ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Biosimilar Versus Innovator Ranibizumab in Myopic CNVM: Comparative Real-World Outcomes- The BRIM Study.
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 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.
- Biosimilars of anti-VEGF agents in retinal diseases: a narrative review of regulatory, clinical, and pharmacoeconomic aspects.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2026Review
- Real-World Comparison of Biosimilar Ranibizumab (Ranieyes) and Innovator Ranibizumab (Lucentis/Accentrix) Across Multiple Retinal Vascular Diseases (The BRIO Study).Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Biosimilar anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents: Clinical outcomes, safety, and cost-effectiveness in India.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Review
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 compare the efficacy and safety of biosimilar ranibizumab (Razumab Methods: This retrospective, multicenter study included treatment-naïve patients with mCNVM between January 2021 and December 2023. Patients received intravitreal injections of either innovator or biosimilar ranibizumab, following a pro re nata (PRN) protocol. Inclusion criteria were: age ≥18years, axial length >26.5 mm or spherical equivalent ≥ -6.00 D, diagnosis confirmed by multimodal imaging, and a minimum 12-month follow-up. Outcomes assessed included change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA; ETDRS letters), central macular thickness (CMT), intraocular pressure (IOP), injection frequency, and safety profile. Results: A total of 80 eyes were analyzed (Group A: Innovator, n=38; Group B: Biosimilar, n=42). Mean BCVA improved from 51.0 ± 16.5 to 64.5 ± 5.5 ETDRS letters in the Innovator group and from 52.5 ± 16.5 to 64.5 ± 4.5 in the Biosimilar group at 12 months (p > 0.05). CMT reduced significantly in both groups (Innovator: from 332.03 ± 39.22 µm to 268.32 ± 18.78 µm; Biosimilar: from 315.03 ± 44.20 µm to 271.12 ± 20.39 µm; (p > 0.05). The mean number of injections was 2.68 ± 0.51 in the Innovator Ranibizumab group and 2.71 ± 0.49 in the Biosimilar Ranibizumab group. IOP remained stable in both cohorts, and no significant ocular or systemic adverse events were observed. Conclusion: Biosimilar ranibizumab demonstrated non-inferior visual and anatomical outcomes compared to innovator ranibizumab in the treatment of mCNVM, with a similar safety profile and treatment burden.
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.