ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
Real-World Outcomes in Pre-Existing Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration Subjects Undergoing Avacincaptad Therapy for Geographic Atrophy.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 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.
- Real-World Outcomes with Complement Inhibitors for Geographic Atrophy: A Comparative Study of Pegacetacoplan versus Avacincaptad Pegol.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate real-world outcomes in subjects with pre-existing neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) undergoing intravitreal avacincaptad pegol (IVA) treatment for geographic atrophy (GA). Methods: This study was undertaken as a retrospective, case-controlled assessment of patients undergoing IVA treatment for GA from 2 community-based retina practices. Patients were separated into 1) a Study Group consisting of subjects with pre-existing neovascular AMD prior to initiation of IVA for GA, and 2) a Control Group consisting of AMD subjects without neovascularization prior to initiation of IVA for GA. Study and Control Group subjects had a baseline visual acuity of ≥ 20/200, a total GA lesion area of ≥ 1 mm Results: A total of 64 patients were analyzed. No significant differences in baseline characteristics were found between cohorts. The Study Group had a greater decrease in visual acuity [-0.2 (-0.24 to -0.16) logMAR versus -0.04 (-0.06 to 0.02) logMAR; p<0.0001], a greater increase in GA lesion growth [1.36 (1.09-1.63) mm Conclusion: This study suggests that patients undergoing IVA therapy for GA with pre-existing neovascular AMD have worse visual and anatomic outcomes at 12-months compared to a matched control group without pre-existing neovascularization; such patients therefore should be carefully counseled prior to initiation of IVA for the management of GA.
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.