Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34656987›Full record

Trial reportThe British journal of ophthalmology2023

Biosimilar SB11 versus reference ranibizumab in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: 1-year phase III randomised clinical trial outcomes.

Neil M Bressler, Miroslav Veith, Jan Hamouz, Jan Ernest, Dominik Zalewski, Jan Studnička, Attila Vajas, András Papp, Gabor Vogt, James Luu and 9 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIRandomized Controlled TrialEquivalence Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The British journal of ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Ranibizumab biosimilars vs. reference Ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Drug Delivery Technologies for the Treatment of Age-Related Macular Degeneration.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

19 authors at 11 institutions in 5 countries.

Neil M BresslerJohns Hopkins Medicine Wilmer Eye Institute, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Miroslav VeithDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic.
Jan HamouzDepartment of Ophthalmology, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Jan ErnestDepartment of Ophthalmology, Central Military Hospital, Praha, Czech Republic.
Dominik ZalewskiDiagnostic and Microsurgery Center of the Eye LENS, Olsztyn, Poland.
Jan StudničkaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine in Hradec Kralove, Charles University, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic.
Attila VajasDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hajdú-Bihar, Hungary.
András PappDepartment of Ophthalmology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Gabor VogtDepartment of Ophthalmology, Hungarian Defence Forces Medical Centre, Budapest, Hungary.
James LuuRetina Consultants of Southern Colorado PC, Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA.
Veronika MatuskovaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-3308-463X
Young Hee YoonDepartment of Ophthalmology, Asan Medical Center, Songpa-gu, Seoul, South Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-2849-7528
Tamás PregunDepartment of Ophthalmology, Bajcsy-Zsilinszky Hospital and Clinic, Budapest, Hungary.
Taehyung KimSamsung Bioepis Co Ltd, Incheon, South Korea.
Donghoon ShinSamsung Bioepis Co Ltd, Incheon, South Korea.
Inkyung OhSamsung Bioepis Co Ltd, Incheon, South Korea.
Hansol JeongSamsung Bioepis Co Ltd, Incheon, South Korea.
Mercy Yeeun KimSamsung Bioepis Co Ltd, Incheon, South Korea.
Se Joon WooDepartment of Ophthalmology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea sejoon1@snu.ac.kr.ORCID 0000-0003-3692-7169
Samsung (South Korea) · KRCharles University · CZBajcsy-Zsilinszky Kórház és Rendelőintézet · HUJohns Hopkins University · USMasaryk University · CZMilitary University Hospital Prague · CZSemmelweis University · HUSeoul National University · KRUlsan College · KRUniversity of Debrecen · HUZrínyi Miklós National Defence University · HU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsTo provide longer-term data on efficacy, safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics (PK) of ranibizumab biosimilar SB11 compared with the reference ranibizumab (RBZ) in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).

methods

intervention1:1 randomisation to monthly intravitreal injection of 0.5 mg SB11 or RBZ.

resultsBaseline and disease characteristics were comparable between treatment groups. Of 705 randomised participants (SB11: n=351; RBZ: n=354), 634 participants (89.9%; SB11: n=307; RBZ: n=327) completed the study until week 52. Previously reported equivalence in primary efficacy remained stable up to week 52 and were comparable between SB11 and RBZ. The adjusted treatment difference between SB11 and RBZ in full analysis set at week 52 of change from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity was -0.6 letters (90% CI -2.1 to 0.9) and of change from baseline in central subfield thickness was -14.9 µm (95% CI -25.3 to -4.5). The incidence of ocular treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (SB11: 32.0% vs RBZ: 29.7%) and serious ocular TEAE (SB11: 2.9% vs RBZ: 2.3%) appeared comparable between treatment groups, and no new safety concerns were observed. The PK and immunogenicity profiles were comparable, with a 4.2% and 5.5% cumulative incidence of antidrug antibodies up to week 52 for SB11 and RBZ, respectively.

conclusionsLonger-term results of this study further support the biosimilarity established between SB11 and RBZ.

Indexed as

Biosimilar PharmaceuticalsMacular DegenerationWet Macular DegenerationAngiogenesis InhibitorsHumansIntravitreal InjectionsMiddle AgedRanibizumabTreatment OutcomeVascular Endothelial Growth Factor AVisual AcuityAngiogenesis InhibitorsBiosimilar PharmaceuticalsRanibizumabVascular Endothelial Growth Factor Adegenerationmaculaneovascularisationretina

Identifiers

PMID34656987
PMCPMC9985746
OpenAlexW3206108606

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.