The aim of this study was the evaluation of the safety and efficacy of unilateral subretinal injection of the adeno-associated vector (AAV) serotypes 2 and 4 (AAV2/4) RPE65-RPE65 vector in patients with Leber congenital amaurosis (LCA) associated with RPE65 gene deficiency. We evaluated ocular and general tolerance and visual function up to 1 year after vector administration in the most severely affected eye in nine patients with retinal degeneration associated with mutations in the RPE65 gene. Patients received either low (1.22 × 10 to 2 × 10 vector genomes [vg]) or high (between 3.27 × 10 and 4.8 × 10 vg) vector doses. An ancillary study, in which six of the original nine patients participated, extended the follow-up period to 2-3.5 years. All patients showed good ophthalmological and general tolerance to the rAAV2/4-RPE65-RPE65 vector. We observed a trend toward improved visual acuity in patients with nystagmus, stabilization and improvement of the visual field, and cortical activation along visual pathways during fMRI analysis. OCT analysis after vector administration revealed no retinal thinning, except in cases of macular detachment. Our findings show that the rAAV2/4.RPE65.RPE65 vector was well tolerated in nine patients with RPE65-associated LCA. Efficacy parameters varied between patients during follow-up.
Background
The epiretinal membrane (ERM) is a degenerative condition associated with age, which can cause loss of vision and/or metamorphopsia. The treatment of symptomatic ERM involves surgical removal including a vitrectomy followed by peeling of the ERM using a microforceps. As the internal limiting membrane (ILM) is adherent to the ERM, it is sometimes removed with it (spontaneous peeling). If ILM remains in place, it can be removed to reduce ERM recurrence. However, it is important to clarify the safety of ILM peeling, while it increases surgical risks and cause histological disorganization of the retina that can lead to microscotomas, may be responsible for definitive visual discomfort.
Methods
PEELING is a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blind, and multicentered trial with two parallel arms. This study investigates the benefit/risk ratio of active ILM peeling among individuals undergoing ERM surgery without spontaneous ILM peeling. Randomization is done in the operating room after ERM removal if ILM remains in place. After randomization, the two groups—“active peeling of the ILM” and “no peeling of the ILM”—are compared during a total of three follow-up visits scheduled at month 1, month 6, and month 12. Primary endpoint is the difference in microscotomas before surgery and 6 months after surgery. Patients with spontaneous peeling are not randomized and are included in the ancillary study with the same follow-up visits and the same examinations as the principal study.
Relevant inclusion criteria involve individuals aged > 18 years living with idiopathic symptomatic ERM, including pseudophakic patients with transparent posterior capsule or open capsule or lensed patients with age-related cataracts. The calculated sample size corresponds to 53 randomized eyes (one eye/patient) per arm that means 106 randomized eyes (106 randomized patients) in total and a maximum of 222 included patients (116 spontaneous peeling).
Discussion
ILM peeling is often practiced in ERM surgery to reduce ERM recurrence. It does not impair postoperative visual acuity, but it increases the surgical risks and causes anatomical damages. If active ILM peeling is significantly associated with more microscotomas, it may contraindicate the ILM peeling during primitive idiopathic ERM surgery.
Trial registration
ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02146144. Registered on 22 May 2014. Recruitment is still ongoing.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.