One-year Real-world Outcomes and Durability With Faricimab in Patients With Diabetic Macular Edema
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objective: This study assessed real-world treatment patterns and 1-year outcomes among patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) initiating faricimab. Patients and Methods: FARETINA-DME is a retrospective study using data from the IRIS® Registry for patients diagnosed with DME initiating faricimab from February 2022 to March 2023. Results: Seven hundred eighty-six (786) treatment-naive patients (970 eyes) and 4,862 patients (6,728 eyes) previously treated with anti-VEGF therapy were included. Visual acuity improved by 4.5 ± 15.8 (mean ± SD) letters in treatment-naive eyes ( P < 0.001) and was maintained in previously treated eyes at injection-7. Central subfield thickness (CST) improved by −48.7 ± 82.7 μm in treatment-naive and −50.7 ± 101.1 μm in previously treated eyes (both P < 0.0001); 42.3% and 43.8% had achieved/maintained C ST ≤ 280 μm at injection-7. Dosing frequency was reduced during the second 6 months (mean 1.9 to 2.7 injections) versus the first 6 months (3.4 to 3.9) of treatment. Conclusion: One-year outcomes among patients with DME initiating faricimab in clinical practice support the real-world effectiveness and extended durability of treatment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".