ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Innovator ranibizumab ComparEd to Biosimilar ranibizumab in combination with Expansile gas in submaculaR HemorrhaGe: the ICEBERG study.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biosimilar Versus Innovator Ranibizumab in Myopic CNVM: Comparative Real-World Outcomes- The BRIM Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies in ophthalmology.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the anatomical and visual outcomes in eyes with submacular hemorrhage (SMH) treated with a combination of ranibizumab (RBZ) either innovator or biosimilar (Razumab) and intravitreal perfluoropropane gas (C
methodsTreatment naïve neovascular age related macular degeneration (n-AMD) patients with SMH were retrospectively analyzed. Patients received either innovator or biosimilar RBZ (3 loading doses followed by pro re nata regimen) and single injection of intravitreal C
resultsA total of 67 eyes (35 and 32 eyes in innovator and biosimilar group respectively) were analyzed. BCVA improved from 1.15 ± 0.19 to 0.51 ± 0.23 logarithm of minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) in innovator RBZ group (p < 0.001) and from 1.17 ± 0.15 to 0.53 ± 0.20 logMAR in biosimilar RBZ group (p < 0.001). Similarly, mean CMT showed significant reduction in both groups at 6 months (innovator RBZ: 609.5 ± 50.1 μm to 254.3 ± 20.3 μm, p < 0.001; biosimilar RBZ: 602.3 ± 58.9 μm to 251.8 ± 22.3 μm, p < 0.001). Intergroup comparisons between innovator and biosimilar RBZ showed no differences in either BCVA or CMT at all time points (all p values > 0.05). Mean number of intravitreal injections was marginally higher in innovator group compared to biosimilar RBZ (4.37 ± 0.49 vs. 4.22 ± 0.42; p = 0.18).
conclusionBiosimilar RBZ may act as a viable alternative to innovator RBZ to treat SMH with comparable anatomical and visual outcomes at 6 months.
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.