ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2026
Cost-Utility Analysis of Faricimab Versus Aflibercept in Treating Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration (nAMD) in the United States.
Article in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Faricimab: current evidence for the treatment of retinal vein occlusion.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Pooled it
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
BACKGROUND/
objectiveNeovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) imposes a substantial clinical and economic burden in the United States (US). Faricimab offers the potential for longer dosing intervals than aflibercept, but its economic value in the US setting has not been established. This study evaluated the cost utility of faricimab versus aflibercept for treating nAMD from the US payer perspective.
methodsA Markov model of five health states defined by best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) simulated disease progression over 5 years. Clinical inputs were drawn from pooled 1-year data of the TENAYA and LUCERNE phase III trials (n = 1329), which compared faricimab with aflibercept for treating nAMD patients. Direct medical costs encompassed drug acquisition, intravitreal administration, monitoring, office visits, and management of endophthalmitis. Outcomes included total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and net monetary benefit (NMB) at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of US$100,000/QALY. Scenario, deterministic, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (10,000 iterations) were conducted.
resultsIn the base case, faricimab yielded 2.80 QALYs for US$52,797, whereas aflibercept produced 2.72 QALYs at US$62,367. Faricimab was therefore dominant (- US$9570; + 0.08 QALY), with an incremental NMB of US$17,981. Faricimab required markedly fewer injections over 5 years (22.6 vs 34). Scenario analyses did not materially change the directionality of the base-case results, with faricimab being dominant or cost effective. The model was most sensitive to drug acquisition prices and BCVA-state utilities, yet faricimab remained below the WTP threshold across all plausible ranges. Probabilistic analysis showed a 97% probability of faricimab being cost effective at US$100,000/QALY.
conclusionsFaricimab is estimated to be a cost-effective treatment option compared with aflibercept for nAMD from a US payer perspective. This finding may support its inclusion in treatment guidelines and formulary decisions, pending confirmation in real-world practice.
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.