ArticleOphthalmology science
Efficacy and Safety of Voretigene Neparvovec in
Article in Ophthalmology science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing awareness toward genetic testing among patients with inherited retinal dystrophy in Japan.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Clinical endpoints special session, ISCEV 2025, Utrecht.Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 2026Review
- Voretigene Neparvovec Gene Therapy in Clinical Practice: A 12-Month, Single-Center, In-Depth Analysis of Beneficial and Adverse Drug Effects.Translational vision science & technology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: We report the efficacy and safety of voretigene neparvovec (VN) as an adeno-associated viral vector-based gene therapy for Japanese patients with inherited retinal dystrophy caused by biallelic pathogenic Design: Open-label, single arm, phase III clinical trial. Participants: Four subjects were recruited based on the following criteria: (1) a clinical and molecular genetic diagnosis of Methods: All subjects received subretinal injections of VN (1.5 × 10 Main Outcome Measures: The primary efficacy end point was a change from baseline in full-field light sensitivity threshold (FST) (white light, averaged over both eyes) at days 30, 90, 180, 270, and year 1. The secondary efficacy end points included changes from baseline in VF testing by Goldmann kinetic perimetry (GP) and BCVA in the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (LogMAR) unit. Safety was evaluated by adverse events (AEs), laboratory evaluations, and opthalmic examinations. Results: The mean baseline age of 4 subjects was 31.3 years (10, 17, 49, and 49 years). The homozygous pathogenic variants (c.1543C>T, p.Arg515Trp) were identified in 3 subjects. The mean (range) FST averaged over both eyes improved by -1.831 (-3.54 to -0.56) log Conclusions: Overall, these data from a phase III trial showed improvements in FST and VF and well-tolerated safety profiles of VN for 1 year, with ongoing follow-up of up to 5 years in Japanese patients with Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.