SynthesisBMJ open ophthalmology2025
Comparative outcomes of aflibercept biosimilars and reference aflibercept in nAMD: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveTo evaluate the literature-pooled functional, anatomical and safety outcomes of aflibercept biosimilars compared with reference aflibercept for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Medline, Embase and CENTRAL were searched from inception to 2 June 2025. Phase 3 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing aflibercept biosimilars with the reference product in patients with nAMD were included. Two independent reviewers conducted screening, data extraction, risk of bias (RoB 2) assessment and certainty of evidence assessment (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation), with a third reviewer resolving discrepancies. Primary outcomes included mean difference (MD) change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and retinal thickness over time, risk ratio (RR) for proportion of participants gaining >15 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters and RR for adverse events. Meta-regression was used to evaluate the temporal stability of continuous outcomes.
resultsSix RCTs involving 2044 participants (1026 biosimilar, 1018 reference) were included. Five aflibercept biosimilars were evaluated, representing more than 50% of the eight biosimilars currently approved worldwide. Meta-regression revealed no significant difference in MD change in BCVA over time between biosimilar and reference aflibercept (slope: 0.0321 letters/week; p=0.1013). For MD change in retinal thickness, an initial anatomical advantage for reference aflibercept at week 0 (intercept: 9.58 µm; p=0.0449) was not sustained over time (slope: -0.1685 µm/week; p=0.2303). The pooled RR for gaining >15 ETDRS letters from baseline was 1.19 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.45; p=0.079). No statistically significant differences were observed across 15 safety outcomes.
conclusionThis systematic review and meta-analysis found no statistically significant differences in functional, anatomical or safety outcomes between aflibercept biosimilars and the reference product for nAMD, based on moderate to high certainty evidence. Functional and anatomical outcomes appeared stable across multiple timepoints. Further long-term pharmacovigilance studies and real-world data beyond 56 weeks are warranted. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251048633.
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.