ArticleVision (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Adverse Events Reported with Standard-Dose and High-Dose Aflibercept: A FAERS Pharmacovigilance Study.
Article in Vision (Basel, Switzerland), 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This pharmacovigilance study drew upon the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database to compare the reporting patterns of ocular and systemic adverse events (AEs) for the 2 mg (standard-dose [SD]) and 8 mg (high-dose [HD]) formulations of aflibercept given for any ocular indication. Disproportionality analysis, including reporting odds ratios (ROR), was used to compare each dose individually to the background reporting rate for the AE. Statistical significance of the RORs was evaluated using Bonferroni correction, alongside signal detection based on Evans criteria, and Bayesian information components. The Breslow-Day test was used to conduct a head-to-head comparison of RORs between each dose. We identified 953 SD and 314 HD AE reports within the 750-day period after the approval of HD by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA; 8/18/2023). Compared to SD, HD had a higher ROR for endophthalmitis (HD: ROR 767.56 [95% CI, 466.11-1263.95]; SD: ROR 331.64 [95% CI, 216.71-507.51]), eye inflammation (HD: ROR 118.45 [95% CI, 55.85-251.20]; SD: 43.98 [95% CI, 21.87-88.44]), retinal vasculitis (HD: ROR 769.87 [95% CI, 337.13-1758.04]; SD: ROR 124.80 [95% CI, 39.67-392.63]), and systemic vasculitis (HD: ROR 28.40 [95% CI, 14.63-55.14]; SD: ROR 4.05 [1.52-10.82]). These results, based on FAERS, indicate associations rather than causal relationships. Further studies are needed to quantify the absolute risks and elucidate the mechanisms underlying differences in safety signals, if any.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.