Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32443612›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2020

Comparative Safety of Bevacizumab, Ranibizumab, and Aflibercept for Treatment of Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD): A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Direct Comparative Studies.

Anna A Plyukhova, Maria V Budzinskaya, Kirill M Starostin, Robert Rejdak, Claudio Bucolo, Michele Reibaldi, Mario D Toro

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Anna A PlyukhovaFederal State Budget Scientific Research Institute "Scientific Research Institute of Eye Diseases", 119021 Moscow, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-7390-759X
Maria V BudzinskayaFederal State Budget Scientific Research Institute "Scientific Research Institute of Eye Diseases", 119021 Moscow, Russia.
Kirill M StarostinMedical Affairs, Sanofi-Aventis SA, 125009 Moscow, Russia.ORCID 0000-0001-6488-7980
Robert RejdakDepartment of General Ophthalmology with Pediatric Service, Medical University of Lublin, 20079 Lublin, Poland.
Claudio BucoloDepartment of Biomedical and Biotechnological Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Catania, 95123 Catania, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4879-4140
Michele ReibaldiDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Turin, 10126 Turin, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1368-6729
Mario D ToroDepartment of General Ophthalmology with Pediatric Service, Medical University of Lublin, 20079 Lublin, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-7152-2613
Federal State Scientific Institution Research Institute of Eye Diseases · RUMedical University of Lublin · PLUniversity of Catania · ITUniversity of Turin · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSince the efficacy of ranibizumab (RBZ), bevacizumab (BVZ) and aflibercept (AFB) is comparable in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD), we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the long-term safety profiles of these agents, including ocular safety.

methodsSystematic review identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RBZ, BVZ and AFB directly published before March 2019. Serious ocular adverse events (SOAE) of special interest were endophthalmitis, pseudo-endophthalmitis, retinal pigment epithelium tear and newly identified macular atrophy.

resultsThirteen RCTs selected for meta-analysis (4952 patients, 8723 people-years follow-up): 10 compared RBZ vs. BVZ and three RBZ vs. AFB. There were no significant differences in almost all adverse events (systemic and ocular) between BVZ, RBZ and AFB in up to two years' follow-up. Macular atrophy was reported heterogeneously and not reported as SOAE in most trials.

conclusionsDirect comparison of RBZ, BVZ and AFB safety profiles in the RCT network meta-analytical setting have not revealed a consistent benefit of these three commonly used anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents in AMD. Network model ranking highlighted potential benefits of RBZ in terms of a systemic safety profile; however, this appears a hypothesis rather than a conclusion. Newly identified macular atrophy is underestimated in RCTs-future real-world data should be focused on SOAE.

Indexed as

afliberceptanti-vascular endothelial growth factorbevacizumabmeta-analysisneovascular age-related macular degenerationrandomized controlled trialsranibizumab

Identifiers

PMID32443612
PMCPMC7291235
OpenAlexW3024237066

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.