In Brief Purpose: To evaluate pazopanib 10 mg/mL eye drops (pazopanib) in healthy subjects and in subjects with previously untreated subfoveal choroidal neovascularization secondary to age-related macular degeneration. Methods: Study 1 (single center, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-masked) included 3 cohorts of 12 to 13 healthy subjects each who instilled pazopanib or placebo 4 times daily for 2 weeks. Study 2 (multicenter open-label) included 19 subjects with neovascular age-related macular degeneration who instilled pazopanib 4 times daily for 12 weeks. Both studies evaluated pharmacokinetics and safety. Study 2 also evaluated efficacy. Results: Steady-state concentrations of pazopanib in plasma seemed to be reached by Week 2. At Week 4 (Study 2), there were no meaningful changes from baseline in the mean central retinal thickness (37.9 μm) or best-corrected visual acuity (0.1 letters) (primary endpoint), retinal morphology, choroidal neovascularization size, or total lesion size. Complement Factor H genotype had no effect on changes from baseline in the best-corrected visual acuity or central retinal thickness. The most common pazopanib-related ocular adverse events included eye irritation (Study 1, n = 7) and instillation site pain (Study 2, n = 3). No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusion: Pazopanib was well tolerated. In subjects with previously untreated neovascular age-related macular degeneration, pazopanib instilled 4 times daily as monothereapy did not seem to improve the best-corrected visual acuity or decrease the central retinal thickness. Results are reported for pazopanib 10 mg/mL eye drops in healthy subjects and in subjects with previously untreated subfoveal choroidal neovascularization secondary to age-related macular degeneration. Overall, pazopanib was generally safe and well tolerated. Pazopanib, when instilled 4 times daily as monotherapy, did not seem to improve visual acuity or decrease the central retinal thickness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Singh et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: