Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare effectiveness and safety of the gel stent to trabeculectomy in open-angle glaucoma (OAG). DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, multicenter, noninferiority study. METHODS: Patients with OAG and intraocular pressure (IOP) 15 to 44 mm Hg on topical IOP-lowering medication were randomized 2:1 to gel stent implantation or trabeculectomy. Primary end point (surgical success): percentage of patients at month 12 achieving ≥20% IOP reduction from baseline without medication increase, clinical hypotony, vision loss to counting fingers, or secondary surgical intervention (SSI) in a noninferiority test with 24% margins. Secondary end points (month 12) included mean IOP and medication count, postoperative intervention rate, visual recovery, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Safety end points included adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: At month 12, the gel stent was statistically noninferior to trabeculectomy (between-treatment difference [Δ], −6.1%; 95% CI, −22.9%, 10.8%); 62.1% and 68.2% achieved the primary end point, respectively (P=.487); mean IOP and medication count reductions from baseline were significant (P<.001); and the IOP change-related Δ (2.8 mm Hg) favored trabeculectomy (P=.024). The gel stent resulted in fewer eyes requiring in-office postoperative interventions (P=.024 after excluding laser suture lysis), faster visual recovery (P≤.048), and greater 6-month improvements in visual function problems (ie, PROs; P≤.022). The most common AEs were reduced visual acuity at any time (gel stent, 38.9%; trabeculectomy, 54.5%) and hypotony (IOP <6 mm Hg at any time) (gel stent, 23.2%; trabeculectomy, 50.0%). CONCLUSIONS: At month 12, the gel stent was statistically noninferior to trabeculectomy, per the percentage of patients achieving ≥20% IOP reduction from baseline without medication increase, clinical hypotony, vision loss to counting fingers, or SSI. Trabeculectomy achieved a statistically lower mean IOP, numerically lower failure rate, and numerically lower need for supplemental medications. The gel stent resulted in fewer postoperative interventions, better visual recovery, and fewer AEs.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 306-325 |
Number of pages | 20 |
Journal | American journal of ophthalmology |
Volume | 252 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Aug 2023 |
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Gel Stent Versus Trabeculectomy: The Randomized, Multicenter, Gold-Standard Pathway Study (GPS) of Effectiveness and Safety at 12 Months'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver
}
In: American journal of ophthalmology, Vol. 252, 08.2023, p. 306-325.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - Gel Stent Versus Trabeculectomy
T2 - The Randomized, Multicenter, Gold-Standard Pathway Study (GPS) of Effectiveness and Safety at 12 Months
AU - SHEYBANI, ARSHAM
AU - VERA, VANESSA
AU - GROVER, DAVINDER S.
AU - VOLD, STEVEN D.
AU - COTTER, FRANK
AU - BEDROOD, SAHAR
AU - SAWHNEY, GAGAN
AU - PIETTE, SCOTT D.
AU - SIMONYI, SUSAN
AU - GU, XUEMIN
AU - BALARAM, M. I.N.I.
AU - GALLARDO, MARK J.
N1 - Funding Information: Declaration of Competing Interest: A.S. has received consulting honoraria from Allergan, an AbbVie company. V.V. is an employee of Allergan (an AbbVie company) and may hold AbbVie stock/share options. D.S.G. has received consulting honoraria from Allergan (an AbbVie company), New World Medical, Nova Eye Medical, Olleyes, Reichert, and Sanoculis; speaker honoraria from Allergan (an AbbVie company), Nova Eye Medical, and Reichert; research funds from Allergan (an AbbVie company) and New World Medical; equity from Nova Eye Medical and Olleyes; and is a Medical Advisory Board member of CATS Tonometer, iStar Medical, Sanoculis, and Versant Health. S.D.V. has received consulting/advisor honoraria from Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Alcon, Allergan (an AbbVie company), Bausch + Lomb, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Glaukos, Iridex, iStar Medical, Ivantis, Sight Sciences, and Volk Optical; has received grant support from Santen; and is an equity owner of Alphaeon, Ivantis, and O3 Optix. F.C. has received investigator support from Alcon, Allergan (an AbbVie company), and Glaukos. S.B. has received consulting and speaker honoraria from Allergan (an AbbVie company). G.S. has received speaker honoraria from Allergan (an AbbVie company). S.D.P. has received speaker honoraria from Allergan (an AbbVie company). S.S. and M.B. were employees of Allergan (an AbbVie company) at the time the study was conducted. X.G. is an employee of AbbVie and may hold AbbVie stock/share options. M.J.G. has received consulting honoraria, speaker fees, investigator support, and grant support from Allergan (an AbbVie company). All authors attest that they meet the current ICMJE criteria for authorship. Funding Information: Funding/Support: Allergan, an AbbVie company, funded this trial and participated in the trial design, analysis, interpretation of data, and the review and approval of the publication. Declaration of Competing Interest: A.S. has received consulting honoraria from Allergan, an AbbVie company. V.V. is an employee of Allergan (an AbbVie company) and may hold AbbVie stock/share options. D.S.G. has received consulting honoraria from Allergan (an AbbVie company), New World Medical, Nova Eye Medical, Olleyes, Reichert, and Sanoculis; speaker honoraria from Allergan (an AbbVie company), Nova Eye Medical, and Reichert; research funds from Allergan (an AbbVie company) and New World Medical; equity from Nova Eye Medical and Olleyes; and is a Medical Advisory Board member of CATS Tonometer, iStar Medical, Sanoculis, and Versant Health. S.D.V. has received consulting/advisor honoraria from Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Alcon, Allergan (an AbbVie company), Bausch + Lomb, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Glaukos, Iridex, iStar Medical, Ivantis, Sight Sciences, and Volk Optical; has received grant support from Santen; and is an equity owner of Alphaeon, Ivantis, and O3 Optix. F.C. has received investigator support from Alcon, Allergan (an AbbVie company), and Glaukos. S.B. has received consulting and speaker honoraria from Allergan (an AbbVie company). G.S. has received speaker honoraria from Allergan (an AbbVie company). S.D.P. has received speaker honoraria from Allergan (an AbbVie company). S.S. and M.B. were employees of Allergan (an AbbVie company) at the time the study was conducted. X.G. is an employee of AbbVie and may hold AbbVie stock/share options. M.J.G. has received consulting honoraria, speaker fees, investigator support, and grant support from Allergan (an AbbVie company). All authors attest that they meet the current ICMJE criteria for authorship. Acknowledgments: We acknowledge the following institutions (investigators/participating physicians) for their participation in the study: Advanced Glaucoma Specialists (Mark A. Latina), Baylor College of Medicine (Peter T. Chang), Carolina Eye Associates (Tarra Millender), Carolinas Centers for Sight (Howard N. Greene), Clinical Research Center of Florida (Shani Reich), Coastal Research Associates LLC (Douglas G. Day), Colorado Eye Institute (James Lee), Daniel Krivoy, MD (Daniel Krivoy), El Paso Eye Surgeons, P.A. (Mark J. Gallardo), Eye Care Associates (John P. Aey), Dean McGee Eye Institute (Ben Harvey), Georgia Eye Partners (Gagan Sawhney), Glaucoma Associates of Texas (Davinder S. Grover), Glaucoma Center of Michigan (Les I. Siegel), Glaucoma Consultants of the Capital Region GCCR (Steven T. Simmons), Hamilton Eye Institute (Brian Jerkins), Houston Eye Associates HEA–Gramercy Location (Fiaz Zaman), Howard University Hospital (Leslie Jones), Illinois Eye Center (Evan P. Lagouros), Jenkins Eye Care (Jeffrey R. Peterson), Kellogg Eye Center (Manjool Shah), Kremer Eye Center (Aaron Cohn), Ludwick Eye Center (Scott D. Piette/Brett Ernst), Mayo Clinic (Syril Dorairaj), Retina Institute of California Medical Group d-b-a Acuity Eye Group (Sahar Bedrood), Sacramento Eye Consultants (Jacob Brubaker), Southern California Eye Institute (Alena Reznik), SSM Health (Julia Agapov), Stiles Eyecare Excellence Glaucoma Institute (Michael C. Stiles), The Eye Center of Racine and Kenosha (I. Paul Singh), University of Colorado School of Medicine (Leonard K. Seibold), University of Pittsburgh (Ian Conner), Vistar Eye Center (Frank Cotter), Vold Vision (Steven D. Vold), Washington University School of Medicine (Anjali Bhorade/Arsham Sheybani), Wills Eye Hospital (Daniel Lee), and Your Eye Specialists (Aarup Kubal). Writing and editorial assistance were provided to the authors by Michele Jacob, PhD, of Evidence Scientific Solutions (Philadelphia, PA) and funded by Allergan (an AbbVie company). Data management, study monitoring, statistical analysis, and development of the study report were provided by Syneos Health, Morrisville, NC. Ethics approval: This initial study protocol was prospectively approved by the following independent institutional review board at each investigational site before initiation: Copernicus Group IRB (Julia Agapov, John P. Aey, Sahar Bedrood, Peter T. Chang, Aaron Cohn, Ian Conner, Frank Cotter, Douglas G. Day, Mark J. Gallardo, Davinder S. Grover, Daniel Krivoy, Evan P. Lagouros, Mark A. Latina, Tarra Millender, Howard N. Green, Jeffrey R. Peterson, Scott D. Piette, Shani Reich, Gagan Sawhney, Leonard K. Seibold, Manjool Shah, Les I. Siegel, Steven T. Simmons, I. Paul Singh, Michael C. Stiles, Steven D. Vold, Fiaz Zaman); Howard University Office of Regulatory Research Compliance (Leslie Jones); Mayo Clinic Office for Human Protection IRB (Syril Dorairaj); Sutter Health IRB (Jacob Brubaker); The University of Oklahoma IRB for the Protection of Human Subjects (Ben Harvey); The University of Tennessee Health Science Center IRB (Brian Jerkins); Washington University in St. Louis Human research Protection Office (Arsham Sheybani); and Wills Eye Hospital IRB (Daniel Lee). Data availability: AbbVie is committed to responsible data sharing regarding the clinical trials we sponsor. This includes access to anonymized, individual, and trial-level data (analysis data sets), as well as other information (eg, protocols, clinical study reports, or analysis plans), as long as the trials are not part of an ongoing or planned regulatory submission. This includes requests for clinical trial data for unlicensed products and indications. These clinical trial data can be requested by any qualified researchers who engage in rigorous, independent scientific research, and will be provided following review and approval of a research proposal, Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP), and execution of a Data Sharing Agreement (DSA). Data requests can be submitted at any time after approval in the US and Europe and after acceptance of this manuscript for publication. The data will be accessible for 12 months, with possible extensions considered. For more information on the process, or to submit a request, visit the following link: https://www.abbvieclinicaltrials.com/hcp/data-sharing/. Publisher Copyright: © 2023 The Authors
PY - 2023/8
Y1 - 2023/8
N2 - PURPOSE: To compare effectiveness and safety of the gel stent to trabeculectomy in open-angle glaucoma (OAG). DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, multicenter, noninferiority study. METHODS: Patients with OAG and intraocular pressure (IOP) 15 to 44 mm Hg on topical IOP-lowering medication were randomized 2:1 to gel stent implantation or trabeculectomy. Primary end point (surgical success): percentage of patients at month 12 achieving ≥20% IOP reduction from baseline without medication increase, clinical hypotony, vision loss to counting fingers, or secondary surgical intervention (SSI) in a noninferiority test with 24% margins. Secondary end points (month 12) included mean IOP and medication count, postoperative intervention rate, visual recovery, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Safety end points included adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: At month 12, the gel stent was statistically noninferior to trabeculectomy (between-treatment difference [Δ], −6.1%; 95% CI, −22.9%, 10.8%); 62.1% and 68.2% achieved the primary end point, respectively (P=.487); mean IOP and medication count reductions from baseline were significant (P<.001); and the IOP change-related Δ (2.8 mm Hg) favored trabeculectomy (P=.024). The gel stent resulted in fewer eyes requiring in-office postoperative interventions (P=.024 after excluding laser suture lysis), faster visual recovery (P≤.048), and greater 6-month improvements in visual function problems (ie, PROs; P≤.022). The most common AEs were reduced visual acuity at any time (gel stent, 38.9%; trabeculectomy, 54.5%) and hypotony (IOP <6 mm Hg at any time) (gel stent, 23.2%; trabeculectomy, 50.0%). CONCLUSIONS: At month 12, the gel stent was statistically noninferior to trabeculectomy, per the percentage of patients achieving ≥20% IOP reduction from baseline without medication increase, clinical hypotony, vision loss to counting fingers, or SSI. Trabeculectomy achieved a statistically lower mean IOP, numerically lower failure rate, and numerically lower need for supplemental medications. The gel stent resulted in fewer postoperative interventions, better visual recovery, and fewer AEs.
AB - PURPOSE: To compare effectiveness and safety of the gel stent to trabeculectomy in open-angle glaucoma (OAG). DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, multicenter, noninferiority study. METHODS: Patients with OAG and intraocular pressure (IOP) 15 to 44 mm Hg on topical IOP-lowering medication were randomized 2:1 to gel stent implantation or trabeculectomy. Primary end point (surgical success): percentage of patients at month 12 achieving ≥20% IOP reduction from baseline without medication increase, clinical hypotony, vision loss to counting fingers, or secondary surgical intervention (SSI) in a noninferiority test with 24% margins. Secondary end points (month 12) included mean IOP and medication count, postoperative intervention rate, visual recovery, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Safety end points included adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: At month 12, the gel stent was statistically noninferior to trabeculectomy (between-treatment difference [Δ], −6.1%; 95% CI, −22.9%, 10.8%); 62.1% and 68.2% achieved the primary end point, respectively (P=.487); mean IOP and medication count reductions from baseline were significant (P<.001); and the IOP change-related Δ (2.8 mm Hg) favored trabeculectomy (P=.024). The gel stent resulted in fewer eyes requiring in-office postoperative interventions (P=.024 after excluding laser suture lysis), faster visual recovery (P≤.048), and greater 6-month improvements in visual function problems (ie, PROs; P≤.022). The most common AEs were reduced visual acuity at any time (gel stent, 38.9%; trabeculectomy, 54.5%) and hypotony (IOP <6 mm Hg at any time) (gel stent, 23.2%; trabeculectomy, 50.0%). CONCLUSIONS: At month 12, the gel stent was statistically noninferior to trabeculectomy, per the percentage of patients achieving ≥20% IOP reduction from baseline without medication increase, clinical hypotony, vision loss to counting fingers, or SSI. Trabeculectomy achieved a statistically lower mean IOP, numerically lower failure rate, and numerically lower need for supplemental medications. The gel stent resulted in fewer postoperative interventions, better visual recovery, and fewer AEs.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85160713628&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ajo.2023.03.026
DO - 10.1016/j.ajo.2023.03.026
M3 - Article
C2 - 36972738
AN - SCOPUS:85160713628
SN - 0002-9394
VL - 252
SP - 306
EP - 325
JO - American journal of ophthalmology
JF - American journal of ophthalmology
ER -