Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Compares faricimab and aflibercept effectiveness in treatment-naïve neovascular AMD, suggesting improved outcomes with faricimab.
Purpose To compare the real-world effectiveness of faricimab versus aflibercept 2 mg in treatment-naïve patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). Methods We 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. Results A 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). Conclusions In 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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhuang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: