ArticleCureus2024
A Tertiary Centre's Experience With Using Ranibizumab Biosimilar Compared to Aflibercept for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective This study aims to evaluate the real-world efficacy of ranibizumab biosimilar (Ongavia), compared to aflibercept (Eylea), in the treatment of treatment-naïve neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) at a busy tertiary eye care centre. Methods A retrospective analysis of medical records from August 2022 to August 2024 was conducted, comparing treatment outcomes in treatment-naive nAMD patients who received either Ongavia or Eylea intravitreal anti-VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor) injections under a treat-and-extend protocol. Initial and 12-month outcome measures post-treatment initiation were collected, including best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), prescribed treatment intervals, actual injection frequency, and the average total number of injections per eye over 12 months. Results A total of 62 eyes met the inclusion criteria. Over 12 months of follow-up, patients receiving Eylea (n = 36) showed a significantly greater improvement in BCVA (7.08 ± 4.12), p = 0.018, compared to Ongavia (n = 26) (-1.9 ± 3.31). CRT reductions were also more substantial for Eylea (-116.21 µm ± 35.61 µm) than for Ongavia (-51.14 µm ± 22.21 µm), p = 0.002. The average number of injections was 6.55 for Ongavia and 5.75 for Eylea over the 12-month follow-up. Excluding the initial three loading doses, observed injection intervals averaged 9.49 weeks for Eylea and 8.17 weeks for Ongavia. Notably, for the total study period, 164 out of 171 (96%) Ongavia injections were prescribed at four-week intervals, compared to 110 out of 207 (53%) for Eylea. However, capacity constraints impacted adherence to prescribed dosing schedules, affecting efficacy. Conclusion Our study indicates reduced visual and morphological outcomes with Ongavia compared to Eylea in treating nAMD when monthly injections cannot be provided as prescribed. Given clinical capacity constraints, Eylea's greater potency and durability prove advantageous, allowing extended intervals and reducing the reliance on strict monthly dosing. This highlights the need for additional resources to support frequent biosimilar administration and ensure effective ranibizumab treatment. A comprehensive cost-benefit analysis is warranted to assess whether increased clinic capacity offsets Ongavia's lower per-injection cost, compared to Eylea.
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.