Photo Credit: Bkilzer

The following is a summary of “Real-World Outcomes with Complement Inhibitors for Geographic Atrophy: A Comparative Study of Pegacetacoplan versus Avacincaptad Pegol,” published in the March 2025 issue of Clinical Ophthalmology by Rush et al. 

Researchers conducted a retrospective study to compare real-world outcomes in individuals treated with intravitreal avacincaptad pegol (IVA) or intravitreal pegacetacoplan (IVP) for geographic atrophy (GA) secondary to age-related macular degeneration (AMD).  

They analyzed individuals receiving IVA or IVP for GA secondary to AMD at 2 community-based ophthalmology practices. All included individuals had a baseline visual acuity of ≥20/200, a total GA lesion area of ≥1.5 mm² and ≤ 17.5 mm², and a 12-month follow-up after treatment initiation. The primary outcome measured the change in GA lesion size at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included changes in the logMAR vision, the total number of complement injections over 12 months, and the incidence of exudation at 12 months.  

The results showed that 112 individuals were analyzed, with no significant differences in baseline characteristics between treatment groups. No significant differences were observed between IVA and IVP in the change in total GA lesion size [1.19 (± 0.33) mm² vs 1.28 (± 0.37) mm²; P = 0.61], change in visual acuity [− 0.1 (− 0.04 to − 0.16) logMAR vs − 0.09 (− 0.05 to − 0.13) logMAR; P = 0.57], or incidence of exudation (P = 0.66) over 12 months. However, the IVA group received more injections than the IVP group at 12 months [9.05 (± 1.06) vs 5.96 (± 2.01); P < 0.01].  

Investigators concluded that treatment with IVA and IVP resulted in similar visual and anatomic outcomes at 12 months, although IVP-treated subjects might have required fewer injections. 

Source: dovepress.com/real-world-outcomes-with-complement-inhibitors-for-geographic-atrophy–peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-OPTH