Trial reportBMJ open ophthalmology2024
Zoledronic acid as adjuvant therapy in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a randomised controlled pilot study.
Trial report in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Bisphosphonate-related ocular adverse events: a pharmacovigilance study based on the FAERS database.Endocrine connections · 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
aimsTo assess the feasibility of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of zoledronic acid (ZA) as adjuvant therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).
methodsIn this 1-year, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled pilot study, nAMD patients were allocated 1:1 to receive intravenous ZA 5 mg or placebo at baseline and after 6 months in addition to intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy following a treat-and-extend regimen. Bevacizumab was the first-line anti-VEGF drug, but eyes with refractory nAMD were switched to aflibercept. The primary outcome was mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA).
results40 participants enrolled in the study, with 20 allocated to each treatment group. 38 participants received both study infusions, and all participants completed the final assessment. Mean (SD) change in BCVA was 7.5 (9.5) letters in the ZA group and -0.5 (11.5) letters in the control group; the between-group difference was 8.0 letters (95% CI: 1.5 to 15.0 letters). There were no between-group differences in mean change in central retinal thickness, refractory nAMD proportion or mean number of injections.
conclusionIt is feasible to conduct a randomised controlled trial of ZA as adjuvant therapy for nAMD in terms of recruitment and adherence to the pilot study protocol. We found a possible visual benefit of ZA that is worth further investigation. To clarify the relationship between ZA and the need for intravitreal injections, we recommend amending the protocol by omitting switching of the anti-VEGF drug. Due to the limited sample size of the pilot study, the estimates of treatment effect are not meant to be confirmatory and should be interpreted with caution. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2019-001492-37 (EudraCT), 04304755 (NCT).
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.