014 for metastatic refractory to standard , based on the trial showing a 1.4-month improvement in overall survival when combined with FOLFIRI, by sequestering circulating VEGF ligands more potently than alone. This marked a shift toward multi-ligand traps to counter resistance observed in first-generation monotherapy, though benefits remained modest and combination-dependent. Subsequent second-generation iterations, such as (Vabysmo, approved 2022), introduced bispecific antibodies targeting both VEGF-A and angiopoietin-2 to enhance vascular stabilization and reduce persistent fluid, as evidenced by superior retinal drying in TENAYA and trials versus , enabling extended dosing up to 16 weeks. These developments prioritized durability and efficacy without increasing adverse events like intraocular , though real-world monitoring remains essential for non-responders.

Clinical Applications in Oncology

Approved Indications and Key Trials

, a recombinant humanized targeting VEGF-A, received initial FDA approval on February 26, 2004, for use in combination with intravenous fluorouracil-based for first-line treatment of metastatic . This approval was supported by the phase III AVF2107g (enrollment 2000–2002), which randomized 923 patients to irinotecan, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin (IFL) plus versus IFL plus 5 mg/kg, demonstrating a overall (OS) of 20.3 months versus 15.6 months ( [HR] 0.66; p<0.0001) and objective response rate of 44.8% versus 34.8%. Subsequent approval for second-line metastatic with FOLFOX4 followed on June 29, 2006, based on the phase III E3200 (n=829), which showed OS of 12.9 months with FOLFOX4 plus 10 mg/kg versus 10.8 months with FOLFOX4 alone ( 0.75; p=0.0011). Bevacizumab gained further approvals for non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) on October 11, 2006, in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel for first-line metastatic disease, per the phase III E4599 trial (n=878), which reported median OS of 12.3 months versus 10.3 months with chemotherapy alone (HR 0.79; p=0.0075). In glioblastoma, approval for recurrent disease on May 5, 2009, stemmed from a phase II NCI-led trial (n=167), yielding progression-free survival (PFS) of 4.2 months versus 1.8 months with bevacizumab monotherapy or plus irinotecan (HR 0.41 and 0.40, respectively), though OS showed no significant difference (8.7–9.2 months). Additional oncology indications include metastatic renal cell carcinoma (with interferon alfa, approved 2009 via BO17705 trial showing PFS 10.2 vs. 8.4 months; HR 0.67), epithelial ovarian/fallopian tube/primary peritoneal cancer (frontline with carboplatin-paclitaxel per GOG-0218 [n=1,873; PFS 18.2 vs. 16.8 months; HR 0.81; p=0.008], approved June 2018; maintenance post-platinum, ICON7 trial), persistent/recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer (with paclitaxel-topotecan per GOG-0240 [n=452; OS 17.0 vs. 13.9 months; HR 0.71; p=0.006], approved 2014), and hepatocellular carcinoma (with atezolizumab per IMbrave150 [n=509; OS not reached vs. 13.6 months; HR 0.58; p<0.001], approved May 2020). Ramucirumab, a human IgG1 monoclonal antibody against VEGFR2, was first approved on April 25, 2014, as monotherapy for advanced gastric or gastro-esophageal junction adenocarcinoma after prior chemotherapy including platinum/fluoropyrimidine (REGARD trial, n=355; OS 5.2 vs. 3.8 months; HR 0.776; p=0.047), and in combination with paclitaxel for the same indication (RAINBOW trial, n=665; OS 9.6 vs. 7.4 months; HR 0.807; p=0.017). Further approvals encompass second-line metastatic NSCLC with docetaxel (REVEL trial, n=1,253; OS 10.5 vs. 9.1 months; HR 0.86; p=0.023), approved November 2014; colorectal cancer with FOLFIRI after progression on bevacizumab/oxaliplatin/fluoropyrimidine (RAISE trial, n=1,073; PFS 5.7 vs. 4.5 months; HR 0.79; p<0.0001), approved April 2015; and hepatocellular carcinoma monotherapy post-sorafenib (REACH-2 trial, n=197; OS 8.5 vs. 7.3 months; HR 0.71; p=0.014), approved May 2018.
DrugIndicationKey TrialPrimary Endpoint Outcome
BevacizumabFirst-line mCRCAVF2107g (phase III, n=923)OS: 20.3 vs. 15.6 mo (HR 0.66)
BevacizumabSecond-line mCRCE3200 (phase III, n=829)OS: 12.9 vs. 10.8 mo (HR 0.75)
BevacizumabFirst-line NSCLCE4599 (phase III, n=878)OS: 12.3 vs. 10.3 mo (HR 0.79)
BevacizumabRecurrent GBMNCI trial (phase II, n=167)PFS: 4.2 vs. 1.8 mo (HR 0.40–0.41)
RamucirumabAdvanced gastric/GEJRAINBOW (phase III, n=665)OS: 9.6 vs. 7.4 mo (HR 0.807)
RamucirumabSecond-line NSCLCREVEL (phase III, n=1,253)OS: 10.5 vs. 9.1 mo (HR 0.86)
RamucirumabSecond-line mCRCRAISE (phase III, n=1,073)PFS: 5.7 vs. 4.5 mo (HR 0.79)
These approvals highlight anti-VEGF agents' role in extending survival through angiogenesis inhibition, though benefits are often modest (typically 1–5 months OS gain) and require combination with cytotoxics, with no standalone curative effects observed in pivotal trials.

Combination Therapies and Outcomes

In metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), bevacizumab combined with standard chemotherapy regimens such as irinotecan- or oxaliplatin-based protocols has demonstrated consistent improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). A pooled analysis of seven randomized controlled trials, including first-line studies like AVF2107g and NO16966, reported median OS of 18.7 months with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy versus 16.1 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio [HR] 0.80, 95% CI 0.71–0.90, p=0.0003), and median PFS of 8.8 months versus 6.4 months (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.46–0.71, p<0.0001). In the AVF2107g trial, bevacizumab added to IFL (irinotecan, 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin) extended median OS to 20.3 months from 15.6 months (HR 0.66). Similarly, the NO16966 trial showed bevacizumab with FOLFOX or XELOX improving median PFS to 9.4 months versus 8.0 months (HR 0.83) and OS to 21.3 months versus 19.9 months (HR 0.89). For advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), ramucirumab combined with docetaxel as second-line therapy yielded superior outcomes in the phase III REVEL trial, with median OS of 10.5 months versus 9.1 months with placebo plus docetaxel (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75–0.98, p=0.023), and median PFS of 4.5 months versus 3.0 months (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.68–0.86). These benefits were observed across histologic subgroups, including squamous and non-squamous NSCLC, supporting its approval for patients progressing after platinum-based therapy. In advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer, the RAINBOW trial established ramucirumab plus paclitaxel as a standard second-line option, achieving median OS of 9.6 months compared to 7.4 months with placebo plus paclitaxel (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71–0.90, p<0.0001), alongside PFS of 4.4 months versus 2.9 months (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.56–0.72). Subgroup analyses confirmed efficacy in patients pretreated with trastuzumab, though with increased grade 3/4 adverse events such as neutropenia and hypertension. Outcomes vary by indication; in ovarian cancer, the GOG-0218 trial showed bevacizumab with carboplatin-paclitaxel improved median PFS by approximately 4 months (HR 0.72 for concurrent plus maintenance scheduling) but yielded no OS benefit in final analysis (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85–1.09). Emerging combinations with immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as bevacizumab plus atezolizumab and chemotherapy, have reported enhanced response rates and survival in trials for hepatocellular carcinoma and other solid tumors, though long-term data remain pending. Overall, while PFS gains are robust, OS benefits are more modest and context-dependent, with no universal superiority across all cancers or lines of therapy.

Clinical Applications in Ophthalmology

Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), also known as wet AMD, involves the growth of abnormal (CNV) in the macula, driven by elevated (VEGF) levels, leading to leakage, hemorrhage, and rapid vision loss. therapies, administered via intravitreal injection, bind and neutralize VEGF isoforms, suppressing angiogenesis, reducing vascular permeability, and stabilizing or improving visual acuity in most patients. These agents have transformed nAMD management since their introduction, with phase III trials demonstrating that over 90% of treated eyes avoid significant vision loss (≥15-letter decline) at two years, compared to untreated rates exceeding 50%. Ranibizumab, a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody Fab fragment targeting all VEGF-A isoforms, received FDA approval for nAMD on June 30, 2006, based on the MARINA and ANCHOR trials. In the MARINA trial, involving 716 patients with minimally classic or occult CNV, monthly 0.3 mg or 0.5 mg ranibizumab doses yielded mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) gains of +7.2 letters and +7.6 letters at 24 months, respectively, versus -10.4 letters in the sham group; 94-96% of treated eyes lost fewer than 15 letters, and 24-25% gained ≥15 letters. The ANCHOR trial, comparing ranibizumab to verteporfin photodynamic therapy (PDT) in 423 patients with predominantly classic CNV, showed mean BCVA improvements of +10.7 letters (0.3 mg) and +10.1 letters (0.5 mg) versus +2.0 letters for PDT alone, with 88-90% avoiding moderate vision loss. Long-term follow-up from these trials indicated that approximately one-third of patients maintained good visual outcomes (≥20/40) seven years post-treatment, though another third experienced substantial decline. Aflibercept, a fusion protein decoy receptor binding VEGF-A, VEGF-B, and placental growth factor, was approved for nAMD on November 18, 2011, following the VIEW1 and VIEW2 phase III trials. These parallel studies enrolled 2412 patients and compared aflibercept (2 mg monthly or every two months after three loading doses) to monthly ranibizumab (0.5 mg), demonstrating non-inferiority with mean BCVA gains of +8.1 to +10.6 letters at 52 weeks across regimens, similar to ranibizumab's +8.1 to +10.9 letters; anatomic improvements included central retinal thickness reductions of 130-150 μm. Extended dosing reduced treatment burden while maintaining efficacy, though monthly regimens showed marginally better outcomes in some subgroups. More recent agents like faricimab (approved 2022), which also inhibits angiopoietin-2, and high-dose aflibercept (8 mg, approved 2023), support intervals up to 12-16 weeks, potentially improving adherence. In real-world settings, anti-VEGF outcomes for nAMD often underperform trial results, with initial year-one BCVA gains of 5-7 letters followed by progressive decline; a 10-year study reported mean deterioration starting from year two, linked to fewer injections (averaging 4-6 annually versus 7-8 in trials) due to patient burden, access issues, and physician discretion. Factors such as injection frequency correlate positively with sustained VA, yet undertreatment remains prevalent, highlighting gaps between controlled trial efficacy and practical implementation. Off-label bevacizumab provides comparable short-term efficacy at lower cost but requires careful compounding to mitigate risks like endophthalmitis. Ongoing research focuses on longer-acting formulations and gene therapies to address these limitations.

Diabetic Retinopathy and Macular Edema

Anti-VEGF therapies represent the first-line treatment for center-involving diabetic macular edema (DME), a vision-threatening complication of diabetic retinopathy characterized by retinal vascular leakage and thickening of the macula. By inhibiting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), these agents reduce macular thickening and improve best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), outperforming focal/grid laser photocoagulation in randomized trials. In the phase III RISE and RIDE trials, intravitreal (0.3 mg monthly) administered to 759 patients with DME resulted in mean BCVA gains of 10.9 to 12.5 letters at 24 months, compared to 2.6 letters with sham injections or laser alone, with sustained benefits through 36 months including reduced risk of vision loss greater than 15 letters. Similarly, the VISTA and VIVID trials demonstrated that intravitreal (2 mg every 4 weeks, then every 8 weeks) yielded mean BCVA improvements of 12.5 to 13.3 letters at 52 weeks in 872 DME patients, superior to laser therapy which gained only 0.2 to 5.7 letters. For proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR), anti-VEGF injections promote regression of neovascularization and serve as an alternative or adjunct to panretinal photocoagulation (PRP), which has been the historical standard but carries risks of peripheral vision loss and visual field defects. In Protocol S, a multicenter trial involving 394 eyes with PDR, ranibizumab (0.5 mg as needed) was noninferior to PRP for preventing vision-impairing complications over 2 years, with better mean BCVA outcomes (+3.1 letters versus -0.5 letters) and lower rates of vitreous hemorrhage, though requiring more frequent monitoring and injections. Meta-analyses confirm anti-VEGF reduces vitreous hemorrhage risk by 41% compared to PRP at 1 year, with small but significant short-term BCVA advantages (mean difference of 2.35 letters at 3 months), though long-term data emphasize the need for sustained therapy to prevent recurrence. Off-label intravitreal bevacizumab, despite lacking FDA approval for ocular use, is frequently employed due to its lower cost and comparable efficacy in real-world settings; in the DRCR.net Protocol T trial across 660 eyes with DME, bevacizumab achieved similar BCVA gains to ranibizumab at 2 years (9.7 versus 10.1 letters from 20/63 baseline), though aflibercept showed superior results in eyes with worse initial vision (20/63 or poorer). FDA approvals for DME include ranibizumab in 2012, aflibercept in 2014, and more recently faricimab in 2022, with port-delivery systems like Susvimo (ranibizumab) approved in May 2025 for DR to reduce injection frequency. While effective, anti-VEGF requires ongoing injections (typically 7-9 annually after loading), highlighting treatment burden, and outcomes depend on baseline severity, with greater DR regression in moderate-to-severe cases treated early.

Other Ocular Conditions

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapies are employed for macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO), including branch RVO (BRVO) and central RVO (CRVO). The phase III BRAVO trial demonstrated that monthly intravitreal ranibizumab (0.5 mg) for six months followed by pro re nata (PRN) dosing resulted in a mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) gain of 18.3 letters from baseline at 12 months in BRVO patients, compared to 7.3 letters with sham injections (P < 0.0001). Similarly, the CRUISE trial for CRVO showed ranibizumab yielding mean BCVA improvements of 14.9 letters versus 0.8 letters with sham (P < 0.0001). Aflibercept and bevacizumab have also shown comparable efficacy in reducing central subfield thickness and improving vision in RVO-related edema, with real-world studies reporting positive VA changes sustained over 36–60 months with repeated dosing, albeit with diminishing gains in later years due to factors like injection frequency and baseline severity. In myopic choroidal neovascularization (mCNV), anti-VEGF agents such as ranibizumab, aflibercept, and bevacizumab promote regression of neovascular lesions and VA stabilization or improvement. A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified anti-VEGF with a 1 + PRN regimen as the most effective strategy for mCNV, outperforming photodynamic therapy (PDT) in BCVA gains (mean difference: 0.22 logMAR, 95% CI: -0.35 to -0.09). Another systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs confirmed anti-VEGF's superiority over sham or PDT, with weighted mean VA improvements of 0.25 logMAR (P < 0.001) and low rates of serious adverse events (e.g., endophthalmitis <1%). Real-world evidence indicates mCNV requires fewer injections (median 3–5 over 2 years) than neovascular age-related macular degeneration, with sustained anatomic and functional benefits in most cases. Anti-VEGF has been applied off-label to choroidal neovascularization from other etiologies, including presumed ocular histoplasmosis syndrome, angioid streaks, posterior uveitis, and ocular trauma, where VEGF-driven leakage contributes to vision loss; case series and small cohorts report VA stabilization, though prospective data remain limited compared to RVO or mCNV. Across these conditions, treatment protocols typically involve loading doses followed by PRN or treat-and-extend regimens, guided by optical coherence tomography, with monitoring for rare complications like intraocular inflammation.

Adverse Effects and Safety Profile

Ocular Complications

Intravitreal injections of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents, commonly used for retinal vascular diseases, are associated with several ocular complications, primarily stemming from the invasive nature of the procedure rather than the drug itself. The most severe is endophthalmitis, an intraocular infection with an incidence of approximately 0.035% per injection (1 in 2857 injections) across large cohorts involving over 650,000 injections. Real-world studies report rates as low as 2.97 per 10,000 injections, with risks increasing cumulatively: from 0.0018% (1 in 55,556) after the first injection to 0.013% (1 in 7692) after 11 injections. Risk factors include multiple injections, older compounded formulations, and procedural lapses like poor asepsis, though recent protocols with prefilled syringes have lowered rates. Endophthalmitis often leads to significant vision loss, necessitating prompt vitreous tap, antibiotics, and sometimes vitrectomy. Non-infectious inflammatory responses, such as sterile endophthalmitis or pseudoendophthalmitis, occur at rates below 0.1%, typically resolving with observation or topical steroids, and are distinguished from bacterial infection by culture-negative vitreous samples. Retinal complications include rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD), a rare event with poor visual prognosis; in routine practice, RRD incidence post-injection is low (under 1%), but affected eyes often show tears near the injection site and experience limited recovery at one year. Vitreous or subretinal hemorrhage can arise from injection trauma or underlying neovascular fragility, with patient-reported rates around 1-2% of injections in large series. Intraocular pressure (IOP) elevations are frequent but vary in duration. Immediate post-injection spikes exceeding 30 mmHg occur in most patients due to volume infusion (typically 0.05 mL), normalizing within 30-60 minutes in eyes without outflow obstruction. Sustained elevations, defined as >6 mmHg above baseline persisting beyond one month, affect 3-12% of treated eyes, particularly those with pre-existing , , or crystalline lens status, and may require IOP-lowering or filtration in cases. Meta-analyses confirm transient mean IOP rises of 5-10 mmHg at 5-30 minutes post-injection across 20 studies, with no long-term population-level increase but individual risks tied to injection frequency. Other complications encompass progression, accelerated in phakic eyes due to repeated injections (incidence up to 20-30% over 2 years in some cohorts), and like tears or macular holes, often linked to underlying disease rather than therapy. Overall complication rates remain low (1-2% of injections), with most being manageable, though cumulative exposure heightens vigilance; standardized reporting systems have been proposed to better track these in clinical trials and practice.

Systemic Risks and Long-Term Concerns

Systemic exposure to anti-VEGF agents occurs following intravitreal injection, with peak serum concentrations varying by agent: reaches levels 5- to 37-fold higher than after the first dose, while shows 9- to 310-fold higher exposure due to its larger IgG structure and longer . These levels, though subtherapeutic for systemic VEGF inhibition, can accumulate with repeated dosing, raising concerns for off-target effects on vascular . Cardiovascular risks, including and arterial thromboembolic events, represent primary systemic concerns, as VEGF supports endothelial repair and . Meta-analyses of intravitreal therapy indicate no overall increase in , such as or , compared to controls. However, in diabetic populations, prolonged treatment correlates with elevated odds of systemic events like or arrhythmias (OR 1.8; 95% CI 1.7-1.9). Case reports document acute , such as heart failure exacerbation post-injection, particularly in patients with preexisting cardiac conditions. Renal complications arise from VEGF's role in glomerular filtration barrier integrity; intravitreal agents have been linked to , worsening, and rare collapsing glomerulopathy, with findings in biopsies showing endothelial injury. These effects may intensify with cumulative dosing, though population-level studies report low incidence without significant differences across , , or . Long-term data remain limited, with most trials spanning 2-5 years; intensive monthly regimens have shown signals of increased all-cause mortality in select cohorts (HR up to 1.3 in some analyses), though meta-analyses refute a causal link to treatment frequency. Chronic suppression of physiological VEGF may impair in vital organs, potentially exacerbating age-related vascular decline in elderly patients, but prospective studies beyond a decade are absent, leaving uncertainty about sustained risks like delayed or neuropathy. For systemically dosed agents in , such as , risks are dose-dependent and higher— in 25-30%, thromboemboli in 3-5%, and in 1-2%—necessitating vigilant monitoring. Overall, while intravitreal therapy maintains a favorable profile relative to untreated progression, confounding comorbidities and variable exposure underscore the need for individualized .

Controversies and Criticisms

Treatment Burden and Real-World Efficacy Gaps

Intravitreal anti-VEGF injections for neovascular age-related (nAMD) necessitate frequent clinic visits, often every 4-8 weeks initially, leading to substantial patient burden including time commitment, travel, and emotional strain. A Norwegian survey of nAMD patients found that 43.1% spent 1-3 hours per treatment day, while 13% exceeded 12 hours, with northern residents facing extended travel times averaging over 9 hours for one-third of cases. Additionally, 37.7% required assistance for every visit, exacerbating dependency and logistical challenges. Emotional toll compounds this, as 25.4% of patients reported anxiety one day prior to injections, with 10.8% experiencing it for a full week, alongside 33.1% feeling stressed and 15.4% facing sleep disturbances in the preceding week. Financial and access barriers further amplify burden, with 19.0% of non-persistence attributed to costs and 7.9% to travel distance or isolation. High injection volumes—averaging 6 in the first year and declining to 3.9 by year 10—sustain this over lifetimes, prompting efforts to develop extended-duration alternatives. Patient non-adherence and non-persistence rates underscore compliance gaps, with pooled non-persistence at 30% (95% CI: 24%-37%) and patient-led non-adherence ranging 17.5%-35.0%, primarily due to treatment dissatisfaction (29.9%) and comorbidities (15.5%). In one cohort, 60% failed to adhere to scheduled injections, correlating with delayed doses and worsened anatomical outcomes, particularly during disruptions like COVID-19 where rates hit 51.1%-68.8%. Non-adherent patients exhibit poorer visual acuity progression, as incomplete loading doses or gaps increase treatment failure risk by hindering disease control. Real-world efficacy lags benchmarks due to under-treatment and attrition; pivotal trials like and achieved +8 to +10 ETDRS letters at year 1 with intensive regimens, yet real-world studies report modest +2 to +5 letter gains or net losses over time. Over 10 years, mean declined -11.2 letters, with only 46% continuing therapy and 63.3% losing ≤15 letters, versus trial extensions showing +2 letters at year 4 but steeper long-term declines under less monitored dosing. Fewer injections (mean 47 total vs. trial maxima) and 30%-50% discontinuation within 1-2 years drive these gaps, as suboptimal intensity fails to match trial-level suppression of VEGF-driven leakage.

Development of Resistance and Therapeutic Limitations

Resistance to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy in ocular neovascular diseases manifests as either innate non-response, characterized by inadequate initial suppression of vascular leakage or neovascularization, or acquired resistance, where initial efficacy wanes over time despite continued treatment. Innate resistance affects approximately 30% of patients with diabetic macular edema (DME), often linked to genetic polymorphisms such as CFH Y402H or ARMS2 A69S variants that impair VEGF pathway responsiveness or exacerbate complement dysregulation. Acquired resistance, observed in 66-76% of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) cases within 12 months of ranibizumab therapy, involves adaptive upregulation of redundant pro-angiogenic signaling, allowing disease progression despite VEGF blockade. Central mechanisms include activation of alternative angiogenic pathways, such as (PDGF)-BB, which recruits to stabilize neovessels, rendering them less susceptible to VEGF inhibition and promoting . (FGF) and angiopoietin-2 (Ang-2) similarly bypass VEGF dependency, sustaining endothelial proliferation and leakage. Neuropilin-1 (NRP-1) co-receptors facilitate this evasion by binding ligands like (PlGF), semaphorin 3A (SEMA3A), and hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), with PlGF levels rising post-aflibercept administration to enhance residual VEGF activity. Persistent complement activation and chronic inflammation further contribute, as anti-VEGF agents do not mitigate these processes, leading to ongoing (CNV) structural damage and exudation. Tachyphylaxis, a rapid diminution in response after repeated intravitreal injections, occurs in a minority of long-term nAMD patients (e.g., after 6-10 or more doses in about 6% of cases), potentially due to intraocular neutralizing antibodies or endothelial metabolic shifts toward impairment and accumulation. Disease-specific factors exacerbate limitations, including subretinal , pigment epithelial detachments, and choroidal neovascular variants like polypoidal vasculopathy, which exhibit variable VEGF expression and incomplete fluid resolution. Therapeutically, these resistances impose significant constraints: anti-VEGF monotherapy fails to address underlying drivers like hyperglycemia-aggravated in or macrophage cholesterol accumulation in aging eyes, resulting in smaller choroidal neovascular lesion reductions and higher recurrence rates compared to non-diabetic cohorts. While strategies like drug switching (e.g., from to ) or intensified dosing may temporarily restore response in , no definitive reversal exists for acquired resistance, highlighting the need for multi-target approaches. Long-term limitations also include progression to despite neovascular suppression and the absence of therapies tackling non-perfused or , underscoring anti-VEGF's role as symptomatic rather than curative.

Economic and Access Issues

Anti-VEGF therapies impose substantial economic burdens due to their high per-injection costs and frequent administration requirements, particularly for branded agents like and . In the United States, wholesale acquisition costs for (0.5 mg) and (2 mg) exceed $1,800 per dose, while off-label intravitreal costs approximately $50–$100 when repackaged from intravenous vials. Medicare Part B covers 80% of approved injectable treatments after the deductible, yet annual per-beneficiary costs for wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD) averaged $241 for , $6,143 for , and $8,219 for in 2022. Overall Medicare expenditures on anti-VEGF injections for retinal conditions reached $4.02 billion in 2019, reflecting a near doubling from 2014 amid rising utilization. These costs contribute to treatment and undertreatment in real-world settings, where patients often receive fewer injections than in clinical trials, exacerbating economic pressures through indirect burdens like , lost , and caregiver time. Bevacizumab's lower drives its preferential use—accounting for over 50% of injections in some analyses—despite lacking FDA approval for ocular indications, as cost-effectiveness models show it dominates and , yielding similar visual outcomes at fractions of the expense (e.g., incremental cost-effectiveness ratios exceeding $1 million per quality-adjusted life-year for branded alternatives). However, reliance on compounded bevacizumab raises contamination risks, prompting debates over safety versus affordability. Access disparities are pronounced in low- and middle-income countries, where branded anti-VEGF agents remain unaffordable for most patients, leading to reliance on laser therapy or no treatment despite rising and prevalence. In regions, high out-of-pocket costs burden developing health systems, with intravitreal injection rates varying widely (e.g., 560 per 100,000 in some areas) due to infrastructure and pricing barriers. Public systems in select nations like provide free access, but global undertreatment persists, as expensive therapies limit equity compared to high-income settings. Emerging biosimilars for and promise pricing reductions of 25–35%, potentially enhancing access if payers prioritize them, though biosimilars may paradoxically increase system costs by displacing cheaper compounded versions and encouraging broader uptake. Payer coverage varies, with some U.S. plans restricting branded agents in favor of , influencing prescribing patterns amid ongoing efforts to balance efficacy, safety, and fiscal sustainability.

Recent Developments and Ongoing Research

Biosimilars and Extended-Duration Formulations

Biosimilars of anti-VEGF agents, such as and , have been developed to provide equivalent therapeutic options at potentially lower costs for retinal conditions including neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), diabetic macular edema (DME), and retinal vein occlusion (RVO). These biologics must demonstrate similarity in quality, safety, and to their reference products through rigorous clinical trials, including pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and comparative effectiveness studies. For , the FDA approved Byooviz (ranibizumab-nuna) in 2021 and Cimerli (ranibizumab-eqrn) in August 2022 as the first interchangeable biosimilar, supported by phase 3 trials like the EGENE study for Cimerli, which showed comparable best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) gains and reduction in central subfield thickness (CST) over 48 weeks without differences in or adverse events. Similarly, biosimilars proliferated in 2024, with the FDA approving five versions, including Yesafili (aflibercept-jbvf) and Opuviz (aflibercept-yszy) as interchangeable in May 2024, and others like PAVBLU and Ahzantive; phase 3 trials, such as those for ABP 938, confirmed biosimilar equivalence in BCVA improvement and CST reduction for nAMD, with no significant safety disparities. By 2025, these approvals have expanded access, though real-world uptake remains limited due to payer policies and physician familiarity, with studies indicating maintained in diverse populations. Extended-duration formulations address the treatment burden of frequent intravitreal injections by enabling longer intervals between administrations while preserving efficacy. Eylea HD ( 8 mg), approved by the FDA in August 2023 for wet , DME, and , utilizes a higher dose to support dosing every 12 to 16 weeks after three initial monthly doses, as demonstrated in the (wet AMD) and (DME) phase 3 trials, where it achieved noninferior BCVA gains compared to standard 2 mg every 8 weeks, with similar anatomic improvements and safety profiles including low rates of intraocular inflammation. The Port Delivery System (PDS) with , branded Susvimo, represents an implantable alternative approved by the FDA for nAMD in 2021 and expanded in 2025 to include chronic DME and DR; this refillable intraocular reservoir delivers continuously for 6 to 9 months per refill, with 5-year Archway phase 3 data showing sustained BCVA stability and reduced injection frequency versus monthly , though early endophthalmitis risks prompted design refinements like an updated refill needle to minimize complications. In , the CE mark for Contivue (Susvimo equivalent) was granted in September 2025 for nAMD, further validating its durability. These innovations, while effective in trials, face challenges in long-term real-world adherence and monitoring for device-related events, with ongoing research emphasizing patient selection to optimize outcomes.

Novel Targets and Combination Approaches

Targeting VEGF-C and VEGF-D represents a novel strategy to augment anti-VEGF-A therapies in neovascular age-related (nAMD), as these isoforms promote and permeability through VEGFR-2 and VEGFR-3 activation. Sozinibercept, a first-in-class VEGF-C/D trap, in a phase 1b trial (NCT04757610), achieved superior best-corrected gains when combined with monthly compared to alone, addressing gaps in VEGF-A monotherapy responses. Similarly, dual inhibition of VEGF-A and angiopoietin-2 (Ang-2) via stabilizes retinal vessels and reduces inflammation, with phase 3 trials (TENAYA and ) demonstrating noninferiority to in nAMD while extending injection intervals. In diabetic macular edema (DME), emerging targets include and neurodegeneration pathways. Inhibitors of apurinic/apyrimidinic endonuclease 1/redox factor-1 (APE1/Ref-1) block neovascularization and inflammatory signaling in preclinical models of , with small molecules advancing to early clinical evaluation for DME and nAMD. Soluble (sEH) inhibitors modulate bioactive to curb and , showing promise in preclinical retinal disease models and entering early trials. Arginase modulators, such as PEG-arginase-1, provide in ischemic models by improving endothelial function, while erythropoietin-derived peptides like ARA290 reduce glial activation without hematopoietic effects. Combination approaches mitigate resistance observed in up to 40-50% of DME cases to anti-VEGF monotherapy. In a study of 16 eyes with double-monotherapy-resistant chronic DME, simultaneous intravitreal (4 mg) and decanted triamcinolone reduced central thickness by 159-213 μm (P<0.05) and improved best-corrected by 8-10 letters at 1-3 months post-injection, with sustained anatomic benefits at 4 months and no reported safety issues. Anti-VEGF plus anti-platelet-derived (PDGF) therapies target recruitment to regress neovascularization more effectively than VEGF inhibition alone, as explored in phase 2 trials like ONYX (nesvacumab + ). These strategies, including sozinibercept added to standard anti-VEGF regimens, aim to enhance durability and efficacy, with ongoing phase 3 trials (e.g., NCT04757636) evaluating long-term outcomes in retinal vasculopathies.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3475399/
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5997665/
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5691342/
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10454953/
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11294244/
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9545772/
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12271010/
  8. https://www.ophthalmologyretina.org/article/S2468-6530%2821%2900404-8/fulltext
  9. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10230445/
  10. https://www.dovepress.com/progress-and-challenges-of-anti-vegf-agents-and-their-sustained-releas-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-DDDT
  11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11684535/
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5836560/
  13. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-025-02249-0
  14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC551528/
  15. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10794590/
  16. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10978313/
  17. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5145308/
  18. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.172398299
  19. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.6823562
  20. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7159830/
  21. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.2479986
  22. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/atvbaha.108.179663
  23. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/atvbaha.108.179663
  24. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2004/21-756_Macugen.cfm
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2426796/
  26. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2006/125156s0000_LucentisTOC.cfm
  27. https://www.drugs.com/history/lucentis.html
  28. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41433-025-03996-8
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7101474/
  30. https://www.ophthalmologytimes.com/view/beyond-vegf-a-next-generation-therapies-aim-to-enhance-vision-and-quality-of-life-in-neovascular-amd
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3047052/
  32. https://translational-medicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12967-023-03937-7
  33. https://retinahistory.asrs.org/milestones-developments/anti-vegf
  34. https://www.retinalphysician.com/issues/2025/april/second-generation-anti-vegf-agents/
  35. https://www.willseye.org/news/second-generation-anti-vegfs-in-age-related-macular-degeneration/
  36. https://eyesoneyecare.com/resources/decreasing-treatment-burdens-with-second-generation-anti-vegf-agents/
  37. https://www.modernretina.com/view/improving-retinal-drying-and-treatment-durability-with-second-generation-anti-vegf-therapies
  38. https://www.avastin.com/hcp/mcrc/efficacy-data.html
  39. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/drugs/ramucirumab
  40. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305737220300554
  41. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3780632/
  42. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2814%2960845-X/fulltext
  43. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29191585/
  44. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045%2814%2970420-6/abstract
  45. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31234645/
  46. https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.19.01009
  47. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8991477/
  48. https://www.aaojournal.org/article/S0161-6420%2818%2932031-1/fulltext
  49. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa054481
  50. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa062655
  51. https://www.aaojournal.org/article/S0161-6420%252813%252900331-X/fulltext
  52. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23084240/
  53. https://www.aaojournal.org/article/s0161-6420%2812%2900865-2/fulltext
  54. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaophthalmology/fullarticle/2807967
  55. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41433-024-03370-0
  56. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40411432/
  57. https://www.ophthalmologyscience.org/article/S2666-9145%2823%2900153-7/fulltext
  58. https://www.aao.org/eye-health/diseases/avastin-eylea-lucentis-difference
  59. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22330964/
  60. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23706949/
  61. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27651226/
  62. https://www.aao.org/eyenet/article/anti-vegf-tx-as-effective-as-laser
  63. https://journalretinavitreous.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40942-025-00687-0
  64. https://www.ophthalmologyretina.org/article/S2468-6530%2824%2900366-X/fulltext
  65. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1414264
  66. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24919750/
  67. https://www.roche.com/media/releases/med-cor-2025-05-22
  68. https://retinatoday.com/articles/2011-may-june/anti-vegf-treatment-for-rvo-clinical-experience
  69. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26073857/
  70. https://www.ophthalmologyretina.org/article/S2468-6530%2822%2900549-8/fulltext
  71. https://www.ophthalmologyretina.org/article/S2468-6530%2825%2900251-9/fulltext
  72. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00417-023-06271-2
  73. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/13/7/e067921
  74. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.2147/OPTH.S311816
  75. https://www.jkms.org/DOIx.php?id=10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e174
  76. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10458692/
  77. https://www.aaojournal.org/article/S0161-6420%2824%2900005-8/fulltext
  78. https://www.e-epih.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.4178/epih.e2021097
  79. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0161642024000058
  80. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aos.16727
  81. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2022.1017889/full
  82. https://www.dovepress.com/endophthalmitis-rates-among-patients-receiving-intravitreal-anti-vegf--peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-OPTH
  83. https://www.ophthalmologyretina.org/article/S2468-6530%2822%2900242-1/fulltext
  84. https://www.aao.org/editors-choice/rhegmatogenous-retinal-detachment-after-anti-vegf-
  85. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7548755/
  86. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-70269-7
  87. https://eyewiki.org/Anti-VEGF_Injection_IOP_Elevations
  88. https://bmcophthalmol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12886-025-04111-x
  89. https://www.aao.org/eyenet/academy-live/detail/iop-elevation-after-anti-vegf-injections
  90. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950253524000017
  91. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10380425/
  92. https://www.aaojournal.org/article/S0161-6420%2820%2931205-7/fulltext
  93. https://www.aaojournal.org/article/S0161-6420%2824%2900366-X/fulltext
  94. https://bjo.bmj.com/content/98/12/1636
  95. https://journals.lww.com/retinajournal/fulltext/2017/10000/systemic_pharmacokinetics_and_pharmacodynamics_of.6.aspx
  96. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40123-025-01157-4
  97. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8050790/
  98. https://www.aao.org/editors-choice/cardiovascular-risks-of-anti-vegf-appear-similar-t
  99. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaophthalmology/fullarticle/2805503
  100. https://www.aaojournal.org/article/S0161-6420%2824%2900419-6/fulltext
  101. https://bmccardiovascdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12872-024-04095-4
  102. https://academic.oup.com/ckj/article/14/10/2158/6182678
  103. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39141487/
  104. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaophthalmology/fullarticle/2465309
  105. https://www.jci.org/articles/view/129862
  106. https://www.reviewofophthalmology.com/article/systemic-adverse-events-and-antivegf
  107. https://www.reviewofoptometry.com/article/systemic-risks-of-intravitreal-antivegf-still-unclear
  108. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32781110/
  109. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10226541/
  110. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10237080/
  111. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12054268/
  112. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7837532/
  113. https://retinatoday.com/articles/2021-nov-dec/long-term-outcomes-of-anti-vegf-therapy
  114. https://www.ajmc.com/view/access-to-optimal-care-has-stymied-visual-acuity-gains-in-amd-with-anti-vegf-treatment
  115. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4898027/
  116. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31482277/
  117. https://bmcophthalmol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12886-022-02761-9
  118. https://www.reviewofophthalmology.com/article/treatment-resistance-in-wet-amd
  119. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11305436/
  120. https://www.healthline.com/health/medicare-coverage-wet-amd-treatments
  121. https://www.institute4ac.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/IAC_Part-B-AMD-Drugs_White-Paper_Dec-2023_FINAL.pdf
  122. https://www.reviewofoptometry.com/news/article/annual-medicare-expense-for-antivegf-injections-tops-4-billion-study-finds
  123. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40123-025-01180-5
  124. https://www.healio.com/news/optometry/20230214/distance-time-of-travel-contribute-to-holistic-cost-of-antivegf-therapy
  125. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4109727/
  126. https://www.healio.com/news/ophthalmology/20160217/amd-treatment-too-high-a-burden-in-reallife-practice-in-most-asiapacific-countries
  127. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8987746/
  128. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11938198/
  129. https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2789519
  130. https://www.healio.com/news/ophthalmology/20220831/transition-to-ophthalmic-biosimilars-may-be-driven-by-cost
  131. https://www.jmcp.org/doi/10.18553/jmcp.2025.24340
  132. https://investors.coherus.com/news-releases/news-release-details/fda-approves-coherus-cimerlitm-ranibizumab-eqrn-first-and-only
  133. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10860804/
  134. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/news-events-human-drugs/fda-approves-first-interchangeable-biosimilars-eylea-treat-macular-degeneration-and-other-eye
  135. https://www.retinalphysician.com/issues/2024/julyaugust/fda-approves-anti-vegf-biosimilar-drug/
  136. https://www.ophthalmologyretina.org/article/S2468-6530%2825%2900351-3/fulltext
  137. https://www.healio.com/news/ophthalmology/20240816/biosimilars-have-yet-to-make-an-impact-in-ophthalmology
  138. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2024/761355s006lbl.pdf
  139. https://supportsight.org/2023/09/05/eylea-hd-injection-approved-by-fda-for-treatment-of-wet-age-related-macular-degeneration-wamd-diabetic-macular-edema-dme-and-diabetic-retinopathy-dr/
  140. https://www.gene.com/media/press-releases/15073/2025-08-01/genentechs-susvimo-maintains-vision-over
  141. https://eyewiki.org/Port_Delivery_System
  142. https://www.roche.com/media/releases/med-cor-2025-09-04
  143. https://www.retinalphysician.com/issues/2025/september/the-port-delivery-system-in-the-paradigm/
  144. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41433-025-04042-3
  145. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022356524170425
  146. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physiology/articles/10.3389/fphys.2022.831616/full
  147. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40997301/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.