ArticleGlobal & regional health technology assessment
Pharmacoeconomic analysis of switch to faricimab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in real clinical practice.
Article in Global & regional health technology assessment. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- From Trials to Treatment: Current Evidence Supporting Faricimab Use in nAMD and DME.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) is one of the leading causes of severe vision loss among older adults. This condition impairs patients' quality of life and imposes a significant economic burden on the healthcare system. This study aims to determine the difference in direct healthcare cost (DHC) after switching the current pharmacological treatment in patients with nAMD, under a treat-and-extend regimen, to faricimab. Methods: Treatment interval data obtained after switching to faricimab in 225 eyes with nAMD was used to calculate total DHC in comparison with the theoretical DHC had if patients remained on their previous treatment (drug and treatment interval). An "optimal responder" was defined as a patient whose interval between intravital injections was extended by more than 8 weeks relative to the baseline treatment interval. Results: The theoretical DHC of treatment for this series of nAMD eyes would have been €2,351,241.90, compared with an actual DHC after switching to faricimab of €1,718,015.83, representing a saving of €633,226.06 for 225 eyes. The mean theoretical DHC would have been €10,449.96 ± 4,340.18 (from 1,423.75 to 23,695.20), compared with a mean actual total cost of €7,635.62 ± 2,465.07 (from 2,571.88 to 15,431.28). The mean actual DHC was €8,499.74 ± 2,678.42 in the "non-optimal responder" group versus €6,593.59 ± 1,674.91 in the "optimal responder" group (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Switching to faricimab in patients with nAMD on a treat-and-extend regimen with a treatment interval of less than 12 weeks resulted in a significant reduction in total DHC, particularly in the "optimal responder" group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.