Summary

This AI-generated content is provided without warranty, with no liability accepted for reliance on it. Learn more.

• This summary is based on the review of 30 systematic review(s)/meta-analysis(es). ^[1-30]
• Faricimab: Comparable efficacy in visual acuity (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters) and retinal thickness to other anti-VEGF (retinal vein occlusion (RVO)) (aflibercept, abicipar, bevacizumab, brolucizumab, pegaptanib, or ranibizumab) agents, with a higher percentage of patients free from retinal fluid compared to aflibercept (every 8 weeks), ranibizumab, and bevacizumab. It also significantly reduces the number of annual injections. Comparable safety profile to other anti-VEGF agents; reduced risk of serious ocular adverse events compared to brolucizumab.
• Brolucizumab: Brolucizumab demonstrates superior effectiveness in improving best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) compared to aflibercept and ranibizumab, with a lower presence of intraretinal fluid (IRF) and subretinal fluid (SRF). For IRF, the weighted mean difference (WMD) was -8.2 letter score (95% confidence interval (CI), -11.79 to -4.50; P < 0.001; GRADE: low certainty; 7 studies; 2,334 eyes). For SRF in RVO, the WMD was 3.1 letter score (95% CI, 0.05 to 6.18; P = 0.05; GRADE: low certainty; 6 studies; 1,931 eyes).No significant difference in retinal thickness compared to control. Higher incidence of serious ocular adverse events compared to aflibercept and ranibizumab.
• Aflibercept (RVO): Comparable efficacy to ranibizumab in central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO), but with greater improvement in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) in real-world studies (RWS). No statistically significant difference in branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). No significant differences in ocular or non-ocular adverse events compared to other treatments.
• Aflibercept (DMO (median CRT): Slightly more effective in visual acuity improvement and CRT reduction compared to ranibizumab and bevacizumab, with fewer injections required. No significant differences in ocular or non-ocular adverse events compared to other treatments.
• There is no population types or subgroups information available in the reviewed studies.