MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404633312 · doi:10.1016/j.oret.2024.11.015

Resolution of Angiographic Macular Leakage with Faricimab versus Aflibercept in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema in YOSEMITE/RHINE

2024· article· en· W4404633312 on OpenAlexaff
Roger A. Goldberg, Florie A Mar, Karl G. Csaky, Manuel Amador, Arshad M. Khanani, Kara Gibson, Anton M. Kolomeyer, Dawn A. Sim, Toshinori Murata, Patricia Udaondo, Audrey Souverain, Yevgeniy Shildkrot, Stela Vujosevic, Eric Nudleman, Sobha Sivaprasad

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmology Retina · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsRoche (Canada)
FundersF. Hoffmann-La RocheRoche
KeywordsMedicineAfliberceptDiabetic macular edemaOphthalmologyMacular edemaDiabetic retinopathyDiabetes mellitusSurgeryVisual acuityBevacizumab

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To evaluate if dual angiopoietin-2 (Ang-2)/VEGF-A inhibition with faricimab resulted in greater macular leakage resolution versus aflibercept in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). Post hoc analysis of macular leakage assessments prespecified in the YOSEMITE/RHINE (NCT03622580/NCT03622593) phase III trials. Adults with visual acuity loss due to center-involving DME. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to faricimab 6.0 mg every 8 weeks (Q8W), faricimab 6.0 mg according to a personalized treat-and-extend (T&E)-based regimen, or aflibercept 2.0 mg Q8W. This analysis included the first 16 weeks (head-to-head dosing period) when all patients received assigned study drug every 4 weeks (Q4W); patients were assessed 4 weeks after receiving 4 doses of assigned study drug Q4W. Macular leakage area on fluorescein angiography assessed by a reading center; proportion of patients with resolution of macular leakage (defined as macular leakage area 0–1 mm 2 ) and high macular leakage (defined as macular leakage area ≥10 mm 2 ) at baseline and week 16; and the proportion of faricimab T&E patients receiving Q16W dosing at week 52 among those with resolution of and high macular leakage at week 16. Among patients with macular leakage data available at baseline, there were 1216 patients in the pooled faricimab (Q8W + T&E) arms and 593 patients in the aflibercept arm. Baseline median macular leakage area was similar between the faricimab (24.6 mm 2 ) and aflibercept arms (25.6 mm 2 ). At week 16, median macular leakage area was 3.6 mm 2 with faricimab versus 7.6 mm 2 with aflibercept (nominal P < 0.0001). More faricimab-treated patients (28%) achieved resolution of macular leakage versus aflibercept at week 16 (15%; nominal P < 0.0001). In the faricimab T&E arm, 63% of patients with resolution of macular leakage and 45% of patients with high macular leakage at week 16 achieved Q16W dosing at week 52 (nominal P < 0.01). Faricimab demonstrated greater macular leakage resolution versus aflibercept during head-to-head dosing. These findings suggest that dual Ang-2/VEGF-A inhibition promotes vascular stability beyond VEGF inhibition alone, supporting faricimab’s potential to offer greater disease control and extend durability for patients with DME. Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOphthalmology RetinaSame topicRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207