ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2025
Economic Benefit of Aflibercept 8 mg Versus Faricimab for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration or Diabetic Macular Edema in the US.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2025. 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.
- Faricimab 6 mg Versus Aflibercept 8 mg in Treatment-Naïve Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Protocol-Standardised In Silico Study.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Summary of Research: Economic Benefit of Aflibercept 8 mg Versus Faricimab for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration or Diabetic Macular Edema in the US.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Article
- Visual Gains with Faricimab vs Aflibercept 8 mg in Naïve Retinovascular Disease: Global Real-World Cases and Literature Review.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of this study was to compare the estimated direct and indirect costs with aflibercept 8 mg and faricimab in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) or diabetic macular edema (DME) over 5 years.
methodsAn economic model was developed to estimate direct and indirect costs based on the mean number of injections administered in clinical trials of aflibercept 8 mg (PULSAR and PHOTON) and faricimab (TENAYA/LUCERNE and YOSEMITE/RHINE). Injection numbers for years 1 and 2 were sourced from clinical trials, injection numbers in years 3-5 were imputed from year 2, and the base case for the analysis was a 3-year time horizon. Direct costs were estimated based on modeled mean injection numbers and 2025 wholesale acquisition costs per injection (aflibercept 8 mg: 2677.50 USD; faricimab: 2289.65 USD) plus medical monitoring costs. Indirect costs included caregiver and patient time and travel costs.
resultsOver a 3-year time horizon, the mean number of injections was lower with aflibercept 8 mg versus faricimab for nAMD (12.25 vs. 14.80 injections) and DME (11.80 vs. 15.65 injections). Total costs (direct and indirect) associated with aflibercept 8 mg were 1978.74 USD lower than faricimab for nAMD and 6032.90 USD lower than faricimab for DME. After year 1, similar differences were seen through 5 years.
conclusionsFor both nAMD and DME, less frequent dosing with aflibercept 8 mg versus faricimab is expected to reduce the direct and indirect cost burden to payers and patients.
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.