ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2026
Real-world comparison of faricimab and aflibercept as second-line therapies for neovascular age-related macular degeneration.
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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare real-world effectiveness of faricimab versus aflibercept as second-line therapies for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).
methodsThis multicenter retrospective cohort study included patients with nAMD who switched to faricimab or aflibercept as second-line anti-VEGF therapy and were followed ≥ 12 months. Outcomes included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA, logMAR), central macular thickness (CMT, µm), injection intervals, and switching rates. Multivariable linear regression identified predictors of visual and anatomical change.
resultsA total of 170 eyes (84 faricimab, 86 aflibercept) were analyzed. Faricimab-treated eyes had worse baseline BCVA (0.60 ± 0.49 vs. 0.47 ± 0.37 logMAR; p = 0.048) and numerically lower baseline CMT (332.7 ± 107.9 vs. 367.5 ± 103.5 μm; p = 0.057). At final follow-up, faricimab achieved a significant BCVA gain (- 0.16 ± 0.42 logMAR; p < 0.001), while aflibercept maintained stable vision (p = 0.923). Both agents significantly reduced CMT (p < 0.001), with a greater mean reduction observed in the aflibercept group (- 96.7 ± 127.5 vs. - 56.8 ± 132.0 μm; p = 0.046). Final BCVA and CMT did not differ significantly between groups. Final injection intervals were similar between groups (7.5 ± 2.9 vs. 7.6 ± 3.1 weeks; p = 0.906), and switching to third-line therapy occurred less frequently in the faricimab group (4.8% vs. 12.8%; p = 0.065). Baseline BCVA predicted visual gain (B = - 0.199; p = 0.010) and baseline CMT predicted anatomical improvement (B = - 0.517; p < 0.001).
conclusionIn this real-world multicenter cohort, both faricimab and aflibercept were associated with visual and anatomical improvement after switching to second-line therapy for nAMD. No statistically significant difference in final BCVA, final CMT or injection interval was observed between treatment groups. Baseline disease severity predicted treatment response. Given the retrospective design and residual confounding, these findings should be interpreted as associative rather than causal.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42390573What 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.