ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2024
Clinical Outcomes and Experiences with Prefilled Syringes Versus Vials for Intravitreal Administration of Anti-VEGF Treatments: A Systematic Review.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative outcomes of aflibercept biosimilars and reference aflibercept in nAMD: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2025Pooled it
- [Real-world experience with aflibercept 8 mg for treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration after 12 months].Die Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Safety of GBL1204-An Ophthalmic Bevacizumab in Prefilled Syringe for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Phase I Study.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Article
- Aflibercept 8 mg treat-and-extend pathway for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: guidance from a UK expert panel.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Article
- Human Factors Studies to Assess the Usability of the Faricimab Prefilled Syringe.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAnti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents have been the standard treatment for retinal diseases for almost two decades. These treatments are administered via intravitreal injection using single-use vials or prefilled syringes (PFS). In this systematic review, we evaluate health care resource use and clinical outcomes and experiences with PFS for intravitreal injection of anti-VEGF treatments.
methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library were searched from January 1, 2015 to February 8, 2024 to identify literature reporting outcomes regarding procedural efficiency, health care resource use, patient and clinician experiences, and safety for currently approved anti-VEGFs (ranibizumab, aflibercept, brolucizumab) administered using PFS. Comparators were vial-based injections of the same anti-VEGFs.
resultsA total of 36 publications met the criteria for inclusion in the systematic literature review; the majority were non-randomized studies, with a small number of reviews, case series, survey studies, and opinion articles. Publications reported that preparation times were significantly shorter for PFS (40.3-57.9 s) versus vials (ranibizumab, 62.8-98.0 s; aflibercept, 71.9-79.5 s), with no differences in product stability between PFS and vials. Clinicians expressed a preference for PFS and thought PFS were faster, easier to use, and had increased safety versus vials. Publications consistently reported significantly lower rates of endophthalmitis per injection with PFS versus vials (ranibizumab PFS, 0-0.02%; aflibercept PFS, 0.01-0.02%; ranibizumab vial, 0.02-0.05%; aflibercept vial, 0.02-0.06%). Four publications reported increased rates of transient vision loss after aflibercept PFS injection versus vial-based injection. No publications reported outcomes regarding health care resource use or patient experiences.
conclusionThe available literature supports the increased procedural efficiency of PFS versus vial-based intravitreal injection of anti-VEGFs. PFS are positively perceived by clinicians and have a safety benefit in the form of a decreased risk of endophthalmitis versus vials.
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.