Observational studyGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2026
Real-world treatment outcomes of aflibercept versus bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration.
Observational study in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDutch guidelines recommend bevacizumab as first-line treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) due to its lower cost and comparable outcomes to other anti-VEGF agents. However, Dutch clinics report higher injection frequencies than international counterparts, raising concerns about treatment burden. This pilot study compares 24-month real-world outcomes of initiating aflibercept versus bevacizumab in Dutch community ophthalmology clinics.
methodsWe conducted an observational study using prospective data from three Dutch FRB registry clinics. Two clinics used bevacizumab with two-weekly T&E interval adjustments. A third clinic initiated aflibercept with a four-week initial extension, followed by two-weekly adjustments. Primary outcomes were total injections and injections to CNV inactivity. Secondary outcomes included time to CNV inactivity, VA change, and final injection interval.
resultsWe included 43 eyes (38 patients) in the aflibercept group and 129 eyes (119 patients) in the bevacizumab group, matched 1:3 on age and baseline VA. At 24 months, mean VA was 65.6 (aflibercept) vs. 68.8 (bevacizumab) letters (p = 0.182), and mean letter gains were + 0.8 vs. + 4.2 (p = 0.113). Aflibercept-treated eyes received 5.5 fewer injections (p < 0.001), required 5.6 fewer injections to achieve CNV inactivity (p < 0.001), and reached inactivity 20.6 weeks earlier (p = 0.001). Final injection intervals were 3.3 weeks longer with aflibercept (p < 0.001); 41.9% reached intervals ≥ 12 weeks compared to 14.7% in the bevacizumab group (p < 0.001).
conclusionAflibercept under a modified T&E regimen resulted in fewer injections, faster disease control and longer treatment intervals, while VA was not significantly different. KEY MESSAGES: WHAT IS KNOWN : Aflibercept and bevacizumab are both widely used anti-VEGF injections for age-related macular degeneration with similar visual outcomes. Real-world studies in the Netherlands report a high injection burden with bevacizumab, but direct comparisons between agents in routine care are limited. WHAT IS NEW : Aflibercept, initiated with a modified treat-and-extend regimen, achieved visual outcomes comparable to bevacizumab while requiring fewer injections. These findings highlight aflibercept’s potential to reduce treatment burden and optimize healthcare resources, warranting confirmation in larger, long-term real-world studies, as well as cost-effectiveness studies.
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.