SynthesisInternational ophthalmology2026
Clinical efficacy and safety of anti-VEGF biosimilars compared to reference anti-VEGF agents for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression.
Synthesis in International ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Advances in diagnosing and treating diabetic retinopathy.Nature reviews. Endocrinology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a leading cause of irreversible vision loss among the elderly. Current treatment options include intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy with ranibizumab and aflibercept. These medications are very effective but expensive. Biosimilars of these expensive intravitreal medications have been proposed as less expensive treatment options. However, their clinical equivalence and safety are of concern. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of biosimilars of ranibizumab and aflibercept, and their clinical equivalence with their reference biologics, in the treatment of neovascular AMD.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing biosimilar anti-VEGF agents with reference ranibizumab or aflibercept. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library (inception-September 2025) was performed following PRISMA guidelines. Outcomes included change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 12 weeks and study endpoint, ≥ 15-letter responder rates, treatment-emergent anti-drug antibodies (ADAs), and ocular/serious ocular adverse events. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane ROB-2 tool.
resultsSeventeen phase 3 RCTs including 6694 patients were analyzed. Pooled results showed no clinically meaningful differences in BCVA improvement at 12 weeks (MD = - 0.42, p = 0.17) or at study endpoint (MD = - 0.32, p = 0.23) between biosimilars and reference biologics. Responder rates (≥ 15-letter gain) were comparable (RR = 1.06, p = 0.36), as were rates of treatment-emergent ADAs (RR = 0.89, p = 0.40) and ocular adverse events (RR = 0.99, p = 0.86). The subgroup analysis did not demonstrate significant results for biosimilars of aflibercept compared with the reference aflibercept; however, biosimilars of ranibizumab had slightly less BCVA improvement at the end point (RR 0.53, p 0.02). Heterogeneity was low to moderate, and no publication bias was noted.
conclusionOur analysis has demonstrated that biosimilars of ranibizumab and aflibercept have equivalent efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity profiles compared with the reference biologics. Future studies should focus on long-term outcomes, switching studies, and health economics to help determine the long-term success of biosimilar therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41860622What 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.