Search

Background: Landmark studies reported on faricimab efficacy and safety predominantly in treatment naïve patients, but outcomes following switch from other anti-VEGF therapies are lacking. We evaluated patients switched to faricimab who had previously shown a partial response to other anti-VEGF injections for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) and diabetic macular oedema (DMO)., Methods: Retrospective study at the Oxford Eye Hospital. Patients switched to faricimab from January to April 2023 with six months follow-up were identified via electronic medical records., Results: A total of 116 patients (151 eyes) were included. In 88 patients with nAMD (107 eyes), mean visual acuity remained stable: 62±17 ETDRS letters at baseline; 62±18 at six months (p > 0.05). Central subfield thickness (CST) reduced from 294 ± 73 μm to 270 ± 53 μm (p < 0.05) at six months. Subretinal or intraretinal fluid was present in 102 eyes (95%) at baseline and 75 eyes (70%) at follow-up (p < 0.05). Pigment epithelial detachment height decreased from 233 ± 134 μm to 188 ± 147 μm (p < 0.05). Mean treatment interval increased by 1.7 weeks (p < 0.05) and was extended in 61 eyes (57%) at six months. In 28 patients with DMO (44 eyes), visual acuity remained stable: 69 ± 15 letters at baseline; 70±15 at six months (p > 0.05). CST reduced from 355 ± 87 μm to 317 ± 82 μm (p < 0.05). Mean treatment interval increased by 1.4 weeks (p < 0.05) and was extended in 21 eyes (46%) by six months., Conclusions: Switching to faricimab in treatment resistant eyes led to improved anatomical response and extended treatment interval in a significant proportion of patients. Ongoing review of real-world data will inform longer-term outcomes of safety and effectiveness., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SDS has served on Advisory Boards for Roche, AbbVie and received educational travel grants from Bayer and Roche. CK has served on Advisory Boards for and/or received speaker fees, travel grants, or attended educational events sponsored by Bayer, Alimera Sciences and Roche. No relevant conflicts of interest for GAB, NMS, HA, TG, MDF, KX, JC-K, REM, PCI, and SMD., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Corneal collagen crosslinking (CXL) is the primary treatment for progressive keratoconus which has a significant impact on vision and quality of life. Our study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of epithelium-on versus epithelium-off CXL to treat keratoconus., Methods: We searched PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. We included studies that compared standard epithelium-off with epithelium-on CXL. The primary outcome measures were changes in corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and maximum keratometry (Kmax), and the secondary outcomes were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), central corneal thickness (CCT), and adverse events. A meta-analysis was performed on the primary and secondary outcomes based on the weighted mean differences between baseline to 12-month follow-up., Results: The search retrieved 887 publications with 27 included in the systematic review. A total of 1622 eyes (1399 patients; age 25.51 ± 4.02 years) were included in comparisons of epithelium-off to epithelium-on CXL in keratoconus. Epithelium-off CXL treated 800 eyes and epithelium-on CXL for 822 eyes. At 12-month follow-up, CDVA and Kmax showed no significant difference between the epithelium-off and epithelium-on CXL. The secondary outcomes showed that UDVA was better in epithelium-off CXL (- 0.11D, 95% CI - 0.12, - 0.1; p < 0.001) and there was more thinning in CCT in epithelium-off CXL (- 3.23 μm, 95% CI - 4.64, - 1.81; p <0.001)., Conclusion: Epithelium-off and epithelium-on CXL were both effective to treat progressive keratoconus. Further research is needed to compare the long-term outcomes and safety of both CXL protocols for adaptation into clinical practice., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Corneal collagen crosslinking (CXL) is the primary treatment for progressive keratoconus which has a significant impact on vision and quality of life. Our study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of epithelium-on versus epithelium-off CXL to treat keratoconus. Methods: We searched PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. We included studies that compared standard epithelium-off with epithelium-on CXL. The primary outcome measures were changes in corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and maximum keratometry (Kmax), and the secondary outcomes were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), central corneal thickness (CCT), and adverse events. A meta-analysis was performed on the primary and secondary outcomes based on the weighted mean differences between baseline to 12-month follow-up. Results: The search retrieved 887 publications with 27 included in the systematic review. A total of 1622 eyes (1399 patients; age 25.51 ± 4.02 years) were included in comparisons of epithelium-off to epithelium-on CXL in keratoconus. Epithelium-off CXL treated 800 eyes and epithelium-on CXL for 822 eyes. At 12-month follow-up, CDVA and Kmax showed no significant difference between the epithelium-off and epithelium-on CXL. The secondary outcomes showed that UDVA was better in epithelium-off CXL (− 0.11D, 95% CI − 0.12, − 0.1; p < 0.001) and there was more thinning in CCT in epithelium-off CXL (− 3.23 μm, 95% CI − 4.64, − 1.81; p <0.001). Conclusion: Epithelium-off and epithelium-on CXL were both effective to treat progressive keratoconus. Further research is needed to compare the long-term outcomes and safety of both CXL protocols for adaptation into clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]