ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Real-World Outcomes with Complement Inhibitors for Geographic Atrophy: A Comparative Study of Pegacetacoplan versus Avacincaptad Pegol.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Aptamers in Ocular Disease Therapy and Drug Delivery: Current Progress and Future Opportunities.Current therapeutic research, clinical and experimental · 2026Review
- Advancing Treatment of Degenerative Eye Diseases at the Nanoscale.Smart medicine · 2026Review
- Geographic atrophy in age-related macular degeneration: phenotypic characterisation for clinical trial consideration.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Review
- Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists and Ocular Disease: Mechanisms, Evidence and Therapeutic Perspectives.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Rapid Macular Thinning as a Biomarker for Geographical Atrophy.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare real-world outcomes in subjects who underwent treatment with intravitreal avacincaptad pegol (IVA) or intravitreal pegacetacoplan (IVP) for geographic atrophy (GA) secondary to age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Methods: This study was undertaken as a retrospective, comparative assessment of subjects who underwent IVA or IVP treatment for GA secondary to AMD at two community-based ophthalmology practices. All subjects included in the study had a visual acuity of ≥20/200 at baseline, a total GA lesion area of ≥1.5 mm Results: A total of 112 subjects were analyzed. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between treatment groups. There were no significant differences between IVA and IVP in change in total GA lesion size [1.19 (±0.33) mm Conclusion: This real-world study reports that treatment with IVA and IVP have similar visual and anatomic outcomes at 12-months, although subjects undergoing treatment with IVP may receive fewer injections to obtain these outcomes. Further studies comparing the safety and efficacy of IVA and IVP are warranted.
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.