ArticleJapanese journal of ophthalmology2025
Efficacy of switching to brolucizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration refractory to faricimab.
Article in Japanese journal of ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the treatment outcomes of switching to intravitreal brolucizumab (IVBr) for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) which did not achieve a dry macula even with 4- or 8-week intervals of intravitreal faricimab (IVF). STUDY
designRetrospective, interventional case series.
methodsWe retrospectively studied 33 eyes of 33 consecutive patients with nAMD who switched to IVBr from IVF, assessing best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), foveal thickness (FT), central choroidal thickness (CCT), and exudative status at baseline and after the switch. For patients that switched 4 weeks after the last IVF (4-week interval group), treatment outcomes were evaluated 4 weeks after the switch. For patients that switched 8 weeks after the last IVF (8-week interval group), treatment outcomes were evaluated after the first 8-week interval following the switch.
resultsThirty-one eyes had completed IVBr treatment up to the evaluation point after the switch. There were no significant changes in BCVA at baseline and after the switch in either group. FT and CCT significantly decreased after the switch compared with baseline in both groups. Moreover, in both groups, exudative changes disappeared or decreased in most cases after the switch. The dry macula rate after the switch was 37.5% and 34.8% in the 4-week and 8-week interval group, respectively. Although brolucizumab-related intraocular inflammation was observed in 3 eyes (9.1%) after the switch, it was ameliorated in response to steroid therapy.
conclusionSwitching to IVBr for nAMD refractory to IVF was generally effective in improving exudative changes in the short term.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39847181What 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.