ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2026
A one-year study on the regression effects of aflibercept and faricimab on retinal pigment epithelial detachment.
Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare long-term regressive effects on pigment epithelial detachment (PED) between aflibercept and faricimab in type 1 macular neovascularization (MNV).
methodsWe analyzed 94 eyes from 92 patients diagnosed with type 1 MNV using multimodal imaging. Seventy-one eyes received intravitreal aflibercept injections (IVA group), and 23 received intravitreal faricimab injections (IVFa group). After three consecutive monthly injections, intervals were adjusted in 2-4 week increments within drug-specific windows (IVA, 4-12 weeks; IVFa, 8-16 weeks) through 1 year. The maximum height (MH) and horizontal maximum diameter (H-MD) of PED were measured using optical coherence tomography before treatment and at 3 months and 1year post-treatment. We also assessed associations between PED change and 1-year dry macula, and explored visual outcomes with using analysis of covariance and logistic models.
resultsMH decreased in both IVA (184 ± 176→126 ± 153 μm at 3 months, P = 0.0003; 124 ± 135 μm at 1 year, P = 0.0005) and IVFa (162 ± 124→83 ± 65 μm, P = 0.0056; 86 ± 71 μm, P = 0.0053). The mean change in MH was not significantly different between groups (P = 0.244). H-MD did not show significant regression in either group. IVFa required fewer injections (6.17 ± 0.39 vs. 7.90 ± 1.99/year; P < 0.0001) and achieved a longer final intended injection interval (14.17 ± 2.53 vs. 8.64 ± 2.90 weeks; P < 0.0001). In multivariable linear regression for percent MH change at 1 year, annual injection number was positively associated with percent change (β = 7.62% points/injection, P = 0.012), whereas drug type was not (P = 0.633), adjusting for baseline MH (β = -0.078/µm, P = 0.016; all VIFs < 2). At 1 year, MH was lower in dry vs. wet macula (90 ± 82 vs. 186 ± 185 μm; P = 0.0004). For vision, ≥ 0.2logMAR gain was predicted by CMT decrease (OR ≈ 1.56 per 100 μm decrease; P = 0.045), while percent PED change was not significant (P = 0.283).
conclusionIn a treat-and-extend regimen with different label constraints, 1-year PED regression was similar for IVA and IVFa and was achieved with less treatment burden in IVFa. PED regression aligned with dry macula rather than with large visual gains, which instead tracked with retinal thickness recovery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41212222What 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.