canceldeath
Sign in
Rapamycin
Registry update — unassessed

Sirolimus Versus AntiVEGF for Wet AMD

Trial registry update: COMPLETED. Results are posted in the registry; assessment pending.

RCTNotable significance
Share on X
Reporter brief

What this changes

The finding has not established an approved change to our evidence assessment.

Source date: Jun 22, 2017 · Discovered: Sep 19, 2026 · Assessed: — · Historical research backfill

What it does not prove

  • No effect sizes or specific outcomes reported, preventing assessment of whether sirolimus offers meaningful clinical benefit over anti-VEGF
  • Single-site design limits generalizability to broader populations with treatment-resistant wet AMD
  • Phase 2 status indicates this was a preliminary efficacy and safety study, not a definitive effectiveness trial

Extracted from supplied source material; model confidence is not a measured probability of correctness.

Study details

Design
Rct
Sample size
—
Duration
—
Population
Subjects with wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration (wet AMD) with persistent intraretinal or subretinal edema due to neovascular AMD despite previous AntiVEGF treatment
Primary outcome
Safety and efficacy of intravitreal injections of Sirolimus in wet AMD with persistent edema
Effect size
—
Significance
Not reported
Journal
Maturi, Raj K., M.D., P.C.
Published
Jun 22, 2017

Sources

Primary source

Recorded source passages

Abstract or registry material supplied for assessment; source version 1. This is not a claim of full-text review.

Phase 2 clinical trial, single site, randomized, subject-masked study to determine safety and efficacy of intravitreal injections of Sirolimus in subjects with wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration (wet AMD) with persistent intraretinal or subretinal edema due to neovascular AMD despite previous AntiVEGF treatment.

Source versions

Version 1: Superseded

Version 1: Unassessed

Assessment history

Discussion (0)

One thread per scientific event, no matter how many outlets covered it.

Sign in to join the discussion.

No comments yet

Be the first to weigh in on this evidence.