ArticleAdvances in therapy2017
Dispensing Patterns of Ranibizumab and Aflibercept for the Treatment of Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Retrospective Cohort Study in Australia.
Article in Advances in therapy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison Between Ranibizumab Biosimilar, Innovator Ranibizumab and Bevacizumab in a Real-World Situation.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2022Article
- Treat and Extend Treatment Interval Patterns with Anti-VEGF Therapy in nAMD Patients.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAnti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy is the standard of care for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). The dosage of two licensed agents, ranibizumab and aflibercept, was established through clinical trials; however, it is unclear if either agent is administered as recommended in routine clinical practice. Using pharmacy claims data, we investigated if the dispensing patterns of ranibizumab differ from those of aflibercept 6 and 12 months after treatment initiation.
methodsPrescription data retrieved from the Australian IMS
resultsBaseline patient MBDBI scores were similar for the ranibizumab (N = 1235) and aflibercept (N = 959) cohorts. The adjusted mean (standard deviation) number of units dispensed was 5.3 (1.3) versus 5.1 (1.4) at month 6 and 8.9 (2.2) versus 8.9 (2.3) at month 12. The 95% CI limits of the adjusted mean difference did not exceed 1.00 unit dispensed at either time point: 95% CI of 0.09 to 0.32 for an adjusted mean difference of 0.20 at month 6 and -0.23 to 0.30 for an adjusted mean difference of 0.04 at month 12. Mean (standard deviation) dispensing intervals were comparable for both cohorts: 35.3 (19.2) days versus 36.8 (20.0) days at month 6 (adjusted mean difference -1.59 days; 95% CI -2.51 to -0.67 days) and 41.2 (20.9) days versus 41.6 (20.4) days at month 12 (adjusted mean difference -0.40 days; 95% CI -1.70 to 0.91 days).
conclusionsRanibizumab and aflibercept are dispensed in a similar manner by Australian pharmacies during the first year of treatment.
fundingNovartis Pharma AG.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.