ReviewInternational journal of retina and vitreous2026
Effectiveness and safety of intravitreal faricimab for macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in International journal of retina and vitreous, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFaricimab is a bispecific monoclonal antibody targeting both vascular endothelial growth factor A and angiopoietin-2, approved for macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion in 2023. The phase III BALATON and COMINO trials demonstrated non-inferiority to aflibercept at week 24, and several real-world cohorts have subsequently emerged. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to estimate the pooled effect of faricimab on visual acuity, treatment burden, anatomical outcomes, and safety in this indication.
methodsPubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched from inception to 1 May 2026 for studies reporting outcomes following intravitreal faricimab. Risk of bias was assessed in duplicate using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool for the randomised evidence and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tool for the observational evidence, with single-arm cohorts evaluated as pre-post comparisons. The primary visual acuity outcome was pooled using random-effects meta-analysis with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment, stratified by treatment status, while outcomes precluded from pooling by methodological heterogeneity were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework.
resultsTen studies comprising 1,620 eyes met eligibility criteria, including the BALATON and COMINO randomised controlled trials and nine non-randomised cohorts. The pooled mean change in best-corrected visual acuity at approximately 6 months was + 16.89 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters (95% confidence interval 16.05 to 17.72) in treatment-naïve eyes and + 8.73 letters (95% confidence interval 4.75 to 12.71) in refractory switch cohorts, with negligible between-study heterogeneity in both analyses. Narrative synthesis was consistent with treatment interval extension following initiation of or switch to faricimab, statistically significant reductions in central retinal thickness across studies, and a short-term safety profile without identified retinal vasculitis events.
conclusionThe synthesis is consistent with intravitreal faricimab use being associated with visual and anatomical improvement in macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion, with the treatment-naïve pooled estimate primarily reflecting registration trial data and the switch cohort estimate characterising refractory phenotypes.
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.