ArticleEye (London, England)2026
Structural, functional and patient-reported 24-month outcomes of voretigene neparvovec in Portuguese patients with RPE65-associated disease.
Article in Eye (London, England), 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
BACKGROUND/
objectivesVoretigene neparvovec (VN) is a one-time gene therapy for biallelic RPE65-associated retinal degeneration (RPE65-RD). This study evaluated the real-world safety, effectiveness, and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) of VN in Portuguese patients over 2 years. SUBJECTS/
methodsProspective, single-centre study conducted between May 2021 and February 2025. Structural, functional, and PRO data were collected from eligible patients at baseline, and during efficacy and durability follow-up visits up to 2 years post-treatment.
resultsThe study analysed 24 eyes from 12 patients (mean age: 25.9 years; 66.7% aged <30 years). Functional assessment by full-field stimulus testing (FST) showed improvement in the median [P25;P75] thresholds, from -2.2 [-3.1; -1.9] at baseline to -3.9 [-4.5;-3.2] log(cd.s/m
conclusionsOur findings reinforce the effectiveness and safety of VN for RPE65-RD under real-world conditions. We demonstrate functional benefits on FST and an acceptable safety profile of VN, while establishing a meaningful and positive relationship between visual function and patients' quality of life (QoL), particularly in younger patients. Structural decline and BCVA loss suggest that the therapy may not fully arrest the natural disease progression, despite the significant increase in light sensitivity and QoL maintained through 2 years.
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.