69 posts categorized "EyeCare Topics"

September 16, 2010

Parents Beware: Laser Pointers Not Toys!!

There was a very intersting Letter to the Editor in last weeks New England Journal of Medicine last week, Retinal Injuries from a Handheld Laser Pointer.  The authors report a case of a 15 year old boy who bought a laser pointer on the internet to use as a toy. 

The boy’s life changed when he was playing with his laser pointer in front of a mirror to create a “laser
show,” during which the laser beam hit his eyes several times. He noticed immediate blurred vision in both of his eyes. Hoping that the visual loss would be transient and afraid of telling his parents, he waited 2 weeks before seeking an ophthalmic assessment, when he could no longer disguise his bad vision. His visual acuity was so poor in his left eye that he was only able to count fingers at a distance of 3 ft, and it was 20/50 in his right eye.

The clinical findings were consistent with severe bilateral retinal laser injury. After 4 months, the boy’s visual function remained impaired but improved to 20/32 in the right eye spontaneously and to 20/25 with a remaining scar just beside the center of the fovea in the left eye after one intravitreal injection of ranibizumab

This kid was very lucky, although he does have a visual deficit, he had an excellent response to treatment!  There are several take away points from this letter:

  1. Never shine a laser pointer at anyone. Laser pointers are designed to illustrate inanimate objects.
  2. Do not allow minors to use a pointer unsupervised. Laser pointers are not toys.
  3. Do not point a laser pointer at mirror-like surfaces. A reflected beam can act like a direct beam on the eye.

August 06, 2010

Going Green Preventing 22 Million Cataracts

There is no doubt that I have seen an increase in the severity of cataracts in younger patients for years.  This is purely anecdotal on my part, but I am definitely operating more and more on younger patients.  When I discuss these cataracts wIth these younger patients, they are very surprised, "cataract is a disorder of the elderly" is a frequent response I will hear from the 40 something year old suffering from the symptoms of a cataract.  My response has been that I believe the rise in incidence in cataracts of the young is probably caused by ozone depletion and UV exposure. Visual complaints that may signify cataracts include:

  • Blurred vision, double vision, ghost images, the sense of a "film" over the eyes
  • Lights seem too dim for reading or close-up work, or feeling "dazzled" by strong light
  • Changing eyeglass prescriptions often, and this change does not seem to help vision
  • Glare while driving at night
If the cataracts are small, I recommend full time UV protection for the eyes, if the cataracts are large, cataract surgery is discussed.

I have been proved correct:  A report was released this week by the EPA, Health and Environmental Effects of Ozone Layer Depletion.  For the first time, EPA has included data on cataract and UV exposure. All people, regardless of gender and skin type, are at risk for cataracts. It is recommended that both  adults and children use eyewear that absorbs UV rays and to wear a wide-brimmed hat to limit outside UV exposure. 

The EPA report estimates that the strengthening of the original Montreal Protocol through the Montreal Amendments of 1997 will avoid more than 22 million additional cataract cases for Americans born between 1985 and 2100.  The environmental treaty, signed by 196 countries, was designed to reduce and eventually eliminate ozone depleting substances. 

Obviously, going green is not just a good idea to protect the environment; it can also help to save sight thru cataract prevention!

July 13, 2010

“Near-Eye Tool for Refractive Assessment” May Change How We Determine Glass Prescriptions

Last week's NYT's Tech Talk Podcast discussed an new invention out of MIT's Ramesh Raskar's Lab: “Near-Eye Tool for Refractive Assessment” (NETRA).  A refraction is the procedure whereby an ophthalmologist determines one's prescription for glasses.  It can be done manually or can be automated, but it involves multiple lenses and expensive equipment.  It is also a subjective test, relying on a patients responses.  The final result is a prescription for a new pair of glasses.


A phoropter,containing multiple lenses may be used to refract a patient.


An autorefractor may also be used for refracting.

Raskar's Lab is working to simplify the test procedure and lower the cost. His team developed  the NETRA, which includes a small plastic eyepiece that is clipped over the front of the screen on a cell phone. The patient looks into a small lens and uses the arrow keys on the phone to line up parallel sets of red and green lines in the display. This is repeated several times for each eye with the lines at different angles. The test takes only a few minutes to complete and provides the eyeglass prescription for each eye.

NETRA Concept

Can a person look at a portable display, click on a few buttons and recover his refractive condition? 

courtesy of:  http://web.media.mit.edu/~pamplona/NETRA/

Not only will this technology be a boom for third world countries, where cost constraints dictate access to care, but it may also streamline the way we refract here in the US as well!

July 10, 2010

Implantable Telescope Receives FDA Approval for Treatment of End Stage Macular Degeneration

The Implantable Telescope Technology is housed in a prosthetic device composed of three primary components: a fused quartz glass capsule that contains wide-angle micro-optical elements; a clear polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) carrier; and a blue PMMA light restrictor. The sealed optical component is snap-fitted into the carrier plate.

VisionCare Corporation announced that they received FDA approval for their Implantable Miniature Telescope (IMT).  This device will be helpful in restoring vision in patients suffering from end stage macular degeneration (AMD).  AMD, a condition that mainly affects older people, damages the center of the retina (macula) and results in a loss of vision in the center of the visual field. About 8 million people in the United States have AMD and nearly 2 million of them already have significant vision loss, according to the National Eye Institute. AMD can make it difficult or impossible to recognize faces or perform daily tasks such as reading or watching television.

Surgically implanted in one eye, the IMT is a small telescope that replaces the natural lens and provides an image that has been magnified more than two times. According to the FDA:

The IMT is used in patients ages 75 years and older with stable severe to profound vision impairment (when vision impairment has not changed over time) caused by blind spots (bilateral central scotoma) associated with end-stage AMD. These patients also have evidence of a visually significant cataract. 

The IMT is available in two models: one that provides 2.2 times magnification and another 2.7 times magnification. The IMT is designed to magnify and project images onto a healthy portion of the retina. The IMT is intended to be implanted in only one eye; the non-implanted eye is used for peripheral vision.

Patients agree to undergo training with an external telescope with a low vision specialist prior to implantation to determine whether adequate improvement in vision with the external telescope can be obtained and to verify if the patient has adequate peripheral vision in the eye that would not be implanted. Patients also agree to participate in a post-operative visual training program.

The Implantable Telescope Technology is housed in a prosthetic device composed of three primary components: a fused quartz glass capsule that contains wide-angle micro-optical elements; a clear polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) carrier; and a blue PMMA light restrictor. The sealed optical component is snap-fitted into the carrier plate.

Diane Sawyer reported on this device on the Nightly News this week.

I was fortunate enough to observe early clinical results of this device several years ago at the annual AAO meeting.  These results were very encouraging at the time, and I have been anxioiusly awaiting its approval.  I look forward to hopefully providing this service to my patients in the near future.

July 06, 2010

Avastin vs. Lucentis in Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration By: Wendy Bedale


I have blogged several times about the Avastin vs. Lucentis controversy.  Irv Aron , a retired consultant in the Medical Laser industry, blogs regulary about this topic as well in Irv Arons' Journal.  Last week, he posted a paper written by Wendy Bedale for a class at the University of Wisconsin Madison.  I thought this was an excellent and informative paper.  I have contacted Wendy and have gotten her permission to post the article, unedited in its entirety.  I am sure you will find it very interesting.

Thank you Wendy for allowing me to republish this!

Avastin vs. Lucentis in Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration

By: Wendy Bedale

In my home I have a beautiful Halloween jack-o-lantern quilt and a cozy fleece blanket crafted by my Aunt Maureen. Each year my Christmas tree is adorned with many hand-painted Christmas ornaments she has given me, including a little sled, all of which she made by hand. For my wedding, I received a dozen decorative hand towels embroidered with hearts, shamrocks, fall leaves. She is generous with her talents and her gifts.

A few Christmases ago Aunt Maureen gave me a resin basket festooned with snowmen. She apologized because it wasn’t handmade.

Around that time I noticed that emails from her were now printed in a giant font. And on occasions when I visited her in Florida, her eyeglasses were very thick.

She was going blind.

This isn’t really a story about Aunt Maureen, however. It is about a miracle drug for macular degeneration, or rather, two miracle drugs: Lucentis and Avastin, one expensive, the other almost dirt cheap. It is about the drug company, Genentech, that developed both drugs, and the difficult and controversial decisions made in developing and marketing these drugs. It is about pioneering doctors who want to help their patients, and patients who take risks for the chance to see again.

Aunt Maureen suffers from age-related wet macular degeneration, or AMD. AMD is the leading cause of vision loss in the elderly, affecting about 1.5% of the population over the age of 40 [1]. In the early stages of AMD, a patient might notice that straight lines look wavy, or that the center part of their vision is blurry and without color. AMD doesn’t involve physical pain, but the loss of vision in otherwise healthy individuals is devastating.

“It really started acting up when I was in my mid-40s,” said Aunt Maureen. “My doctor told me I would be blind by the time I was 60.”

Aunt Maureen has some of the risk factors for AMD: older age, female, of Northern European descent [1,2]. She has lived in Florida for about fifteen years now, and high exposure to sunlight is more common in AMD patients [3]. However, she doesn’t smoke and doesn’t have a history of cardiovascular disease or chronic kidney disease, which are other important risk factors [1]. There is also evidence of a genetic component to AMD [3], although none of Aunt Maureen’s immediate family has had any problems with their vision. AMD is not always predictable, nor is it preventable.
AMD is a disease of the retina. The retina is the part of the eye lining most of its inner surface. Like film in a camera, light strikes the retina and forms an image. The macula is part of the retina, the part that is in the back central region of the eye. It is responsible for the clear, sharp central vision needed to drive, read, embroider or paint [3].

There are two forms of AMD: dry and wet. The dry form is less severe and may not affect vision significantly. Dry AMD may or may not progress to the more severe wet form, which affects about 10% of AMD patients [1]. Aunt Maureen initially had the dry form of the disease, but progressed to the wet form about ten years ago.

Wet AMD is called “wet” because fluids, especially blood, are responsible for the damage to the eye. For unknown reasons, new blood vessels behind the eye start to grow in AMD patients. The new blood vessels grow and grow. Blood and other fluids leak from these blood vessels, damaging the macula. In most cases, the damage is irreversible, like the damage done to a photo album stored in a damp basement. The damaged macula can no longer process images clearly and sharply [1].

However, if the renegade blood vessel growth could be stopped before leakage occurs, additional damage and visual loss might be prevented. Therapies for AMD target these blood vessels. Some, like laser therapies, seek to obliterate the blood vessels, but these approaches have been described as being “like using a blowtorch to stop weeds”, according to retinal specialist Dr. Anne Fung of San Francisco [4].

“Treatment of macular degeneration was very depressing five years ago,” says Dr. Ron Danis, a retinal specialist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He cites a patient named Donna, who had a long history of AMD in both eyes. Five years ago she was legally blind, and Danis had run out of therapeutic options for her.

More recently, biotechnology has allowed a more targeted approach to treating AMD. Newer drugs for wet AMD block specific molecules that trigger growth of the new blood vessels.

But why do these unwanted blood vessels grow?

Although not as dramatic as a severed earthworm re-growing a missing segment, all animals possess some ability to regenerate tissue, even in adulthood. New tissue is needed to repair injuries or during pregnancy, for example. The new tissue requires sustenance in the form of oxygen and other nutrients, which is provided by blood. So the body has sophisticated mechanisms to switch on the growth of new tissue, including the new blood vessels needed in those tissues.

The growth of the new tissues is stimulated by proteins known as growth factors, which are chemical messengers produced and distributed in the body under carefully regulated conditions. There are many different growth factors for many different types of tissues. Some help build bone, others nerves, skin, red blood cells, and so on. One class of growth factors called vascular endothelial growth factors, or VEGFs, triggers new blood vessel growth. Scientists call this process angiogenesis.

Sometimes, however, as in the case of wet AMD, angiogenesis gets turned on when it should not be. AMD is not the only disease associated with unwanted angiogenesis. Any cancer tumor bigger than 1 mm (about the size of a grain of sugar) requires a supply of blood in order to continue to grow [5], so like thieves tapping into an oil pipeline, tumors create their own blood vessels to feed themselves.

In the mid-1990s, the discovery of specific growth factors in the body that stimulated angiogenesis lead scientists to hypothesize that blocking these same growth factors might stop cancer from growing. One of these scientists was Dr. Napoleone Ferrara.

Ferrara is a legend at Genentech, itself a legend in the biotechnology industry. Genentech is considered to be the first true biotechnology company, founded in 1976 in South San Francisco, where it is still located. Genentech’s products are pharmaceutical products, but not typical small molecule, chemically synthesized drugs. Genentech’s drugs are proteins, which are very large molecules, and they are produced using recombinant DNA technology. Such drugs are classified as “biologics” since they are produced through the assistance of living cells such as bacteria.

The recent purchase of Genentech by pharmaceutical giant Roche makes Genentech part of a huge corporate entity. However, Genentech still operates more like a small university than a money-making machine, according to a source at Genentech. Dr. Danis, who has been involved with numerous clinical studies sponsored by Genentech, concurs. Genentech’s goal is to make drugs that make real differences in patients’ lives, according to the source at Genentech, not just “me too” drugs or drugs that extend life by a mere month. Genentech has been involved in the development of at least 15 drugs that are currently marketed in the US and worldwide [6].

Ferrara arrived at Genentech in 1988. The handsome physician originally moved to the United States from Italy in the 1980s to study a hormone involved in reproduction called relaxin [7,8]. How he ended up discovering VEGF is a lesson in the circuitous paths that science often takes. And his application of this basic discovery to develop drugs that stopped angiogenesis is an example of every scientist’s dream of a significant breakthrough.

The idea of blocking angiogenesis to treat cancer was first described in 1971 by the late Dr. Judah Folkman, considered the “father of angiogenesis” [9,10], at the Children’s Hospital Medical Center and Harvard Medical School. Scientists tried for years to isolate a specific factor necessary for new blood vessel formation that they could then try to block. They had no problem finding candidate factors; they found a plethora of similar factors that all stimulated new blood vessel formation. But blocking just one of these factors never seemed to have much effect [7]. Like many other important mechanisms in the body, redundancy had been built-in. Attempting to simultaneously block all of the different factors that could stimulate angiogenesis, seemed a daunting task.

At Genentech, Ferrara was still working on relaxin as a potential drug to induce labor. Somewhat unusually in the pharmaceutical industry, Genentech has always encouraged its scientists to work on pet projects in their off-hours, and Ferrara took the opportunity to study angiogenic factors [7,11,12]. Unlike most scientists hunting for anti-angiogenic factors, who were cancer specialists, Ferrara was an expert in hormones involved in human reproduction, some of which are produced in the pituitary gland. This background may have given him the edge. Ferrara chose to look for factors that stimulated new blood vessel formation in the pituitary gland, a tissue that the cancer experts had not considered. And he soon hit pay dirt.

In 1989, he published the first paper describing the factor he found, which he dubbed “at least provisionally” as vascular endothelial growth factor, or VEGF [11]. The name stuck. And a key step towards a future miracle treatment for AMD was taken.

Around this same time, Aunt Maureen’s initial problems had resolved, her vision stabilized, and her macular degeneration had not yet progressed to the wet form. Like a ticking time bomb, though, she knew her vision could start to deteriorate at any time.

During the next decade, much work in Ferrara’s lab and others focused on learning both how VEGF works and also how to stop it from working. One approach to stopping VEGF was to make antibodies that would attack it. Antibodies are made by an animal’s immune system as a way of deactivating foreign substances that could be harmful when they enter the body. Each human has an astounding number of different antibodies, perhaps as many as 10 billion [13], with each antibody specific to a particular foreign substance or “antigen”. Antibodies work by binding very tightly to their target antigen, taking the foreign substance out of commission.

Soon after VEGF was discovered, Genentech started working on a VEGF antibody. Antibodies can be made in animals like rabbits or mice, and they can also be made in animal cells that grow in test tubes. Genentech had already developed antibodies against other proteins to use as drugs, and they knew that a VEGF antibody could be a blockbuster. Genentech was clearly developing the anti-VEGF antibody to use as a cancer therapy, the holy grail of the pharmaceutical industry. But Genentech was also, in parallel, trying to block VEGF in other diseases where VEGF was known to be involved, including wet AMD.

Antibodies administered orally do not remain active in the body, as they are proteins that the digestive system will break down just like a tiny bite of steak. For cancer patients, then, Genentech was planning to bypass the gastrointestinal tract by injecting the drug directly into the blood stream, or intravenously. For cancer, it is not always known where within the body cancer cells may lurk, so intravenous administration makes sense since the drug goes everywhere blood goes. Giving a drug intravenously, however, means there is a bigger chance of side effects since the drug can go places where it should not be. Intravenous administration also requires a lot more drug to ensure enough drug does get to the parts of the body where it is needed. More drug makes treatment more expensive.

To treat wet AMD, Genentech decided to forego intravenous administration and inject the VEGF antibodies right into the vitreous, which is the jelly-like part of the eye. Getting injected into the vitreous of the eye, or intravitrealy, sounds incredibly frightening. I asked Aunt Maureen about it.
“The first time I freaked. But honestly, it doesn’t even hurt”.

Local anesthetic is given before the injection, and the needle used is very fine, a few times thicker than a human hair. The volume delivered to the eye is about the amount of a drop of water. Aunt Maureen reports her eyes feel tender for about a day after the injection, and then everything is fine. She has had at least eight Avastin injections now, about one per month, and has had no side effects to date.

Because antibodies are such big molecules, Genentech was concerned that the VEGF antibody would not be able to move through the gelantinous layers of the eye to the retina, where the drug needed to go to work. So they decided to test how well the drug could move within the eye. Genentech used a radioactively-labeled antibody. They also used a radioactively-labeled fragment of the antibody. The fragment they chose was the part of the antibody that actually was involved with binding VEGF, which is about a third of the entire molecule. This fragment is called a Fab for “Fragment Antigen Binding”.

Genentech injected either the radioactive antibody or Fab into monkey eyes, and then looked to see where the radioactivity went [14]. Sure enough, it looked like a full-length antibody didn’t travel as well within the eye as the shorter Fab fragment. However, they took a shortcut: they didn’t use the actual full-length VEGF antibody, but a different antibody that was about the same size that was easier to track within the animal. This may have been a mistake.

At this point Genentech decided to develop the smaller Fab antibody for wet AMD and the full-length antibody for cancer. They called the full-length antibody bevacizumab, and gave it the brand name of Avastin®. The small fragment version was given the generic name of ranibizumab, with the brand name of Lucentis®.

The true rationale behind Genentech’s decision to develop Avastin and Lucentis as two separate products may never be really known. The monkey study indicates they had some scientific justification to develop the smaller antibody for use in the eye. However, Genentech also certainly realized that having two separate drugs could mean more profit.

Development of the VEGF antibody for cancer proceeded rapidly, and in February of 2004, Genentech received FDA approval to sell Avastin for colon cancer [7]. The development of Lucentis for wet AMD was going well, but slower. By the following year, three clinical studies with Lucentis had been completed. The results were spectacular. 95% of the subjects showed stable or improved vision following one year of treatment with Lucentis [15].

By this time, Aunt Maureen’s AMD had progressed to the wet form. Her vision became so bad she had trouble reading and was driving over sidewalks. Her doctor tried laser therapy. He told Aunt Maureen she was lucky, as she was one of the 10% of patients who responded well to it, at least initially.

Genentech announced the Lucentis results at the meeting of the American Society of Retina Specialists in Montreal of July 2005. It was intended to be the springboard for Lucentis. However, to Genentech’s probable surprise, a different Genentech drug stole the show [15].

That drug was Avastin. As word starting leaking about the miraculous results with Lucentis, a handful of trailblazing ophthalmologists, who couldn’t wait for FDA approval of Lucentis, took matters into their own hands. Some began using intravenous Avastin in patients with wet AMD. And a few brave doctors began injecting the drug, approved only for colon cancer, into eyes of patients who had wet AMD [16,17].

The Avastin results reported at the Montreal meeting, although representing only 18 patients, of whom only one received an intravitreal injection [15], were comparable to the Lucentis results reported at the same meeting, according to an article later that year in the Los Angeles Times [18]. The earlier experiment in monkeys may have mislead Genentech into thinking Avastin would not work in the eye, but these new results in humans showed that it clearly could.

The Montreal meeting was pivotal for Avastin use in AMD, according to Irv Arons, a long-time consultant to the ophthalmology industry [19]. The excitement generated among retinal specialists was tremendous.

“Word spread like a tsunami” according to Lynne Peterson, writing in Trends-in Medicine after the Montreal meeting [15]. Within 3 months more than 1000 wet AMD patients had received intravitreal injections of Avastin, according to the Los Angeles Times [18].

To understand the significance of the use of Avastin in wet AMD at that time, it helps to understand a little about the FDA approval process for drugs. When the FDA approves a drug, it is always for a particular disease or “indication”. Approval means that the FDA has reviewed all of the pertinent animal and human studies of that drug and has agreed that the drug is both effective in treating that disease and safe for use in that disease.

Although the FDA approves a drug for a specific disease or “indication”, it is legal and not unusual for a physician to prescribe and use the drug for other indications. For example, a drug approved for breast cancer might be tried in a patient with a different type of cancer. This type of prescription for a disease other than the official approved FDA indication is called “off-label” usage.

Because a drug used off-label has not gone through the rigorous testing and FDA scrutiny for that disease that the approved indication has, certain barriers exist to help limit widespread off-label usage. The FDA puts strict gags on companies to prevent them from advertising their drugs for unapproved indications. Insurance companies may refuse to pay or reimburse for off-label treatments.

According to Lynne Peterson, writing just after the Montreal meeting, Genentech was alarmed about the flood of off-label Avastin use. Officially, Genentech was concerned about the possible safety problems associated with using Avastin in the eye [15]. Avastin was not manufactured initially to meet the rigorous requirements for use in the eye. In addition, unlike Lucentis, Avastin has to be diluted before it is injected into the eye.

This dilution can only be done by a special compounding pharmacy. There is no formal inspection or quality control required after the dilution step, and errors in dilution or contamination are therefore possible and probably more likely than in the production of the carefully controlled, single-use containers of Lucentis produced entirely within Genentech’s hands. Genentech has no ability to control Avastin compounding once it is sold, yet the company might still be held liable if a patient received an eye infection, for example, after treatment with off-label Avastin.

Dr. Danis at the University of Wisconsin-Madison was one of many caught by the wave of Avastin excitement following the initial reports presented in Montreal prior to the approval of Lucentis. His first experience using Avastin was in Donna, his patient with the long history of AMD who had run out of therapeutic options.

“She came to me waving this newspaper clipping,” said Danis. She demanded that he try Avastin on her. So he did.

She came back a week later. She wanted a shot in the other eye, because she believed the drug was working. Within six months of treatment, she was driving herself to the clinic and seeing 20/40, which means she could read the 5th line down from the top of an eye chart in a vision exam.

“She likes to say she had ‘Avastin’ improvement in both eyes”, chuckles Danis.

Besides possible safety problems, Genentech also had commercial reasons to be concerned about off-label Avastin use. Avastin could steal Lucentis’s market before Lucentis was even officially launched. Genentech therefore raced to get their product approved, seeking “fast track” status to expedite the lengthy, cumbersome FDA review process, which generally takes a year. They submitted their Lucentis data later that year, and Lucentis was approved six months later, in June of 2006 [20].

As might be expected for a drug that is only injected once a month and was expensive to develop and manufacture, Genentech set a high price for Lucentis, around $2000 per injection [21]. Even with Medicare coverage, the standard 20% co-pay required by the patient was about $400 per month for Lucentis, which was too much for some. Avastin, in contrast, is given to cancer patients in doses 100 times greater than Lucentis, and is administered twice per month instead of once. For cancer indications, Avastin is still considered a very expensive drug (up to $100,000 annually per patient [22]), but the cost of the amount needed for an intravitreal injection ends up being very low, about $50, because the amount needed in the eye is so tiny [21]. Avastin could therefore make a significant dent in Lucentis’s profits.

Initially, Medicare and private insurance companies did not reimburse for Avastin when used in AMD because the drug was not approved for that indication, and no rigorous clinical studies had been conducted with the drug to formally test its effectiveness or safety. However, the full drug cost for Avastin without any reimbursement was only about 10% of the cost of Lucentis after reimbursement. So many physicians and patients opted for Avastin, including Aunt Maureen’s eye doctor.

Doctors were split on the use of Avastin or Lucentis [16,23]. Some, like Danis, preferred to use Avastin because of its lower cost. Others questioned the ethics of using Avastin for an unapproved indication after an FDA approved drug, Lucentis, was on the market.

There was also concern that safety problems might start showing up in the burgeoning number of patients receiving Avastin. While several small clinical studies with intravitreal Avastin for AMD were published at this time, no large studies had been conducted, as would have been required prior to FDA approval. Genentech, of course, had no desire to sponsor an intravitreal Avastin study, and they certainly had no incentive to seek approval for Avastin for AMD. Eye doctor associations argued that a head-to-head comparison of Lucentis and Avastin was needed, and many began lobbying for a government-sponsored study to do just that [16,21,23].

During its first year on the market, Lucentis made money, but probably not as much as Genentech had hoped. The Wall Street Journal reported that during the first 6 months of 2007, sales of Avastin in the US were $1.1 billion dollars, while Lucentis sales were about a third of that at $420 million [24].

On October 11, 2007, Genentech’s president sent a letter to members of the eye care community announcing that effective November 30, 2007, Genentech would no longer allow its distributors to sell Avastin to compounding pharmacies [25]. Perhaps realizing the potential hardship this move would make for patients of limited financial means, the communication also discussed a financial support program designed to make Lucentis available to patients who cannot afford Lucentis. This program is still operational, and Danis reports that it has worked well for his patients that qualify for it.

Genentech explained in the letter that this move to block sales to compounding pharmacies was triggered by two FDA inspections. One inspection, of a compounding pharmacy in Massachusetts, took place in late 2004, prior to the approval of Lucentis [26]. The pharmacy was specifically cited for “repackaging” Avastin for use in eye indications. The FDA was “particularly concerned” because Avastin as originally sold is a sterile solution, meaning it contains no microorganisms that might cause infection. By repackaging Avastin, it would be possible for bacteria or other microbes to contaminate the product. The introduction of microbes directly into they eye by intravitreal injection could cause serious eye infections that could lead to blindness.

The other FDA inspection noted in Genentech’s October letter was of Genentech itself. The FDA said that Genentech’s manufacturing facility and quality standards for Avastin were not adequate for making a drug designed for use in the eye [25].

Some rationale beyond profit appears to exist, therefore, for Genentech’s October 2007 decision to block sale of Avastin to compounding pharmacies. Even so, Genentech received considerable flack from the press regarding this decision. A Wall Street Journal article published the day after the Genentech letter was released pointed out that if patients were given Avastin instead of Lucentis, the annual savings to the Medicare program (and therefore US taxpayers) could be over $1 billion [27]. This caught the attention of Senator Herb Kohl (D-Wisconsin), Chairman of the Senate’s Special Committee on Aging. He asked that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services look into the matter [28].

In response to the strong criticism from physicians, patients, Congress and the press, Genentech announced two weeks later that they would delay the restriction of sales to compounding pharmacies until January 2008 [29]. In this second announcement, Genentech explicitly stated that the decision to block sales was “not motivated by a desire for increased profits”, a comment that has been viewed with some skepticism in the media [30,31,32,33,34].

In December of 2007, following two months of intensive discussions between Genentech and several eye doctors’ organizations to reach a compromise to the dilemma, Genentech announced that it would allow sale of Avastin to physicians, who could then direct the drug to a compounding pharmacy [35]. Genentech also reported destroying more than $200 million worth of Avastin that would not have been suited for use in the eye, presumably to address the FDA’s concerns following their inspection [29].

In the meantime, the long-hoped for head-to-head clinical study comparing Avastin and Lucentis began in February 2008 and is still underway [36]. As expected, Genentech is not involved in the study [37], which is sponsored by the National Eye Institute and is called the CATT study (“Comparison of Age-related Macular Degeneration Treatment Trials: Lucentis-Avastin”). Results from this study, which involves 1208 participants in 59 locations throughout the US, should be available in February of 2012 [36].

The results from this study have important implications. It will at long last provide data regarding the relative effectiveness and safety of Avastin and Lucentis, which may improve treatment for patients with wet AMD. If the Avastin results are promising, billions of tax-payers’ dollars could be saved each year. The study will also address the optimal dosing frequency for both Avastin and Lucentis, which has been the subject of conflicting reports in the literature. If Avastin proves successful in this study, many countries worldwide may more formally adopt Avastin usage for wet AMD, particularly in those countries where Lucentis is not currently available, according to Danis.

Pharmaceutical companies often justify the high cost of their products by citing statistics about the risks and high costs of developing drugs, or by explaining that a large percentage of their revenues are used to fund research on the next miracle cure. But pharmaceutical companies are for-profit enterprises, and their public financial statements make it clear that if successful, they make money well beyond expenses. Do pharmaceutical companies deserve to earn money if it means making life saving or important quality-of-life enhancing drugs more expensive? Is the high cost of such drugs, reimbursed at least partly by Medicare and insurance companies, a surreptitious scheme by drug companies to make the taxpaying public support them? Should the public have access to drugs that have not been approved by the FDA when FDA-approved drugs for that disease exist? The ethical issues associated with the pharmaceutical industry are complex and continually evolving, and the Avastin-Lucentis debate highlights many of them.

No one outside of Genentech will probably ever know the whole story behind the development and marketing strategies for Avastin and Lucentis. When I asked a source at Genentech if she could provide additional insight into this area, or guide me to someone at Genentech who could, she was required to tell me that Genentech employees were forbidden to discuss the Avastin/Lucentis controversy.

What is not disputed, however, is that Genentech’s two drugs, Avastin and Lucentis, have helped many people around the world retain or regain their eyesight, a truly significant medical advance. In the words of Dr. Danis: “It’s almost like a miracle”.

Last year Christmas I received a beautiful lace-trimmed and embroidered dresser scarf that Aunt Maureen made for me. I see the dresser scarf every morning when I first get up and fumble for my eye-glasses, which I need to get me to the bathroom where I put in my contact lenses. Aunt Maureen is now well past the age of 60. And she can see.

1. Hazin R, Freeman PD, Kahook MY (2009) Age-related macular degeneration: a guide for the primary care physician. J Natl Med Assoc 101: 134-138.
2. Gohel PS, Mandava N, Olson JL, Durairaj VD (2008) Age-related macular degeneration: an update on treatment. Am J Med 121: 279-281.
3. Chakravarthy U, Evans J, Rosenfeld PJ (2010) Age related macular degeneration. BMJ 340: 526-530.
4. Chase M (2007) Genentech's Big Drug For Eyes Faces a Rival. The Wall Street Journal.
5. Cuaron L, Berg D (2004) Antiangiogenesis: A New Paradigm in Cancer Therapy. Chemotherapy Special Interest Group Newsletter: Oncology Nursing Society.
7. Ferrara N (2009) Anti-angiogenic drugs to treat human disease: an interview with Napoleone Ferrara by Kristin H. Kain. Dis Model Mech 2: 324-325.
9. Woodard D (2004) Angiogenesis: One Nurse's Journey and Quest for Treatment. Topics in Advanced Practic Nursing eJournal: Medscape.
10. Folkman J (1971) Tumor angiogenesis: therapeutic implications. N Engl J Med 285: 1182-1186.
11. Ferrara N, Henzel WJ (1989) Pituitary follicular cells secrete a novel heparin-binding growth factor specific for vascular endothelial cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 161: 851-858.
12. Weintraub A (2003) Online Extra: Drug Development, Genentech Style. Business Week: Bloomberg.
14. Mordenti J, Cuthbertson RA, Ferrara N, Thomsen K, Berleau L, et al. (1999) Comparisons of the intraocular tissue distribution, pharmacokinetics, and safety of 125I-labeled full-length and Fab antibodies in rhesus monkeys following intravitreal administration. Toxicol Pathol 27: 536-544.
15. Peterson L (2005) American Society of Retinal Specialists, Montreal, Canada, July 16-20, 2005. Trends-in-Medicine.
16. Rosenfeld PJ (2006) Intravitreal avastin: the low cost alternative to lucentis? Am J Ophthalmol 142: 141-143.
17. Canning C, Lotery A (2006) Bevacizumab: a new way of doing business? Eye (Lond) 20: 985-987.
18. Gellene D (2005) Avastin Use in Eyes Irks Genentech. Los Angeles Times.
19. Arons I (2006) Avastin: A New Hope for Treating AMD. Irv Arons' Journal.
21. Klein RM, Klein RB (2007) Avastin versus Lucentis: ethical issues in treatment of age-related macular degeneration. Retina 27: 1163-1165.
22. Kolata G, Pollack A (2008) Costly Cancer Drug Offers Hope, but Also a Dilemma. The New York Times.
23. Schmucker C, Antes G, Lelgemann M (2009) Position paper: the need for head-to-head studies comparing Avastin versus Lucentis. Surv Ophthalmol 54: 705-707.
24. Goldstein J (2007) Genentech Restricting Avastin Sales to Curb Eye Use. The Wall Street Journal.
27. Goldstein J, Chase M (2007) Genentech to Limit Avastin Availability
Use of Cancer Treatment For Eye Ailment Hurts Sales of Targeted Drug. The Wall Street Journal.
28. Goldstein J (2007) Sen. Kohl Queries Medicare on Genentech Drugs. The Wall Street Journal.
30. Haddrill M (2010) Lucentis Vs. Avastin: A Macular Degeneration Treatment Controversy. All About Vision.
31. Williams DE (2007) Latest developments in the Avastin/Lucentis saga raise new questions. Health Business Blog.
32. Hamilton DP (2007) Genentech takes a step back from the dark side, delays Avastin restritions. VentureBeat.
33. Silverman E (2007) Genentech blinks and delays Avastin restrictions. Pharmalotcom.
34. Lewcock A (2007) Genentech Avastin decision 'hard to overlook'. in-Pharma Technologist.

Wendy Bedale

A biochemist by training, Wendy currently is the Director of Regulatory Affairs for Deltanoid Pharmaceuticals and is an Assistant Scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She enjoys reading and writing about science and technology in her free time.

She can be contacted at: Wendy Bedale

June 29, 2010

Leave Fireworks to the Professionals this Fourth of July

nyc fireworks via jinners.com blog

Each Fourth of July, thousands of people are injured from using consumer fireworks. According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, more than 9,000 fireworks-related injuries happen each year. Of these, nearly half are head-related injuries with nearly 30 percent of these injuries to the eyes.  One-fourth of fireworks eye injuries result in permanent vision loss or blindness.

July is Fireworks Eye Safety Awareness Month, and we at EyeCare 20/20 want to remind you to leave fireworks to professionals. Too many Fourth of July celebrations are ruined because a child has to be rushed to the emergency room after a fireworks accident.  Potentially blinding injuries can be avoided if families attend a professional public fireworks display instead of putting on a home fireworks display.

Children are the most common victims of firework accidents, with those fifteen years old or younger accounting for half of all fireworks eye injuries in the United States. For children under the age of five, seemingly innocent sparklers account for one-third of all fireworks injuries. Sparklers can burn at nearly 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, which is hot enough to cause a third-degree burn.


Among the most serious injuries are abrupt trauma to the eye from bottle rockets.  The rockets fly erratically, often injuring bystanders. Injuries from bottle rockets can include eye lid lacerations, corneal abrasions, traumatic cataract retinal detachment, optic nerve damage, rupture of the eyeball, eye muscle damage, and complete blindness.


For a safe and healthy Independence Day celebration, follow of the following tips:


  • Never let children play with fireworks of any type.
  • View fireworks from a safe distance: at least 500 feet away, or up to a quarter of a mile for best viewing.
  • Respect safety barriers set up to allow pyrotechnicians to do their jobs safely.
  • Leave the lighting of fireworks to trained professionals.
  • Follow directives given by event ushers or public safety personnel.
  • If you find unexploded fireworks remains, do not touch them. Immediately contact your local fire or police departments.
  • If you get an eye injury from fireworks, seek medical help immediately.

We at EyeCare 20/20 wish everyone a safe and happy 4th of July Holiday Weekend!

June 10, 2010

"Vodka Eyeballing": What's The Matter With Kids Today?


Now I've heard it all, the latest trend from the youth in England is called "Vodka Eyeballing."  It involves putting an open bottle of vodka in direct contact with one's open eye!  The claim is that it leads to a faster high, although it appears that those doing it on YouTube are already wasted!

The American Academy of Ophthalmology has issued a statement that I totally agree with:

A dangerous drinking game called "vodka eyeballing" is attracting public attention on YouTube. People need to be aware that anyone who pours vodka directly into his eye risks damaging the surface epithelial cells–often causing pain and infection. More seriously, "eyeballing" can also lead to permanent vision damage by killing endothelial cells in deeper layers of the eye's cornea. This is unlikely, but possible. The cornea is the clear outer part of the eye that focuses light and provides much of the optical power. Depending on the amount of alcohol and length of time it is in contact with the eye, epithelial cell loss could result in corneal ulcers or scarring, not to mention a great deal of pain. And if endothelial cells die off, vision recovery would be uncertain. "Eyeballers" do not even get a "quick high" as claimed, because the volume of vodka absorbed by the conjunctiva and cornea is too small to have that effect.

The American Academy of Ophthalmology strongly advises the public not to engage in "vodka eyeballing."

May 17, 2010

American Academy of Ophthalmology's Eye Injury Snapshot Begins

EIS logo

The Eye Injury Snapshot is an annual study conducted by the American Academy of Ophthalmology and the American Society of Ocular Trauma to identify the nature and prevalence of eye injuries. It has been conducted each year since 2004.  This year's Eye Injury Snapshot will be held May 16 to 23, 2010.  Ophthalmologists are asked to report all eye injuries that occur during this week to a data base.  Results are used to educate the public.

Last year, 627 completed questionnaires were received.  Most of the findings were consistent with the 2008 results, though results showed an increase in injuries to children over previous years.

Here are last year's results:

  • 75% of the injuries reported were to males.
  • 44% of the injuries sustained were to people between the ages of 18 to 45. Nearly one in five reported injuries were to people 12 years of age or younger (17.8%), and 8% were to people 65 or older.
  • 48% of reported eye injuries occurred in the home, nearly a third of which (29%) were caused by play or sports. More than one in five at-home injuries were due to home repair or power tools.
  • Among injuries at home, almost one third (30%) were in the living areas of the home (e.g., the kitchen, bedroom, bathroom, living or family room). The most common place of injury was the yard or garden (40%).
  • Accidents were reported as the cause of 80% of the injuries. Assaults accounted for slightly more than 10% of eye injuries.
  • 77% of injury victims were not wearing eyewear.
  • Drugs and/or alcohol were involved in less than 5% of reported injuries.
  • Among injuries involving motor vehicle crashes, 53% of patients were reportedly not wearing seat belts.
  • 44% of the injuries occurred to patients’ right eyes only, 39% sustained injuries to the left eye.
  • 56% of treatments were provided in the ophthalmologist’s office, while 32% was provided in a hospital emergency department/emergency room.
  • Generally, the prognoses were good. Ophthalmologists reported 77% of the patients who sustained eye injuries were expected to fully recover, while another 11% would experience mild impairment.
  • Most ophthalmologists felt that the eye injuries they examined and treated could have been avoided if the patients had worn appropriate protective eyewear.
  • 55% thought that the injuries could have been avoided with patient education.
Although EyeCare 20/20 plans on participating in this year's survey, it is our hope not to see any serious eye injuries this year!

May 05, 2010

Want Long Lashes? Where to Buy Latisse


There certainly has been a lot of interest in Latisse in my office since I first mentioned its approval last year on this blog.

There was an interesting article in May 1's NY Times:  Long Lashes Without Prescription, but With Risks.  This article carefully describes a controversy new to me, the selling of Latisse without a prescription or seeing an eye doc.

It seems there are many places on the web where one can purchase Latisse.  From on-line pharmacies to RNs, to GPs.  Many of these sites will sell the Latisse without the patient being seen or evaluated.  Another business model is for patients to be evaluated by their dispenser, whether it be their GP, plastic surgeon, Ob/Gyn, or facialist!

I just don't get it.  As I remember correctly, I had a total of 1/2 day of ophthalmology while in med school., so how are these people evaluating and dealing with these patients.    I realize there are not many serious complications associated with Latisse, but who better to deal with them than your ophthalmologist:  see him for an initial evaluation, get an Rx, fill it at a pharmacy, and folow-up with the ophthalmologist if you are experiencing any side effects.  At EyeCare 20/20, if a patient is interested in Latisse, we have a discussion about its pros and cons, and a Rx is written, which can be filled anywhere.  We do not dispense Latisse, we have better things to do with our valuable time!

By the way, he most common side effects after using Latisse solution are an itching sensation in the eyes and/or eye redness. This was reported in approximately 4% of patients. Latisse solution may cause other less common side effects which typically occur on the skin close to where Latisse is applied, or in the eyes. These include skin darkening, eye irritation, dryness of the eyes, and redness of the eyelids.

April 19, 2010

Flawed Conclusions: Physician Ownership Linked to Higher Surgery Volume


There has been a lot of buzz on the web this past week concerning an article in this month's Health Affairs titled: Physician-Ownership Of Ambulatory Surgery Centers Linked To Higher Volume Of Surgeries.  In this article, John M. Hollingsworth, M.D., of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and colleagues used  Ambulatory Surgery Databases to analyze data from Florida from 2003 to 2005. They looked at all patients in Florida who underwent one of five common outpatient procedures including  cataract extraction. They compared the number of surgeries performed among ASC owners before and after they acquired ASC ownership with that of physicians who were non-owners. They found that owners performed  twice as many procedures as non-owners.  Assuming that these are the facts of the study, you can't argue with numbers; what I have a problem with is the author's conclusion:

"To the extent that owners are motivated by profit, one potential explanation for our findings is that these physicians may be lowering their thresholds for treating patients with these common outpatient procedures."

I find this conclusion offensive.  Lowering treatment parameters to generate profits?  Cataracts cause a decrease in one's vision, what patient is going to submit to eye surgery without the symptoms that warrant this surgery?  I have been a part-owner in River Drive Surgery Center for the past 8 years.  During this time, my cataract volume has certainly increased.  It is NOT because  profits have lowered by treatment parameters!  Here are some of the reasons that I can think of of the top of my head (I find it amazing the that author's of this paper couldn't come up with any of these):

  • Patient friendliness.  Patients find the ASC setting much less daunting than the hospital setting.  They are not shuffled from department to department, they are treated as individuals in a very caring matter.
  • Efficiencies. ASC's are much more efficient than hospitals.  When I did my cataract surgery in a hospital, I found myself sitting around for the room to be ready.  It was difficult to do more than 1 procedure per hour.  In my ASC, there is no waiting for a room, and no down time.  I am now able to perform 6 cataracts an hour, without rushing.
  • Costs.  ASC's are able to deliver care that is far superior than hospitals at a fraction of the cost.  This saves insurance companies as well as patients money.
  • Equipment.  By owning an ASC, surgeon-owners are now able to continually upgrade equipment.  At River Drive, we pride ourselves on always having the most current, cutting edge equipment.  This allows us to provide superior care to our patients!
  • Patient Experience.  We strive ourselves into providing a superior patient experience and outcome.  We generally succeed, and because we do, patients are apt to refer their friends and family to us for their surgery.  Success breeds success!
In conclusion, I agree with Dr. Hollingsworth, owners of ASC's do more cataract surgery!  However, this is NOT because we have lowered our operating standards.  It IS because we strive to do a better job.  Obviously, we are succeeding!