Comparison of Endophthalmitis Rates Between Prefilled Syringes and Standard Vials in Aflibercept Intravitreal Injections: A Retrospective Study in Japan
Masakazu Morioka, Yoshihiro Takamura, Shigeo Yoshida, Junya Mori, Tomoko Sawada, Hisashi Matsubara, Sentaro Kusuhara, Tomoya Murakami, Aki Kato, Hitoshi Tabuchi, Daisuke Nagasato, Tetsuo Ueda, Masahiko Shimura, Takao Hirano, Tatsuya Jujo, Yoshinori Mitamura, Masashi Nishigaki

TL;DR
This study compared bacterial endophthalmitis rates after using prefilled syringes versus standard vials for aflibercept eye injections in Japan, finding no significant difference in infection rates.
Contribution
The study is one of the largest to compare endophthalmitis rates between prefilled syringes and vials in real-world clinical settings.
Findings
Endophthalmitis rates were 0.0046% with prefilled syringes and 0.0092% with vials, but the difference was not statistically significant.
Poor visual outcomes were linked to specific bacteria like Enterococcus faecalis and Streptococcus spp., as well as diabetes.
Abstract
Background: Bacterial endophthalmitis is a rare but serious complication of intravitreal injections (IVIs). Prefilled syringes have been introduced to reduce contamination risk during drug preparation. However, whether they lower the incidence of bacterial endophthalmitis compared to vials remains unclear. Methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzed aflibercept IVIs performed at 17 clinical centers in Japan between 2015 and 2022. Patients aged ≥20 years who received aflibercept IVIs (vial or prefilled syringe) for age-related macular degeneration, diabetic macular edema, retinal vein occlusion, or myopic choroidal neovascularization were included. Bacterial endophthalmitis was diagnosed based on clinical signs (e.g., rapid vision loss, pain, hypopyon, vitreous opacity). Incidence rates were compared using Fisher’s exact test. Results: Among 152,039 injections (43,684 prefilled…
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsOcular Infections and Treatments · Retinal Diseases and Treatments · Ocular Diseases and Behçet’s Syndrome
