ArticleInternational journal of retina and vitreous2026
Early intraocular pressure kinetics after intravitreal aflibercept 8 mg (0.07 mL) versus aflibercept 2 mg (0.05 mL) in nonglaucomatous eyes: a prospective comparative study.
Article in International journal of retina and vitreous, 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
backgroundTransient intraocular pressure (IOP) spikes after intravitreal injection (IVI) are expected. The higher-volume aflibercept 8 mg (0.07 mL) formulation has recently entered clinical use, yet its early IOP kinetics-particularly the immediate post-injection trajectory in eyes without known glaucoma or ocular hypertension-remain incompletely characterised.
methodsIn this prospective, non-randomised, single-centre comparative study, 48 eyes of 48 patients received intravitreal aflibercept 8 mg/0.07 mL (n = 25) or aflibercept 2 mg/0.05 mL (n = 23). Eyes with any history of glaucoma or ocular hypertension were excluded. IOP was measured at baseline and at 3, 10, and 30 min after injection using iCare IC200 tonometry. The primary objective was to assess within-group IOP changes from baseline in the 0.07-mL group. A hierarchical fixed-sequence procedure was applied using paired Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Hodges-Lehmann (HL) estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Between-group differences were explored using a linear mixed-effects model adjusted for baseline IOP, age, sex, and lens status.
resultsBaseline characteristics were comparable between groups. In the 0.07-mL group, HL pseudo-median IOP changes from baseline were + 25.5 mmHg (95% CI 18.5 to 32.0; p < 0.001) at 3 min, + 11.0 mmHg (95% CI 8.0 to 15.0; p < 0.001) at 10 min, and + 3.5 mmHg (95% CI 1.5 to 5.5; p = 0.002) at 30 min. Adjusted between-group differences (0.07 mL minus 0.05 mL) were + 5.8 mmHg (95% CI 0.3 to 11.3; p = 0.038) at 3 min, + 2.8 mmHg (95% CI - 2.7 to 8.3; p = 0.31) at 10 min, and + 0.2 mmHg (95% CI - 5.3 to 5.7; p = 0.94) at 30 min. Two eyes in the 0.07-mL group received topical IOP-lowering medication after the 30-minute assessment; no paracentesis was performed.
conclusionsIn eyes without known outflow disease, intravitreal aflibercept 8 mg (0.07 mL) was associated with a higher early IOP spike than aflibercept 2 mg (0.05 mL). However, the pressure increase was transient, and exploratory between-group analyses suggested convergence of IOP levels by 30 min. By defining the early IOP trajectory in eyes with intact outflow, these data provide a physiological reference for the short-term ocular safety of higher-volume anti-VEGF therapy and a benchmark against which exaggerated or delayed responses in at-risk eyes can be interpreted.
trial registrationNot applicable (observational study).
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.