Trial reportThe British journal of ophthalmology2026
Efficacy and safety of anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody 601 for macular oedema in retinal vein occlusion: two phase IIa randomised clinical trials.
Trial report in The British journal of ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this 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.
A Randomized, Double Masked, Multicenter, Phase II Study Assessing the Safety and Efficacy of 601 Versus Ranibizumab in Patients With Visual Impairment Due to Macular Edema Secondary to Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion (BRVO)
A Randomized, Double Masked, Multicenter, Phase II Study Assessing the Safety and Efficacy of 601 Versus Ranibizumab in Patients With Visual Impairment Due to Macular Edema Secondary to Central Retinal Vein Occlusion (CRVO)
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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapies are effective for macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO), there remains a need for additional treatment options. This study evaluated the novel anti-VEGF agent 601 versus ranibizumab in patients with branch RVO (BRVO) or central RVO (CRVO).
methodsIn two multicentre, randomised, double-masked, active-controlled phase IIa trials (NCT04667897, NCT04667910) conducted at 12 Chinese sites (2021-2022), 120 patients were assigned 1:1 to receive intravitreal 1.25 mg 601 or 0.5 mg ranibizumab every 4 weeks until week 20, followed by pro re nata dosing through week 48. Eligible patients had best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 78-19 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters and central subfield thickness ≥250 µm. The primary endpoint was change in BCVA at week 24.
resultsAt week 24, the adjusted mean BCVA change from baseline was +16.52 letters for 601 versus +17.79 letters for ranibizumab (adjusted mean difference: -1.27 letters (95% CI -5.439 to 2.891 letters)) in BRVO, and +13.81 letters versus +16.79 letters (adjusted mean difference: -2.97 letters (95% CI -10.488 to 4.540 letters)) in CRVO. Central retina thickness (CST) reduction was similar for both treatments. Both groups showed sustained improvements from week 24 to 52 with similar adverse event profiles.
conclusionsThese trials demonstrate that 601 is as effective and safe as ranibizumab for improving vision and reducing CST in RVO-related macular oedema. Phase III trials 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.