Skip to content

A Study of an Encapsulated Cell Technology (ECT) Implant for Patients With Atrophic Macular Degeneration

A Phase II Study of Implants of Encapsulated Human NTC-201 Cells Releasing Ciliary Neurotrophic Factor (CNTF), in Participants With Visual Acuity Impairment Associated With Atrophic Macular Degeneration

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 2
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT00447954
Enrollment
53
Registered
2007-03-15
Start date
2007-01-05
Completion date
2009-05-11
Last updated
2025-03-28

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Nonexudative Age-Related Macular Degeneration, Unspecified Eye, Intermediate Dry Stage

Keywords

eye disease, retinal disorder, CNTF, AMD, Atrophic AMD

Brief summary

The purpose of this study is to look at the safety and effectiveness of CNTF implants on vision in participants with atrophic macular degeneration. This research is being done because there are no effective therapies for people with atrophic macular degeneration. Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a condition that affects the macula, the central part of the retina that we use for seeing details. There are two types of AMD, one is the wet type in which new blood vessels grow, also known as choroidal neovascularization (CNV), but the other is the dry type in which the healthy cells die, and that is the target of this study. This is called atrophic macular degeneration. The implant is a small capsule that contains human retinal pigment epithelium cells. These cells have been given the ability to make CNTF and release it through the capsule membrane into the surrounding fluid. In this study, two different CNTF dose levels will be used: a high dose and a low dose, as well as a sham surgery (or placebo) group.

Detailed description

Histopathologic studies of multiple forms of retinal neurodegenerative diseases have demonstrated the possibility of using the neurotrophic factor CNTF as an effective approach to reducing photoreceptor cell loss. Consequently, it had been hypothesized that the use of the implanted NT-501 capsule, which secretes CNTF into the vitreous, might be beneficial in people with atrophic macular degeneration. The purpose of this pilot study was to accumulate preliminary data on the effect of the intraocular NT-501 implant on visual acuity in patients with atrophic macular degeneration. The study had a double-masked, multi-center, randomized, parallel group design. Eligible patients were randomized on a 2:1:1 basis to the higher CNTF output NTC-201-6A.02 implant, the lower CNTF output NTC-201-10.02 implant or to sham surgery, respectively. The surgeon designated by the Principal Investigator (PI), the PI, vision examiners, reading center graders, and patients were all masked as to the dose of the implant. The patients and the vision examiners were masked as to which treatment was received. Approximately 48 patients with geographic atrophy compatible with category 3 or 4 AMD were planned to be enrolled. All patients were to be followed clinically for 18 months. Patients randomized to the CNTF implants were implanted at baseline, had the option of being explanted at or after 12 months, and all were followed clinically for 18 months. Follow-up for safety occurred throughout the study period.

Interventions

COMBINATION_PRODUCTHigh Dose NT-501 implant

High Dose NT-501

COMBINATION_PRODUCTLow Dose NT-501 implant

Low Dose NT-501

OTHERSham

Sham Procedure

Sponsors

Neurotech Pharmaceuticals
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
50 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

Study inclusion criteria: 1. To participate in this study, the participant had to understand and sign the protocol's informed consent (if the participant's vision was impaired to the point where it was not possible to read the informed consent document, the informed consent document was read in its entirety to the participant). 2. Women of childbearing potential (women with last menses \<1 year prior to screening) had to agree to use an effective form of birth control from study onset until they completed the 18 month study visit. 3. Participant had to be medically able to undergo ophthalmic surgery for NT-501 implant. 4. Best-corrected visual acuity in the study eye between 20/50 and 20/200 (68-34 letter score) as measured using EVA. 5. Presence in the study and/or fellow eye of geographic atrophy (GA) compatible with category 3 or 4 age-related macular degeneration (AMD) as defined by AREDS (AREDS, 2001). Also, the GA in the study eye had to be associated with vision loss as assessed by a vision test. GA was defined as one or more well-defined, usually more or less circular patches of partial or complete depigmentation of the RPE, typically with exposure of underlying choroidal blood vessels. Even if much of the RPE appeared to be preserved and large choroidal vessels were not visible, a roundish patch of RPE partial depigmentation might still be classified as early GA. A patch had to be at least 175 microns in area. 6. Participants had steady fixation in the study eye in the foveal or parafoveal area with media clear enough for good quality photographs. Study

Exclusion criteria

1. Participant less than 50 years of age (to minimize geographic atrophy from causes other than AMD). 2. Participant medically unable to comply with study procedures or follow-up visits. 3. Participant had evidence of ocular disease other than AMD that might confound the outcome of the study (e.g., diabetic retinopathy, uveitis, etc.). 4. Participant had chronic requirement (e.g., \> or = 4 weeks at a time) for ocular medications or had disease(s), that in the judgment of the examining physician, were vision threatening or might affect the primary outcome (artificial tears were permitted). 5. Participant had evidence of classic or occult choroidal neovascularization in either eye, which might include serous RPE detachment, stippling on a fluorescein angiogram, macular edema, evidence of hemorrhage and lipid, and disciform scar. 6. Participant had a requirement for acyclovir and/or related products during study duration. To be eligible for this study, the participant had to discontinue use of these products prior to enrollment and could not continue with the products until after they had completed the study. 7. Participant had evidence of central serous chorio-retinopathy (CSR) in either eye. 8. Participant had evidence of pathologic myopia in either eye. 9. Participant had evidence of pseudovitelliform macular degeneration (a dominantly inherited disease characterized by a round or oval yellow subretinal macular deposit) in either eye. 10. Participant was receiving systemic steroids or other immunosuppressive medications. 11. Participant with evidence of vitreo-retinal traction maculopathy in either eye. 12. Participant had a history of laser, photodynamic therapy (PDT), intravitreal injection of antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agent, or any previous treatment for AMD other than AREDS or equivalent supplement formulation. 13. Prior history of vitrectomy, penetrating keratoplasty, trabeculectomy or trabeculoplasty. 14. Participant had any of the following lens opacities: cortical opacity \> standard 3, posterior subcapsular opacity \> standard 3, or a nuclear opacity \> standard 3 as measured on the AREDS clinical lens grading system. 15. Participant had undergone lens removal in the last 3 months. 16. Participant had participated in any other clinical trial of a drug or within the last 6 months. 17. Participant was on chemotherapy. 18. Participant was on ocular or systemic medications known to be toxic to the lens, retina, or optic nerve. 19. Participant was pregnant or lactating. 20. Participant had other retinal disease(s). 21. Participant had a history of malignancy, except study participants with a history of successfully treated cancer (≥5 years prior to inclusion in the trial). 22. Participant was considered immunodeficient or had a known history of HIV. 23. Participant with a history of ocular herpes zoster. 24. Participant's fellow eye visual acuity worse than 20/400. 25. Participant had undergone LASIK surgery or other refractive surgery for either eye in less than 6 months prior to screening. 26. Participants with severe hearing disabilities in both ears. 27. Participants with unmanaged diabetes, patients with CME, or retinopathy in either eye. 28. Participant had a history of retinal detachment in either eye. 29. Participant who had been diagnosed and treated for amblyopia as an infant. 30. Participant with a history of Pars Plana Vitrectomy.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
BCVA Response Defined as an Increased in 10 Letters at 1 Year Post-implant1 year post-implantResponse is defined as a improvement from baseline at Month 12 in monocular best visual acuity (BCVA) in the study eye of at least 10 letters as assessed by standard Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
The Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up PeriodFrom initial implant 18 months post-implantChange from baseline at post-baseline visits in monocular best visual acuity (BCVA) as assessed by standard Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart.

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Recruitment details

The study had a double-masked, multi-center, randomized, parallel group design. Patients were randomized on a 2:1:1 basis to the higher CNTF output NTC-201-6A.02 implant, the lower CNTF output NTC-201-10.02 implant or to sham surgery. A total of 53 patients were randomized to the treatment groups: 27 patients to the higher CNTF output NTC-201-6A.02 implant, 13 patients to the lower CNTF output NTC-201-10.02 implant and 13 patients to sham surgery.

Pre-assignment details

Two patients withdrew following randomization but prior to the implantation/sham surgery procedure (one in the low-output implant arm and one in the sham surgery arm). Four patients withdrew early, all in the high dose treatment group. In two cases, withdrawal was due to AEs; one patient was lost to follow up and one withdrew consent.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Low Dose
NT-501 implant: Low Dose
13
Low Dose
NT-501 implant: Low Dose
13
High Dose
NT-501 implant: High Dose
27
High Dose
NT-501 implant: High Dose
27
Sham
No implant (Sham Procedure)
13
Sham
No implant (Sham Procedure)
13
Total106

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001FG002
Overall StudyAdverse Event020
Overall StudyExclusionary event prior to implant procedure100
Overall StudyLost to Follow-up010
Overall StudyWithdrawal by Subject011

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicLow DoseHigh DoseShamTotal
Age, Continuous78.3 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 5.6
74.9 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.5
74.5 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6
75.6 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.8
Baseline BCVA
Treated Eye
49.9 Letter score (# of letters read correct)
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.2
53.5 Letter score (# of letters read correct)
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9
56.3 Letter score (# of letters read correct)
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.6
53.2 Letter score (# of letters read correct)
STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.6
Baseline BCVA
Untreated Eye
55.7 Letter score (# of letters read correct)
STANDARD_DEVIATION 23.2
55.0 Letter score (# of letters read correct)
STANDARD_DEVIATION 21.6
68.1 Letter score (# of letters read correct)
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.1
59.6 Letter score (# of letters read correct)
STANDARD_DEVIATION 18
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
13 Participants27 Participants13 Participants53 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Ocular History
Years since first diagnosed with AMD
6.75 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.81
8.39 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.82
9.84 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.06
8.34 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.36
Ocular History
Years since ocular disease
2.89 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.54
3.44 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.34
5.93 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.63
3.92 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 5.92
Ocular History
Years since ocular surgery
5.99 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.13
4.73 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.31
2.49 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.66
4.65 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.64
Ocular History
Years since ocular treatment
1.60 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0
5.18 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.68
2.63 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0
3.65 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.79
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
13 Participants27 Participants13 Participants53 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
6 Participants17 Participants5 Participants28 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
7 Participants10 Participants8 Participants25 Participants
Type of Ocular History
Ocular Disease
13 Participants27 Participants13 Participants53 Participants
Type of Ocular History
Ocular Surgery
9 Participants13 Participants6 Participants28 Participants
Type of Ocular History
Ocular Treatment
1 Participants2 Participants1 Participants4 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
EG002
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 121 / 270 / 12
other
Total, other adverse events
4 / 128 / 272 / 12
serious
Total, serious adverse events
1 / 1210 / 271 / 12

Outcome results

Primary

BCVA Response Defined as an Increased in 10 Letters at 1 Year Post-implant

Response is defined as a improvement from baseline at Month 12 in monocular best visual acuity (BCVA) in the study eye of at least 10 letters as assessed by standard Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart.

Time frame: 1 year post-implant

Population: N=number of eyes assessed in all treated participants (mITT population)

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Low DoseBCVA Response Defined as an Increased in 10 Letters at 1 Year Post-implantNo Response9 eyes
Low DoseBCVA Response Defined as an Increased in 10 Letters at 1 Year Post-implantResponse3 eyes
High DoseBCVA Response Defined as an Increased in 10 Letters at 1 Year Post-implantNo Response24 eyes
High DoseBCVA Response Defined as an Increased in 10 Letters at 1 Year Post-implantResponse3 eyes
ShamBCVA Response Defined as an Increased in 10 Letters at 1 Year Post-implantResponse1 eyes
ShamBCVA Response Defined as an Increased in 10 Letters at 1 Year Post-implantNo Response11 eyes
Secondary

The Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period

Change from baseline at post-baseline visits in monocular best visual acuity (BCVA) as assessed by standard Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart.

Time frame: From initial implant 18 months post-implant

Population: N=number of eyes assessed in all treated participants (mITT population)

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Low DoseThe Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period1 month post-implant - Treated-0.1 Letter score (number of letters)Standard Deviation 6.6
Low DoseThe Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period1 month post-implant - Untreated1.0 Letter score (number of letters)Standard Deviation 6.1
Low DoseThe Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period3 months post-implant - Treated-4.4 Letter score (number of letters)Standard Deviation 7.9
Low DoseThe Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period3 months post-implant - Untreated-0.5 Letter score (number of letters)Standard Deviation 4.4
Low DoseThe Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period4 months post-implant - Treated-0.8 Letter score (number of letters)Standard Deviation 11.2
Low DoseThe Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period4 months post-implant - Untreated-1.0 Letter score (number of letters)Standard Deviation 5.4
Low DoseThe Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period6 months post-implant - Treated-0.1 Letter score (number of letters)Standard Deviation 11.8
Low DoseThe Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period6 months post-implant - Untreated-1.6 Letter score (number of letters)Standard Deviation 9.3
Low DoseThe Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period12 months post-implant - Treated-0.3 Letter score (number of letters)Standard Deviation 15.9
Low DoseThe Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period12 months post-implant - Untreated-4.6 Letter score (number of letters)Standard Deviation 17.9
Low DoseThe Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period18 months post-implant - Treated-1.8 Letter score (number of letters)Standard Deviation 18.4
Low DoseThe Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period18 months post-implant - Untreated-7.0 Letter score (number of letters)Standard Deviation 14.6
High DoseThe Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period18 months post-implant - Untreated-3.7 Letter score (number of letters)Standard Deviation 13.5
High DoseThe Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period1 month post-implant - Treated1.5 Letter score (number of letters)Standard Deviation 5.5
High DoseThe Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period6 months post-implant - Treated2.7 Letter score (number of letters)Standard Deviation 5.3
High DoseThe Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period12 months post-implant - Treated-0.2 Letter score (number of letters)Standard Deviation 8.4
High DoseThe Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period1 month post-implant - Untreated2.9 Letter score (number of letters)Standard Deviation 6.5
High DoseThe Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period4 months post-implant - Untreated2.9 Letter score (number of letters)Standard Deviation 7.2
High DoseThe Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period18 months post-implant - Treated-5.3 Letter score (number of letters)Standard Deviation 15
High DoseThe Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period3 months post-implant - Treated3.0 Letter score (number of letters)Standard Deviation 4.7
High DoseThe Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period6 months post-implant - Untreated1.5 Letter score (number of letters)Standard Deviation 7.7
High DoseThe Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period4 months post-implant - Treated3.0 Letter score (number of letters)Standard Deviation 5.9
High DoseThe Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period3 months post-implant - Untreated2.3 Letter score (number of letters)Standard Deviation 6.1
High DoseThe Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period12 months post-implant - Untreated-1.8 Letter score (number of letters)Standard Deviation 14.4
ShamThe Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period3 months post-implant - Untreated-0.5 Letter score (number of letters)Standard Deviation 6.7
ShamThe Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period4 months post-implant - Treated2.9 Letter score (number of letters)Standard Deviation 7.7
ShamThe Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period12 months post-implant - Untreated-6.0 Letter score (number of letters)Standard Deviation 9.6
ShamThe Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period4 months post-implant - Untreated0.3 Letter score (number of letters)Standard Deviation 7.3
ShamThe Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period6 months post-implant - Treated-0.4 Letter score (number of letters)Standard Deviation 7.7
ShamThe Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period6 months post-implant - Untreated-1.9 Letter score (number of letters)Standard Deviation 6.1
ShamThe Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period18 months post-implant - Treated-4.1 Letter score (number of letters)Standard Deviation 13.7
ShamThe Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period1 month post-implant - Treated1.4 Letter score (number of letters)Standard Deviation 6.2
ShamThe Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period1 month post-implant - Untreated0.5 Letter score (number of letters)Standard Deviation 3.1
ShamThe Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period12 months post-implant - Treated-1.3 Letter score (number of letters)Standard Deviation 11.1
ShamThe Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period3 months post-implant - Treated2.1 Letter score (number of letters)Standard Deviation 8.8
ShamThe Change in BCVA Over the 18-month Follow-up Period18 months post-implant - Untreated-8.5 Letter score (number of letters)Standard Deviation 11.1

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 25, 2026