ReviewClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Efficacy and Safety of Aflibercept Biosimilars Relative to Reference Aflibercept Therapy for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review 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.
- Biosimilar anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents: Clinical outcomes, safety, and cost-effectiveness in India.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Review
- Efficacy and safety of aflibercept biosimilars compared to aflibercept in the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Anti-VEGF Therapies in Retinal Disorders: Current Landscape and Future Directions.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Development of Biosimilar Aflibercept SDZ-AFL.Current therapeutic research, clinical and experimental · 2025Review
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the efficacy and safety of aflibercept biosimilars compared to reference aflibercept therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases. Randomized controlled trials comparing intravitreal aflibercept biosimilars with reference aflibercept in patients with nAMD were included. The outcomes were changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), retinal thickness, choroidal neovascularization (CNV) leakage area from baseline based on fluorescein angiography, and adverse events. Results: Five studies involving 2,039 patients were included. No statistically significant differences were found between aflibercept biosimilars and reference aflibercept in terms of BCVA (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 1.05; 95% CI: -0.62 to 2.71; p = 0.22), central subfield thickness (WMD: 3.33; 95% CI: -14.48 to 21.14; p = 0.71), or CNV (WMD: -0.23; 95% CI: -0.58 to 0.12; p = 0.20). SThe incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between groups. Conclusion: Aflibercept biosimilars demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety profiles to reference aflibercept in the treatment of nAMD. These findings suggest that biosimilars may serve as a cost-effective alternative without compromising patient outcomes.
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.