ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Efficacy and safety of aflibercept biosimilars compared to aflibercept in the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to evaluate the aflibercept biosimilars compared to the reference product aflibercept (Eylea®) in terms of efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase from inception to 13 August 2025. We included studies reporting changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), changes in central subfield thickness (CST), changes in the leakage lesion of choroidal neovascularization (CNV), and adverse events from baseline to endpoint. All statistical analyses were performed using Stata 18.0 software and assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. Results: A total of seven studies involving 2,829 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in visual and anatomical outcomes between the aflibercept biosimilars (SB15, P041, SDZ-AFL, AVT06, SCD411, ABP 938, and QL1207) and the reference aflibercept. No significant differences were detected between aflibercept biosimilars and the reference aflibercept with respect to serious ocular and non-ocular adverse events [relative risk (RR) = 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.70, 4.19; Conclusion: Based on the seven included randomized controlled clinical trials, aflibercept biosimilars demonstrated comparable safety and efficacy to the reference aflibercept. Future research requires more rigorous 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.