Back

Comprehensive evaluation of the use of intravitreal injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drugs in patients with fundus lesions based on real-world data

Chen, C.; Du, L.-p.; Liu, Q.; Ren, Q.-h.; Zhu, Z.-f.; Sun, G.-f.; Li, Y.-s.; Yang, Y.; Du, S.-z.; Qi, Y.-d.

2024-04-03 pharmacology and therapeutics
10.1101/2024.04.01.24305180 medRxiv
Show abstract

The prevalence of fundus lesion-related diseases is increasing, which ophthalmic anti-VEGF drugs have become the drugs of choice for the treatment of fundus lesions diseases. To evaluate the clinical value of three ophthalmic anti-VEGF drugs in the treatment of fundus lesions diseases, to guide the rational use of the clinic. Inpatients with fundus lesions who had intravitreal injections of Aflibercept, Conbercept and Leizumab during 2020 were studied and six indicators were selected for a comprehensive evaluation. In terms of safety, Aflibercept, Conbercept, and Leizumab experienced adverse effects of elevated Intraocular Pressure (IOP). In terms of effectiveness, Leizumab was strong, that of Aflibercept was stronger and that of Conbercept was weaker. In terms of economic, there was no significant difference in the cost of Aflibercept, Conbercept and Leizumab and a significant difference in the total treatment cost and the cost of surgery. In terms of appropriateness, Aflibercept was more suitable than Conbercept, and there was no significant difference between Leizumab and Aflibercept. In terms of accessibility, Aflibercept, Conbercept and Leizumab were all accessible to urban residents in Henan Province. For rural people, these are unreachable. In terms of innovation, Aflibercep was the most innovative, followed by Leizumab and finally Conbercept. In terms of effectiveness and accessibility, Leizumab performed best compared to Aflibercept and Conbercept. In terms of accessibility and innovation, Aflibercept performed best compared to Conbercept and Leizumab. In terms of safety and economic, Aflibercept, Conbercept and Leizumab performed comparably.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
29.1%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 8%
19.6%
3
Frontiers in Pharmacology
100 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
10.6%
50% of probability mass above
4
Clinical and Translational Science
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.9%
5
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.4%
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 40%
3.2%
7
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
8
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.2%
9
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.2%
10
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
11
Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.6%
12
International Immunopharmacology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
13
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.2%
14
Annals of Translational Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.0%
15
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
16
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
17
BioMed Research International
25 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
18
Medicine
30 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
19
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
20
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 60%
0.7%
21
Journal of Global Antimicrobial Resistance
15 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
22
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
23
JMIRx Med
31 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
24
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.5%