Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This multicentre cohort study demonstrates faricimab’s efficacy in improving vision and reducing retinal thickness in diabetic macular oedema patients.
Aims Evaluate the efficacy and safety of faricimab for treatment-naïve and pre-treated diabetic macular oedema (DME) in a real-world setting. Methods This multicentre, retrospective cohort study examined consecutive DME patients treated with faricimab for ≥1 year. Data were collected at predefined time points. Primary outcomes were mean changes in corrected visual acuity (VA), centre-point retinal thickness (CRT) and central subfield thickness (CST) and treatment intervals and adverse events (AEs). Results 184 eyes with DME were included: 61 (33.2%) were treatment-naïve, and 123 (66.8%) were pretreated. In treatment-naïve eyes, VA improved from 69.7±15 Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters at baseline to 73.9±14.1 after 12 months (p=0.014), while it remained stable in pretreated eyes (71.2±14.2 vs 73.0±12.9; p=0.14). CST decreased significantly in both groups (treatment-naïve (366.1±108.3 µm to 316.4±113.5 µm, p<0.001); pretreated (339.1±93.1 µm to 298.3±65.8 µm, p<0.001)). Thirty-one percent of naïve eyes and 21.1% of pretreated eyes were completely dry after 12 months. In treatment-naïve eyes, the mean treatment interval was 12.7±6.4 weeks at 12 months. In pretreated eyes, the interval increased from 6.0±3.0 to 7.8±3.6 weeks (p<0.001). Over 12 months, 8.1±2.1 and 9.4±2.5 injections were administered to naïve and pretreated eyes, respectively (p<0.001). Of the five recorded AEs, two cases of non-infectious intraocular inflammation and one cerebrovascular event were reported. Conclusion Over 12 months, faricimab demonstrated good efficacy and safety in both treatment-naïve and pretreated eyes with DME. There was a reduction in CST and improved VA in treatment-naïve eyes and stable VA in pretreated eyes. The low number of AEs supports a favourable risk-benefit profile of faricimab in a real-world setting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Saad et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: