ArticleEye (London, England)2026
Real-world comparative effectiveness of faricimab versus aflibercept 2 mg in treatment-naïve exudative neovascular AMD patients treated with a treat-and-extend regimen.
Article in Eye (London, England), 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the real-world effectiveness of faricimab versus aflibercept 2 mg in treatment-naïve patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).
methodsWe analysed treatment-naïve nAMD patients aged ≥50 years initiating intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy between March 2024 and September 2024. Patients received either faricimab or aflibercept 2 mg. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to minimise selection bias. Primary outcomes were best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) changes from baseline to post-loading phase and 1-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes included anatomic resolution of intraretinal fluid (IRF), subretinal fluid (SRF), and subretinal hyperreflective material (SHRM), treatment burden, and safety.
resultsA total of 172 patients were included (86 faricimab, 86 aflibercept). Baseline characteristics were well-balanced between groups. The faricimab regimen was associated with greater BCVA improvement compared with aflibercept at post-loading phase (adjusted mean difference -0.075 logMAR; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.130 to -0.020; P = 0.008) and at 1 year (-0.073 logMAR; 95% CI, -0.128 to -0.018; P = 0.011). Patients receiving faricimab achieved significantly higher rates of SRF resolution (odds ratio 2.446; 95% CI, 1.012 to 5.912; P = 0.047). The faricimab group was associated with fewer injections from the post-loading phase to 1 year (median 3 vs. 4; P < 0.001) and lower therapy switching rates (7.9% vs. 25.6%; P = 0.003).
conclusionsIn treatment-naïve nAMD patients, faricimab achieved greater visual acuity gains, enhanced anatomic outcomes, and reduced treatment burden compared with aflibercept. However, these findings should be interpreted in light of the non-randomised design, different loading regimens, and potential differences in early treatment exposure.
Identifiers
42552408What 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.