TALON phase IIIb study: 64 week results of brolucizumab versus aflibercept using treat-and-extend for neovascular age-related macular degeneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of brolucizumab 6 mg and aflibercept 2 mg in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) using an identical 4-week adjustment Treat-and-Extend regimen. METHODS: Patients received brolucizumab (n = 366) or aflibercept (n = 368) at Weeks 0, 4, 8 and 16, followed by 4-week interval adjustments depending on disease activity (DA) up to a maximum treatment interval of 16 weeks (q16w). After introduction of the urgent safety measure (USM), patients in either arm requiring a 4-week interval were discontinued from study treatment and moved to standard of care (SoC). RESULTS: At Week 64, more brolucizumab patients had a last treatment interval of q16w with no DA vs aflibercept (28.4% vs 12.2%). In the brolucizumab arm, 22.4%, 26.0% and 23.2% of patients were on treatment intervals of 12, 8 and 4 weeks (on SoC after USM), respectively, compared with 23.9%, 22.0% and 41.8% in the aflibercept arm. The average change in best-corrected visual acuity (letters) from baseline at Weeks 60 and 64 was comparable (brolucizumab: +4.7; aflibercept: +4.9). Average change in central subfield thickness (µm) at Weeks 60 and 64 was -182.9 µm in the brolucizumab arm vs -167.5 µm with aflibercept. Incidence of ocular adverse events (AEs), serious ocular AEs and AEs of special interest in the brolucizumab vs aflibercept arms were 31.1% vs 27.7%, 2.7% vs 0.8%, 6.0% vs 1.6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Week 64 results in TALON reaffirmed those reported at Week 32, demonstrating extended treatment intervals and an overall favourable benefit/risk profile for brolucizumab in patients with nAMD.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".