Reported Rates of Intraocular Inflammation with Intravitreal Aflibercept Administered via Pre-Filled Syringe or from Vials in Clinical Practice Between 2012 and 2022
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To determine the reported rates of intraocular inflammation (IOI) in patients treated with intravitreal aflibercept (IVT-AFL) 2 mg in routine clinical practice (ie, outside interventional studies), across all indications and within all countries (excluding the United States), with access to either the vial presentation or pre-filled syringe (PFS). Patients and methods: Global Safety Pharmacovigilance Database for reported cases of IOI and IVT-AFL use between October 2012 and March 31, 2022. Results: With more than 10 years of post-marketing experience with the IVT-AFL vial presentation (>25 million sold units), and over 2 years of experience with the PFS of IVT-AFL (>6.7 million sold units) the rate of any IOI, including endophthalmitis, outside the United States was 0.3 events per 10,000 units for the PFS and 1.2 events per 10,000 units for the vial presentation. The event rates specifically for endophthalmitis were 0.1 per 10,000 units for the IVT-AFL PFS and 0.6 per 10,000 units for the IVT-AFL vial presentation. Conclusion: In patients with retinal diseases treated in routine clinical practice with IVT-AFL either from a vial or the PFS, medically important adverse events of IOI, and in particular, endophthalmitis, are infrequently reported events. Numerically, reported rates of IOI and endophthalmitis are low for the vial presentation and even lower for the PFS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".