Clinical trial registry record

Efficacy and Safety of RC28-E Versus Aflibercept

A registered PHASE3 study indexed because it matched monitored longevity research terms. Registry status: Unknown. Registration does not establish safety or effectiveness.

Plain-language guide

Five questions to ask about this record

What this is
A clinical study registration, not a result or recommendation.
Why it may matter
The registry currently reports Unknown.
Evidence
Registered phase 3 study.
Main limitation
Registration does not prove that the intervention works, is safe, or is available to you.
What changed
Registry metadata was last updated August 31, 2023.
Where to verify
Open the primary registry below for eligibility, locations, contacts, and current status.
Registry ID
NCT05727397
Last registry update
August 31, 2023
Status
Unknown
Phase
Phase 3
Sponsor
RemeGen Co., Ltd.
Enrollment
432
Countries
China
Match confidence
100%
Source feed
ClinicalTrials.gov
Automated source synopsis

A registered PHASE3 study indexed because it matched monitored longevity research terms. Registry status: Unknown. Registration does not establish safety or effectiveness.

Evidence snapshot

What the source actually supports

Evidence stage
Phase 3
Study design
RANDOMIZED · PARALLEL · TREATMENT · QUADRUPLE
Evidence population
Human clinical study registration
Participants
432
Population
ALL · 50 Years
Duration
2023-03-14 to 2025-12-29
Intervention
RC28-E; Aflibercept
Comparator
Aflibercept
Outcomes measured
Mean change from baseline in BCVA at week 48; — Baseline, week 48; Average change in BCVA from baseline over the period week 36 through week 48; — Baseline, weeks 36, 40, 44 and 48.; Proportion of subjects with q12w injection; — Baseline, week 48; Proportion of subjects with q12w injection at week 48 within the subjects with no q8w injection need at week 16, week 2…; Proportion of subjects with gain in BCVA of 15/10/5/0 letters or more from baseline to week 48; — Baseline, week 48; Mean change in CST from baseline to week 16, week 48; — Baseline, week 16, 48; Average change in CST from baseline over the period week 36 through week 48; — Baseline, weeks 36, 40, 44 and 48.; Proportion of subjects with presence of intraretinal fluid/subretinal fluid at week 16, week 48; — Baseline, week 16, 48; Percentage of subjects with disease activity present at week 16; — Baseline, week 16; Change in choroidal neovascularization (CNV) lesion size from baseline to week 12, week 48; — Baseline, week 12, 48; Proportion of subjects with q8w treatment need at weeks 16, 20, 28, 32, 40, 44; — Weeks 16, 20, 28, 32, 40, 44; Incidence and characteristics of ocular and systemic treatment emergent adverse events. — Baseline, week 48
Reported result
No reusable finding-level result is available in this record.

Main limitationThis is a study registration. No reusable structured result is available here, so it cannot show whether the intervention worked or was safe.

Safety and approvalEligibility, adverse-event details, and clinical decisions must be checked in the official registry and with qualified clinicians. Trial registration is not regulatory approval and does not establish that an intervention is available.

Source supportStructured registry protocol metadata; no finding-level conclusion is generated.

Trial stage · Phase 3A trial phase describes development stage; it does not establish a positive result.
Phase 1Phase 2Phase 3Phase 4

Registration and recruitment status do not establish safety, efficacy, or regulatory approval.

Why this record appears here · 100% topic match

The title, summary, or source keywords matched one or more topics followed by immortal.life. A higher percentage means a stronger topic match; it does not rate safety, effectiveness, or study quality.

  • Vision ageing · 100%Abstract contains controlled term: age-related macular degeneration. Source terminology contains: age-related macular degeneration. Abstract supplies longevity context: age-related. Study type is explicitly identified as INTERVENTIONAL.

Automated source check 100% · update recency 50%. These figures help sort records; they are not medical ratings.