50
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Efficacy and safety of intravitreal faricimab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the visual, anatomical, and safety outcomes of the intravitreal faricimab, a novel vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)/angiopoietin-2 (Ang-2) bispecific agent, in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) patients. The follow-up times in the included studies ranged from a minimum of 36 weeks to a maximum of 52 weeks. EMBASE, Ovid-Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, Scopus, the WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrial.gov, the EU Clinical Trials Register, and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) were searched (The last literature search was performed on August 17, 2023) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing faricimab with control groups for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). The risk of bias for eligible RCTs was independently assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool by two authors (W.-T.Y. and C.-S.W.). The meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4 software. The mean best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central subfield thickness (CST), total choroidal neovascularization (CNV) area, and total lesion leakage were analyzed as continuous variables and the outcome measurements were reported as the weighted mean difference (WMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The ocular adverse events and ocular serious adverse events were analyzed as dichotomous variables and the outcome measurements were analyzed as the odds ratios (ORs) with a 95% CI. Random-effects model was used in our study for all outcome synthesizing due to different clinical characteristics. Four RCTs with 1,486 patients were eligible for quantitative analysis. There was no statistically significant difference between intravitreal faricimab and anti-VEGF in BCVA [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 0.47; 95% CI: (− 0.17, 1.11)]. The intravitreal faricimab group showed numerically lower CST [WMD =  − 5.96; 95% CI = (− 7.11, − 4.82)], total CNV area [WMD =  − 0.49; 95% CI = (− 0.68, − 0.30)], and total lesion leakage [WMD =  − 0.88; 95% CI = (− 1.08, − 0.69)] after intravitreal therapy compared with the intravitreal anti-VEGF group. There were no statistically significant differences between intravitreal faricimab and anti-VEGF in ocular adverse events (AEs) [pooled odds ratio (OR) = 1.10; 95% CI = (0.81, 1.49)] and serious adverse events (SAEs) [pooled OR = 0.84; 95% CI = (0.37, 1.90)]. The intravitreal bispecific anti-VEGF/angiopoietin 2 (Ang2) antibody faricimab with a extended injection interval was non-inferior to first-line anti-VEGF agents in BCVA. It was safe and had better anatomical recovery. Large, well-designed RCTs are needed to explore the potential benefit of extended faricimab for nAMD. This systematic review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database (CRD42022327450).

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

          Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

              Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                drleechohao@gmail.com
                josephinesheu@gmail.com
                Journal
                Sci Rep
                Sci Rep
                Scientific Reports
                Nature Publishing Group UK (London )
                2045-2322
                30 January 2024
                30 January 2024
                2024
                : 14
                : 2485
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.260565.2, ISNI 0000 0004 0634 0356, Department of Ophthalmology, Tri-Service General Hospital, , National Defense Medical Center, ; Taipei, Taiwan
                [2 ]GRID grid.260565.2, ISNI 0000 0004 0634 0356, Department of Internal Medicine, Tri-Service General Hospital, , National Defense Medical Center, ; Taipei, Taiwan
                [3 ]Department of Ophthalmology, National Taiwan University Hospital, ( https://ror.org/03nteze27) Taipei, Taiwan
                [4 ]Department of Ophthalmology, National Taiwan University College of Medicine, ( https://ror.org/05bqach95) Taipei, Taiwan
                [5 ]GRID grid.260565.2, ISNI 0000 0004 0634 0356, Division of Hematology and Oncology Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Tri-Service General Hospital, , National Defense Medical Center, ; No. 325, Sec. 2, Chenggong Rd., Neihu Dist., Taipei City, 114 Taiwan
                [6 ]GRID grid.452796.b, ISNI 0000 0004 0634 3637, Department of Ophthalmology, , Show Chwan Memorial Hospital, ; No. 542, Sec. 1, Zhongshan Rd., Changhua City, 500 Changhua County Taiwan
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1473-2531
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6061-5168
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4390-0389
                Article
                52942
                10.1038/s41598-024-52942-3
                10827713
                38291069
                4ff0f211-8765-4253-91b4-c810414dc5e5
                © The Author(s) 2024

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 13 February 2023
                : 25 January 2024
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Nature Limited 2024

                Uncategorized
                outcomes research,drug therapy,retinal diseases
                Uncategorized
                outcomes research, drug therapy, retinal diseases

                Comments

                Comment on this article