ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2025
Functional and Anatomical Outcomes of Faricimab in Previously Treated Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Budget Impact of Faricimab in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration in the Netherlands: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Injection Count.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Pooled it
- Short term real-world effectiveness of faricimab in neovascular age-related macular degeneration patients in the Republic of Korea.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Case Report: Faricimab in the treatment of subretinal fluid secondary to choroidal osteoma without definite evidence of CNV.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Predicting visual acuity using optical coherence tomography in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo evaluate the outcomes of intravitreal faricimab (IVF; Vabysmo
methodsThe PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar databases were searched for studies reporting outcomes of treatments for previously treated cases of wAMD. Mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to compute the effect size of the change in outcomes.
resultsA total of 29 studies with 2070 patients (1003 women, mean age 78.9 years) and 2128 eyes were included. BAVA and CST were reported in 28 studies, fluid status in 21, injection interval in 14, and reversion rates in 6. Pooled analysis showed significant but modest improvement in BAVA when IVF was given for > 6 months (MD = -0.026 LogMAR, p < 0.05) but not at earlier follow-ups. A similar trend was noted with injection interval extension when IVF was given beyond 6 months (MD = +2.1 weeks, p < 0.05). CST reduction was observed at all time points (overall MD = -37.7 μm, p < 0.05). Complication rates were reported in nine studies, with an overall rate of 1.2%, including retinal pigment epithelium tear, intraocular inflammation, endophthalmitis, and subretinal hemorrhage. Reversion to prior or other anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy was reported in six studies, occurring in 23% of eyes.
conclusionsWe reported the outcomes of utilizing IVF in previously treated cases of wAMD. IVF showed a significant improvement in CST at all time points and in the extension of injection interval. Visual outcomes remained unchanged when followed for less than 6 months but improved significantly but modestly when followed for more than 6 months. Switching to intravitreal faricimab may be a useful treatment option for previously treated patients with wAMD, with a goal of reducing treatment burden and improving treatment efficacy.
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.