ArticleDrug target insights
Faricimab versus the standard of care for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in Italy: an indirect treatment comparison.
Article in Drug target insights. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real-world comparative effectiveness of faricimab versus aflibercept 2 mg in treatment-naïve exudative neovascular AMD patients treated with a treat-and-extend regimen.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Long-Term Follow-Up of Faricimab Intravitreal Injections in Naïve Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration.Ophthalmic research · 2026Article
- Efficacy and Safety of Intravitreal Faricimab in Age-Related Macular Degeneration-A Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To assess through an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) the potential benefit of faricimab over the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) real-life scenario, hereby defined standard of care (SoC), in Italy, that is, aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab, in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) naïve to any anti-VEGF treatment. Methods: Individual patient-level data from the phase III clinical trials TENAYA and LUCERNE (faricimab cohort) and the real-world study RADIANCE (RADIANCE cohort) were used. Efficacy was evaluated with changes in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central subfield thickness (CST) from baseline to 1 year (week 52 in the RADIANCE and week 48 in the faricimab cohorts, respectively). Propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting was utilized to balance cohorts and mitigate bias due to potential confounding. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate treatment differences adjusted for the number of injections. Results: The ITC included 513 patients treated with faricimab and 263 patients treated with SoC. At 1 year, faricimab showed a greater mean BCVA gain (treatment difference +5.4 letters, p<0.001) and CST reduction (treatment difference -71.8 μm, p<0.001) compared to SoC. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of results, showing a BCVA improvement of +4.0 letters and a CST reduction of -71.5 μm in favor of faricimab. Conclusions: Despite the limitations due to the use of ITC and the comparison between clinical trials and real-world cohorts, the present analysis suggests potential benefits in terms of vision gain and CST reduction in naïve nAMD patients treated with faricimab compared with SoC in a real-world setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.