Visual Acuity and Quality of Life Outcomes With Pegcetacoplan Treatment: A Post Hoc Analysis From the OAKS and DERBY Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of pegcetacoplan on visual function and patient quality of life (QoL) measures based on distance of geographic atrophy (GA) lesions from the center of the fovea. DESIGN: Post hoc analysis from OAKS and DERBY, two global, 24-month, multicenter, randomized, double-masked, sham-controlled phase 3 studies evaluating pegcetacoplan treatment for GA in age-related macular degeneration (AMD). PARTICIPANTS: 888 study patients with GA for whom all data necessary for the post hoc analysis to be performed had been collected were included. METHODS: Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25) were assessed at baseline and every 4 and 6 months, respectively, to completion at month 24 in both pegcetacoplan-treated eyes and sham (observed) eyes. Eyes were stratified based on optical coherence tomography‒derived GA lesion location ≥250 µm (n = 192) or <250 µm (n = 696) from the foveal center. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change from baseline in BCVA and NEI VFQ-25 was evaluated over 24 months in GA lesions based on distance (≥250 or <250 µm) from the foveal center. Adjustment was conducted via propensity score weighting, where model specification and baseline covariate selection were done a priori based on clinical rationale. RESULTS: Pegcetacoplan-treated eyes with GA lesion margins ≥250 µm from the foveal center demonstrated directionally slower decline in visual acuity (mean +5.6 [SE 3.2] [P = .0785]) and QoL (mean +4.0 [SE 2.4] [P = .0905]) from baseline at 24 months compared with sham. The change in visual acuity (BCVA, mean -1.6 [SE 1.1] [P = .1522]) and QoL (NEI VFQ-25, -2.3 [1.1] [P = .0284]) in pegcetacoplan-treated eyes with GA lesion margins <250 µm from the foveal center were within the limits of variability compared with sham. CONCLUSIONS: Pegcetacoplan treatment demonstrated a potentially meaningful slower decline in visual acuity and QoL for patients with GA lesions ≥250 µm from the foveal center. The change in visual acuity and QoL seen with pegcetacoplan treatment for patients with GA lesions <250 µm from the foveal center were within the limits of variability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".