380 likes | 537 Views
PMA P030028. Phakic IOL for the correction of Myopia. Goals of This Panel Meeting. Assess Evaluate Identify. Assess. Risks Benefits. Risks. Operative: Improper Enclavation – 2 nd surgical procedures Other as in cataract surgery
E N D
PMA P030028 Phakic IOL for the correction of Myopia
Assess • Evaluate • Identify
Assess • Risks • Benefits
Risks • Operative: • Improper Enclavation – 2nd surgical procedures • Other as in cataract surgery • Cataract Induction/Corneal Damage due to skills of surgeon
Risks • Postoperative • Increased IOP • Iritis (Immediate and Persistent) • Potential for pigmentary glaucoma • Critical Loss of Endothelial cells and corneal function • Retinal Detachment • Dislodgment of IOL
Benefits • Correction of Refractive Error without mitigating optical factors as with spectacle lenses or contact lens complications • Reversibility • Expands the options for correction of moderate to high myopia for those not qualifying/interested in corneal refractive procedures
Evaluate • Effectiveness Outcomes • Safety Outcomes
Effectiveness Outcomes • UCVA • BSCVA • Predictability • Stability
20/20 or better 1 yr. (n=493) 35.1% 2 yrs. (n=356) 34.6% 3 yrs. (n=231) 31.2% 20/40 or better 86.5% 87.1% 84.0% UCVA
20/20 or better 1 yr. (n=491) 79% 2 yrs. (n=355) 83% 3 yrs. (n=228) 79% 20/40 or better 99% 100% 100% BSCVA
±0.50 1 yr. (n=354) 72% 2 yrs. (n=262) 74% 3 yrs. (n=162) 72% ± 1.00 1yr. (465) 94.5% 2yrs. (n=333) 94% 3yrs. (n=214) 95% Predictability
±0.50 between visits 83% to 87% ± 1.00 between visits 96.2% to 98.2% Mean Differences in refraction between visits ranged from -.02 to -.06 over the 3 year period Stability for the Consistent Cohort
Safety Outcomes • BSCVA – already covered • Induced Astigmatism • Cells/Flare • Corneal Edema • Increased IOP/Glaucoma • Cataracts • ECC loss & Corneal Compromise
Induced Astigmatism • 2.4% @ 1 Year • 2.0% @ 2 Years • 3.5% @ 3 years
Inflammatory Responses • Cells & Flare • Corneal Edema
Increased IOP/Glaucoma • Secondary to retained viscoelastic & steroid responses • Did not persist beyond the first month • Responded to treatment when given
Cataracts • Total of 49 lens opacities reported • 4 were visually significant : • 3 required extraction • 1 lost 2 lines of BSCVA
ECC loss & Corneal Compromise • Corneal Compromise not reported during study • ECC loss analysis covered in detail by Dr. Gerry Gray
Identify • Thresholds of critical inclusion criteria to minimize risks • Population that may benefit most
Critical Thresholds Thresholds of critical inclusion criteria to minimize risks Inclusion criteria specify ≥2000 as the lower limit for preop ECC
Projected Loss Over TimeAssuming Linearity/Preop 2500 cells/mm²
Two models : • 5mm and 6mm • Directly relate to pupil sizes in mesopic conditions and associated glare & halos
Refractive Benefits The Artisan™ Lens is indicated for the reduction or elimination of myopia in adults with myopia > -5 to < –20 D with less than 2D of astigmatism at the spectacle plane in patients with stable refractive errors. • More alternatives for correction in lower ranges of myopia than in higher ranges
ECC Change Over Time from Baseline Anterior Chamber Depth 3.0 to 3.2mm
∆ECC : Subjects with 3 & 4 Year Follow-UpMean ECC at Pre-Op = 2550N=27
Question #1 Do the endothelial cell data presented above by overall analysis, stratified by anterior chamber depth and the extrapolations over time provide reasonable assurance of safety of the Artisan myopia lens?
Question #2 Do the data presented in the PMA provide reasonable assurance of safety?
Background Question #3 The proposed statement of indications reads: “The reduction or elimination of myopia in adults with myopia > -5 to < –20 D with less than 2D of astigmatism at the spectacle plane; Patients with documented stability of refraction for the prior 6 months, as demon- strated by a spherical equivalent change of ≤0.50D.”
Question 3a Does the panel recommend any modifications to the proposed statement of indications with respect to: a). minimum anterior chamber depth (ACD’s of <3.2 mm were excluded in the study),
Question #3b b). maximum pupil size (the 2 models of Artisan are intended for patients with pupil sizes up to 5.0 mm and up to 6.0 mm); and,
Question #3c c). minimum preoperative endothelial cell density? The outcomes of ECC changes reported in the background data for Question #1 above should be referenced if the panel wishes to recommend an acceptable minimum endothelial cell density to qualify a patient.
Question #4 Do the panel members have any additional labeling recommendations?