DTI Drug Target Insights 2024; 18: 105-111 ISSN 1177-3928 | DOI: 10.33393/dti.2024.3213 ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE Drug Target Insights - ISSN 1177-3928 - www.aboutscience.eu/dti © 2024 The Authors. This article is published by AboutScience and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0). Commercial use is not permitted and is subject to Publisher’s permissions. Full information is available at www.aboutscience.eu Faricimab versus the standard of care for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in Italy: an indirect treatment comparison Carlotta Galeone 1,2, Federica Turati3, Massimo Nicolò 4, Mariacristina Parravano 5, Stela Vujosevic 6,7, Laura Bianchino8, Emilia Sicari 8, Paolo Lanzetta 9,10 1Bicocca Applied Statistics Center (BASC), Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, Milan - Italy 2Biostatistics & Outcome Research, Statinfo, Milan - Italy 3Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, University of Milan, Milan - Italy 4Clinica Oculistica—DiNOGMi, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa - Italy 5IRCCS-Fondazione Bietti, Rome - Italy 6Department of Biomedical, Surgical, and Dental Sciences, University of Milan, Milan - Italy 7Eye Clinic, IRCCS MultiMedica, Milan - Italy 8Roche S.p.A., Monza - Italy 9Department of Medicine-Ophthalmology, University of Udine, Udine - Italy 10IEMO, Istituto Europeo di Microchirurgia Oculare, Udine - Italy ABSTRACT Objectives: To assess through an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) the potential benefit of faricimab over the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) real-life scenario, hereby defined standard of care (SoC), in Italy, that is, aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab, in patients with neovascular age-related macular degenera- tion (nAMD) naïve to any anti-VEGF treatment. Methods: Individual patient-level data from the phase III clinical trials TENAYA and LUCERNE (faricimab cohort) and the real-world study RADIANCE (RADIANCE cohort) were used. Efficacy was evaluated with changes in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central subfield thickness (CST) from baseline to 1 year (week 52 in the RADIANCE and week 48 in the faricimab cohorts, respectively). Propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting was utilized to balance cohorts and mitigate bias due to potential confounding. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate treatment differences adjusted for the number of injections. Results: The ITC included 513 patients treated with faricimab and 263 patients treated with SoC. At 1 year, farici- mab showed a greater mean BCVA gain (treatment difference +5.4 letters, p<0.001) and CST reduction (treatment difference −71.8 μm, p<0.001) compared to SoC. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of results, show- ing a BCVA improvement of +4.0 letters and a CST reduction of −71.5 μm in favor of faricimab. Conclusions: Despite the limitations due to the use of ITC and the comparison between clinical trials and real- world cohorts, the present analysis suggests potential benefits in terms of vision gain and CST reduction in naïve nAMD patients treated with faricimab compared with SoC in a real-world setting. Keywords: Faricimab, Indirect treatment comparison, nAMD, Vascular endothelial growth factor A Received: July 18, 2024 Accepted: November 13, 2024 Published online: December 12, 2024 Corresponding author: Carlotta Galeone email: carlotta.galeone@unimib.it Neovascular AMD (nAMD) is an advanced form of AMD characterized by the development of subretinal new ves- sels that may lead to leakage, accumulation of fluid intra- and subretinally, macular edema, hemorrhage, and serous detachments of the retinal pigment epithelium. Angiogenesis and increased vascular permeability are mainly caused by an abnormally high expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) (4-8). Over the last couple of decades, the treatment of nAMD has evolved, gradually shifting from laser therapy to the use of anti-VEGF intravitreal injections. Anti- VEGF agents have proven to be effective for the manage- ment of patients with nAMD, removing exudative fluid from the retina, suppressing the formation of leaking new blood vessels, and improving or maintaining visual acuity (VA) over Introduction Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of blindness and visual impairment in elderly subjects (1-3). It is a chronic, multifactorial degenerative pathology affecting the macula, typically occurring after age 55 (1). https://doi.org/10.33393/dti.2024.3213 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/legalcode https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1934-5167 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7824-3091 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2223-7311 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6773-9967 https://orcid.org/0009-0002-9010-3005 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3746-141X mailto:carlotta.galeone@unimib.it ITC of faricimab vs. SoC for nAMD patients in Italy106 © 2024 The Authors. Drug Target Insights - ISSN 1177-3928 - www.aboutscience.eu/dti time (9-17). In Italy, the prevalence of nAMD in individuals aged ≥55 was estimated at 4.6 per 1,000 inhabitants (18). Currently, there is no single approach for anti-VEGF admin- istration. The most common approaches are the reactive pro- re-nata (PRN), the proactive treat-and-extend (T&E), and the fixed bimonthly regimen. In the reactive PRN approach, three-monthly loading doses are followed by adaptable dos- ing based on monthly monitoring of VA and/or macular mor- phology. In clinical practice, this approach has been associated with suboptimal outcomes and risk of undertreatment (19). The proactive fixed bimonthly dosing consists of bimonthly injections for at least 1 year (13,15) and has been shown to improve outcomes compared to PRN (20), although it is asso- ciated with a considerable treatment burden (21). In the proactive T&E regimen, anti-VEGF is administered at every visit. Following the loading phase, the treatment interval can be gradually extended or reduced based on ana- tomic and VA status. This approach allows the extension of treatment intervals, reducing the overall number of visits and improving VA outcomes (20-26). In 2023, faricimab, a novel bispecific antibody that simul- taneously binds and neutralizes Ang-2 and VEGF-A, received approval by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and reim- bursement by Italian Medicines Agency (Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco—AIFA) for the treatment of adult patients with nAMD (27). In Italy, the currently available anti-VEGFs include aflibercept, ranibizumab, bevacizumab, and broluci- zumab (28). Aflibercept, ranibizumab, and brolucizumab have received marketing authorization from EMA for the treatment of nAMD, while bevacizumab can be administered on an off- label regimen according to the Law 648/96 (Law 648/96 provides for the reimbursement of the medicinal product by the National Health Service when there is no valid therapeu- tic alternative for innovative medicines authorized in other states but not in Italy, for medicines not yet authorized but undergoing clinical trials, and for medicines already autho- rized in Italy, for indications other than authorized one) (29). Efficacy and safety of faricimab were evaluated in the randomized, double-masked, phase III, non-inferiority tri- als TENAYA and LUCERNE (30) that randomized patients to receive faricimab 6.0 mg up to every 16 weeks (TENAYA n = 334, LUCERNE n = 331) or aflibercept 2.0 mg every 8 weeks (TENAYA n = 337, LUCERNE n = 327). In both studies, faricimab was non-inferior to aflibercept in terms of change in best corrected VA (BCVA) from baseline averaged over weeks 40, 44, and 48, with mean changes of 5.8 letters (95% confidence interval, CI: 4.6 to 7.1) and 6.6 letters (95% CI: 5.23 to 7.8) in TENAYA and LUCERNE, respectively. The treat- ment difference was equal to 0.7 letters (95% CI: −1.1 to 2.5) in TENAYA and 0.0 letters (95% CI: −1.7 to 1.8) in LUCERNE. RADIANCE is an Italian, retrospective, observational, mul- ticenter cohort study (31) that aimed to describe the real- world treatment patterns of available intravitreal anti-VEGF in Italy and the associated effectiveness. The study enrolled all consecutive anti-VEGF treatment-naïve subjects with a diagnosis of nAMD who initiated therapy with one of the available agents (i.e., aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibi- zumab) between January 2017 and November 2018. The pri- mary objective of the study was to evaluate the change in VA 52 weeks after starting treatment with any of the three agents. All VA measurements were converted to the approxi- mate ETDRS letter score. Overall, after 52 weeks of treatment, the patients showed a median change in VA of 1.0 letter (25th-75th percentile: −5; +1.9). By stratifying VA changes by the number of injections per year, patients treated with >6 injections in the first year of treatment showed a median VA improvement of 3 letters (25th-75th percentile: −1; 11), while no improvement was observed in patients treated with <2 (median 0 letters, 25th-75th percentile: −2; 0) and 3-5 injec- tions (median 0 letters; 25th-75th percentile: −5.0; +9.0). In this study an indirect treatment comparison using indi- vidual patient-level data (IPD) was performed to evaluate the potential benefit of faricimab vs. the real-life scenario of intravitreal anti-VEGF monotherapies available at the time of analysis (namely aflibercept 2 mg, bevacizumab, and ranibi- zumab, hereby defined standard of care—SoC) for nAMD patients in Italy. Methods An indirect comparison of the efficacy at 1 year of farici- mab in two phase III clinical trials and the corresponding effec- tiveness of anti-VEGF in a real-world study was performed on patients with nAMD matched through propensity score (PS) weighting. Efficacy was assessed in terms of change from baseline to 1 year (week 52 in the RADIANCE and week 48 in the faricimab cohorts) in BCVA, as assessed by ETDRS letter score, and central subfield thickness (CST), as determined by Spectral Domain-Optical Coherence Tomography. Data sources IPD for the faricimab cohort was taken from the pivotal trials TENAYA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03823287) and LUCERNE (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03823300) (30). IPD for the RADIANCE cohort was taken from the Italian, real-world study RADIANCE (31). In the TENAYA and LUCERNE studies bilateral treatment was not allowed and for patients with bilateral nAMD, the eye with the worst BCVA at diagnosis was included (study eye). In the RADIANCE study, in case of bilateral treatment during the index period, the eye with the worst condition at treatment start was selected as the study eye. Population This analysis included all the patients enrolled in the RADIANCE study (31) with at least two VA measurements after the one at baseline, of which at least one was at week 52 ± 10 (RADIANCE cohort). A cohort of patients treated with faricimab was created by combining data from the active arms in the LUCERNE and TENAYA trials (faricimab cohort). Since the pivotal trials (30) included patients worldwide and the RADIANCE study included Italian patients only, to ensure consistency across the cohorts, only Caucasian patients from LUCERNE and TENAYA were considered; in addition, patients with no VA and CST data at week 48 or with polypoidal cho- roidal vasculopathy (PCV) lesions were excluded from the far- icimab cohort. We excluded PCV lesions from the faricimab Galeone et al Drug Target Insights 2024; 18: 107 © 2024 The Authors. Published by AboutScience - www.aboutscience.eu cohort because there were no patients with PCV in the RADIANCE cohort. Statistical analyses PS-based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was utilized to balance the two cohorts and mitigate bias due to potential confounding. In IPTW, weights are cal- culated for each individual as 1/PS for the treated group and 1/(1 − PS) for the control group, where the PS is defined as the inverse probability of receiving the treatment based on the baseline characteristics. This creates pseudo-populations to achieve a balanced distribution of baseline covariates between groups (32). In this analysis, the PS was estimated by logistic regression including the following baseline covari- ates, selected according to both expert opinion and evalua- tion of covariates’ imbalance between cohorts: • VA or CST at baseline, respectively, when analyzing BCVA and CST change; • Age; • Sex; • Type of lesion (type 1, 2, and 3); • Presence of intraretinal fluid (IRF) at baseline; • Presence of subretinal fluid (SRF) at baseline. Missing values in type of lesion, and baseline IRF and SRF were handled by inclusion of categories for missing values in the PS models. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) and appropriate statistical tests (i.e., chi-square tests for categorical variables, and t-tests or non-parametric Mann-Whitney tests, respec- tively, for normally and not normally distributed continuous variables) were used to compare the distribution of baseline covariates between the RADIANCE and faricimab cohorts before and after IPTW. A weighted one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to compare mean changes in BCVA and CST between the two cohorts. The frequency of injections may differ in randomized controlled trial (RCT) and clinical practice and, as already reported in the RADIANCE study, patients with a higher num- ber of injections showed more favorable clinical outcomes (31). To account for the difference in treatment regime and protocol between the pivotal and real-world studies, in a sensitivity analysis an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model incorporating the number of injections as covariate and weighting for IPTW was used to obtain adjusted mean treatment differences. All tests were two-sided, and a p value <0.05 was consid- ered statistically significant. Statistical analyses were performed with SAS Version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Results Patients and baseline characteristics The RADIANCE study enrolled 405 patients. Of those, 17 were excluded because they did not satisfy the inclusion criteria (i.e., patients with diagnosis of nAMD, naïve to any intraocular anti-VEGF treatment, with age ≥50 years on the date of the first anti-VEGF injection), 1 because of the lack of hospital charts/clinical records at anti-VEGF treatment start, 43 because of the lack of at least two VA measurements after the baseline, and 81 because of the lack of a VA measurement at week 52 ± 10. The TENAYA and LUCERNE studies included a total of 665 patients treated with faricimab; of those, 152 patients were not eligible for this analysis (85 were non- Caucasian, 65 had missing BCVA and CST data at week 48, and, among the remaining, 2 were diagnosed as having PCV at baseline by the centralized reading center). Thus, finally, a total of 513 patients treated with faricimab from TENAYA and LUCERNE trials and 263 patients treated with aflibercept (n = 101), bevacizumab (n = 53), or ranibizumab (n = 109) from the RADIANCE study were included for comparison. All patients from both the faricimab and the RADIANCE cohorts had BCVA data at 1 year (i.e., week 48 and 52, respectively) and were therefore included in the analysis of BCVA change from baseline. CST data at week 48-52 were missing in 97 patients from the RADIANCE cohort and 4 patients from the faricimab cohort; therefore, the analysis of CST changes from baseline at 1 year was based on 509 patients treated with faricimab and 166 patients treated with the anti-VEGF SoC. Before IPTW, significant differences in baseline patients’ characteristics between the two groups were observed. Specifically, in the RADIANCE cohort, compared to the farici- mab cohort, patients were older, had lower BCVA and higher CST, and there was a higher proportion of patients with IRF. After IPTW, the cohorts were well-balanced (Tabs. 1 and 2). TABLE 1 - Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics in the faricimab and RADIANCE cohorts before and after the IPTW in the analysis of the VA change Before IPTW After IPTW TENAYA+LUCERNE (faricimab) RADIANCE (SoC) SMD p value for comparison* TENAYA+LUCERNE (faricimab) RADIANCE (SoC) SMD p value for comparison* N 513 263 772.4 297.2 Age, median (IQR) 76 (70-81) 78 (73-82) −0.254 0.0007 77 (71-82) 76 (71-81) 0.040 0.601 Sex, n (%)  Men 187 (36.5) 115 (43.7) −0.149 0.049 315.2 (40.8) 319.7 (40.1) 0.014 0.778  Women 326 (63.6) 148 (56.3) 457.2 (59.2) 477.6 (59.9) (Continued) ITC of faricimab vs. SoC for nAMD patients in Italy108 © 2024 The Authors. Drug Target Insights - ISSN 1177-3928 - www.aboutscience.eu/dti Before IPTW After IPTW TENAYA+LUCERNE (faricimab) RADIANCE (SoC) SMD p value for comparison* TENAYA+LUCERNE (faricimab) RADIANCE (SoC) SMD p value for comparison* Lesion type, n (%)  Occult (type 1) 275 (54.6) 103 (40.9) 0.292 <0.001 395.7 (52.3) 406.4 (52.1) 0.005 0.951  Classic (type 2)† 210 (41.7) 121 (48.0) −0.102 316.6 (41.8) 323.6 (41.5) 0.008  Type 3 19 (3.8) 28 (11.1) −0.271 45.1 (6.0) 49.4 (6.3) −0.014  Missing 9 11 14.9 17.8 IRF at baseline, n (%)  No 276 (54.9) 84 (42.6) 0.026 0.004 359.2 (51.5) 371.8 (51.5) −0.003 0.998  Yes 227 (45.1) 113 (57.4) 337.9 (48.5) 349.9 (48.5)  Missing 10 66 75.3 75.4 SRF at baseline, n (%)  No 172 (34.0) 58 (29.2) 0.236 0.217 233.4 (33.3) 264.5 (36.4) 0.055 0.211  Yes 334 (66.0) 141 (70.8) 468.2 (66.7) 461.7 (63.6)  Missing 7 64 70.8 71.0 VA (ETDRS Letter) at baseline, mean ± SD 60.5 ± 13.1 57.1 ± 21.1 0.219 0.004 59.6 ± 16.5 61.1 ± 34.3 −0.088 0.244 *p values were nominal. †Including “minimally” and “predominantly” classic lesions. IPTW = inverse probability of treatment weighting; IQR = interquartile range; IRF = intraretinal fluid; SD = standard deviation; SMD = standardized mean differ- ence; SoC = standard of care (aflibercept, ranibizumab, and bevacizumab); SRF = subretinal fluid; VA = visual acuity. TABLE 2 - Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics in the faricimab and RADIANCE cohorts before and after the IPTW in the analysis of the CST change Before IPTW After IPTW TENAYA+LUCERNE (Faricimab) RADIANCE (SoC) SMD p value for comparison* TENAYA+LUCERNE (faricimab) RADIANCE (SoC) SMD p value for comparison* N 509 166 673.3 683.3 Age, median (IQR) 76 (70-81) 77 (72-82) −0.155 0.077 76 (70-81) 76 (70-80) 0.030 0.739 Sex, n (%)  Men 184 (36.2) 80 (48.2) −0.246 0.006 365.4 (39.4) 275.7 (40.4) −0.019 0.727  Women 325 (63.8) 86 (51.8) 407.8 (60.6) 407.6 (59.7) Lesion type, n (%)  Occult (type 1) 274 (54.8) 76 (47.2) 0.161 <0.001 350.5 (53.1) 363.1 (54.2) −0.022 0.916  Classic (type 2)† 207 (41.4) 63 (39.1) 0.056 268.4 (40.7) 265.4 (39.6) 0.022  Type 3 19 (3.8) 22 (13.7) −0.346 40.8 (6.2) 41.9 (6.5) −0.002  Missing 9 5 13.3 12.8 IRF at baseline, n (%)  No 276 (55.2) 68 (43.9) −0.168 0.004 343.4 (52.4) 342.6 (51.6) −0.016 0.755  Yes 224 (44.8) 87 (56.1) 311.8 (47.6) 321.8 (48.4)  Missing 9 11 18.0 18.8 SRF at baseline, n (%)  No 170 (33.9) 46 (29.5) −0.022 0.309 219.3 (33.3) 242.6 (36.4) 0.065 0.244  Yes 332 (66.1) 110 (70.5) 438.8 (66.7) 424.4 (63.6)  Missing 7 10 15.1 16.2 CST (μm) at baseline, mean ± SD 359.8 ± 121.3 392.0 ± 163.6 −0.223 0.021 366.3 ± 144.3 362.0 ± 287.6 0.030 0.725 *P values were nominal. †Including “minimally” and “predominantly” classic lesions. CST = central subfield thickness; IPTW = inverse probability of treatment weighting; IQR = interquartile range; IRF = intraretinal fluid; SD = standard deviation; SMD = standardized mean difference; SoC = standard of care (aflibercept, ranibizumab, and bevacizumab); SRF = subretinal fluid. TABLE 1 - (Continued) Galeone et al Drug Target Insights 2024; 18: 109 © 2024 The Authors. Published by AboutScience - www.aboutscience.eu Change from baseline in BCVA After IPTW, mean vision gains in BCVA after 1 year of treatment were 6.4 letters (95% CI: 5.0 to 7.9) in the far- icimab cohort and 1.0 letter (95% CI: −0.4 to 2.5) in the RADIANCE cohort, with a corresponding treatment differ- ence of 5.4 letters (95% CI: 3.4 to 7.5, p<0.001) in favor of faricimab (Fig. 1). Favors SoC 86420-2-4-6-8-10 10 Favors faricimab 4.0 (95% CI: 1.7 to 6.2) Sensitivity analysis: adjusted for n. of injections 5.4 (95% CI: 3.4 to 7.5) Primary analysis FIGURE 1 - Difference in BCVA mean change (95% CI) from ba- seline to 1 year after IPTW. BCVA = best corrected visual acuity; CI = confidential interval; IPTW = inverse probability of treatment weighting; SoC = standard of care (aflibercept, ranibizumab, and bevacizumab). Change from baseline in CST After IPTW, the mean CST change from baseline was −143.2 μm (95% CI: −156.2 to −130.1) in the farici- mab cohort and −71.4 μm (95% CI: −84.3 to −58.4) in the RADIANCE cohort, with a corresponding treatment differ- ence of −71.8 μm (95% CI: −90.2 to −53.4, p<0.001) in favor of faricimab (Fig. 2). Favors faricimab 200-20-40-60-80-100 40 Favors SoC −71.4 μm (95% CI: −84.3 to −58.4) Sensitivity analysis: adjusted for n. of injections −71.8 μm (95% CI: −90.2 to −53.4) Primary analysis FIGURE 2 - Difference in CST mean change (95% CI) from base- line to 1 year after IPTW. CI = confidential interval; CST = cen- tral subfield thickness; IPTW = inverse probability of treatment weighting; SoC = standard of care (aflibercept, ranibizumab, and bevacizumab). Sensitivity analysis After adjusting for the number of injections, results were consistent with the main scenarios. There was a slight reduc- tion in the weighted BCVA change from baseline in the far- icimab cohort (+5.9 letters [95% CI: 4.4 to 7.4]) and a slight increase in the RADIANCE cohort (+1.9 letters [95% CI: 0.4 to 3.5]). The weighted treatment difference remained statisti- cally significant and was consistent with that observed in the main scenario (+4.0 letters in favor of faricimab [95% CI: 1.7 to 6.2; p = 0.0005]). Similarly, after adjusting for the number of injections, the estimated treatment difference in CST change from baseline remained in favor of faricimab (−71.5 μm [95% CI: −91 to −52; p<0.001]) (Figs. 1 and 2). Discussion This indirect treatment comparison was conducted to eval- uate the effectiveness of the novel anti-VEGF/Ang2 inhibitor faricimab compared to commonly used anti-VEGF agents in Italy. The analysis was performed using IPD from the real-world study RADIANCE (31) and a subset of faricimab-treated patients from the randomized clinical trials TENAYA and LUCERNE (30). Despite the initial significant differences of baseline char- acteristics between the two cohorts, the IPTW allowed to balance the cohorts and mitigate the effect of potential con- founding variables (i.e., age, sex, type of lesion, IRF, SRF, and baseline VA). The base case analyses showed a favorable effect for far- icimab with a treatment difference compared with SoC equal to a BCVA gain of 5.4 letters (95% CI: 3.4 to 7.5, p<0.001) and a CST reduction of −71.8 μm (95% CI: −90.2 to −53.4, p<0.001). The weighted BCVA change from baseline in the faricimab cohort (+6.5 letters [95% CI: 5.0 to 7.9]) was in line with the results of the TENAYA and LUCERNE trials (+6.2 let- ters, average of weeks 40-48) (30), and the weighted BCVA change from baseline in the RADIANCE cohort (+1.0 letter [95% CI: −0.4 to 2.5]) was in line with that observed in the RADIANCE study (+1.0 letter [SD 19.3]) (31). Similarly, the weighted CST changes observed in this analysis (−143 μm [95% CI: −156 to −130] for faricimab and −71 μm [95% CI: −84 to 58]) for SoC) were comparable to those observed in the TENAYA and LUCERNE trials (−137 μm, average of weeks 40-48) and in the RADIANCE study (−58 μm [95% CI: −161 to 15]), respectively. In the RADIANCE study, after stratification by the num- ber of anti-VEGF injections per year, the median VA improve- ment was better in patients treated with >6 injections, whereas no improvement was observed in patients treated with fewer injections (31). The association observed in the RADIANCE study between the higher number of anti-VEGF injections and better outcomes was in line with what has been reported by other real-world studies (11,14,16,33). Since the injection frequency in the controlled setting of a clinical trial is often different to that observed in the real world (9,10,13,15,17,34,35), a sensitivity analysis was under- taken to adjust for the number of injections between the RADIANCE and faricimab cohorts. The BCVA gains and CST reductions observed in this sensitivity analysis were consis- tent with the main scenarios, with the weighted treatment difference in BCVA and CST equal to +4.0 letters and −71.5 μm, respectively, in favor of faricimab. Despite the adjust- ment for the number of injections, residual confounding by the different regime and protocol between the pivotal and real-world studies cannot be excluded, which may limit the interpretation and generalizability of the results. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that compared faricimab with SoC for patients with nAMD in Italy. First-line treatment with faricimab was associated with greater visual gain and CST reduction, compared to current intravitreal anti-VEGF SoC, showing potential to redefine the treatment landscape for nAMD. Clinicians may consider far- icimab as an effective option, particularly given its favorable outcomes in comparison to employed anti-VEGF agents. ITC of faricimab vs. SoC for nAMD patients in Italy110 © 2024 The Authors. Drug Target Insights - ISSN 1177-3928 - www.aboutscience.eu/dti The limitations of the study include the size of the real- world cohort, in particular for the analysis on CST, which was too small to allow subgroup analysis by anti-VEGF agent, along with all limitations associated with the comparison of clinical trial and real-world cohorts. In particular, the treat- ment regimens in the clinical trial setting are more con- trolled than in routine clinical practice. Although we used PS weighting to balance potential confounding factors, resid- ual confounding as well as an impact of unmeasured con- founders cannot be ruled out. In addition, in the RADIANCE cohort we included patients with at least two post-baseline endpoint measurements, including one around 52 weeks, and this could have introduced some selection bias if these patients were different from those with only one post-base- line measurement. Conclusions Despite limitations of indirect treatment comparisons, which call for specific post-marketing real-world studies, and the possibility that the difference may be due to frequency and time of treatment rather than to type of agents used, the present analysis supports potential benefits in terms of VA and CST reduction in naïve nAMD patients treated with faricimab compared with intravitreal anti-VEGF SoC (afliber- cept, ranibizumab, and bevacizumab). Additional evidence from the real-world setting is required to confirm our finding. Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge Ombretta Bandi from SEEd Medical Publishers who provided writing assistance and jour- nal styling services. Disclosures Financial support: This study was sponsored and financially supported by Roche S.p.A. The study was presented as a poster at ISPOR Europe 2023 (Copenhagen, November 12-15, 2023). Conflict of interest: The authors declare the following financial in- terests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: CG Roche; FT None; MP Abbvie, Novartis, Bayer, Roche, Zeiss; FV Bayer, Novartis, Abbvie, Roche; MN Roche; SV Abbvie, Alimera, Apel- lis, Bayer. B&I, Novartis, Roche, Zeiss; LB is an employee at Roche; ES is an employee at Roche; GV is an employee at Roche; PL Aerie, Al- lergan, Annexon, Apellis, Bausch & Lomb, Bayer, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eyepoint Pharmaceuticals, I-Care, Genentech, Novartis, Ocular Therapeutix, Outlook Therapeutics, and Roche Authors’ contributions: All authors contributed to conceptualiza- tion, writing—review and editing. CG and FT performed data management and statistical analysis. LB, ES, and GV contributed to funding acquisition, project adminis- tration, resources, and supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. References 1. Colijn JM, Buitendijk GHS, Prokofyeva E, et al; EYE-RISK consor- tium; European Eye Epidemiology (E3) consortium. Prevalence of age-related macular degeneration in Europe: the past and the future. Ophthalmology. 2017;124(12):1753-1763. CrossRef PubMed 2. Flaxman SR, Bourne RRA, Resnikoff S, et al; Vision Loss Expert Group of the Global Burden of Disease Study. Global causes of blindness and distance vision impairment 1990-2020: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2017;5(12):e1221-e1234. CrossRef PubMed 3. Steinmetz JD, Bourne RRA, Briant PS, et al; GBD 2019 Blindness and Vision Impairment Collaborators; Vision Loss Expert Group of the Global Burden of Disease Study. Causes of blindness and vision impairment in 2020 and trends over 30 years, and preva- lence of avoidable blindness in relation to VISION 2020: the Right to Sight: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet Glob Health. 2021;9(2):e144-e160. CrossRef PubMed 4. Ambati J, Fowler BJ. Mechanisms of age-related macular degeneration. Neuron. 2012;75(1):26-39. CrossRef PubMed 5. Cheung LK, Eaton A. Age-related macular degeneration. Pharmacotherapy. 2013;33(8):838-855. CrossRef PubMed 6. Ferris FL III, Wilkinson CP, Bird A, et al; Beckman Initiative for Macular Research Classification Committee. Clinical classifi- cation of age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(4):844-851. CrossRef PubMed 7. Gheorghe A, Mahdi L, Musat O. Age-related macular degenera- tion. Rom J Ophthalmol. 2015;59(2):74-77. PubMed 8. Patel P, Sheth V. New and innovative treatments for neovas- cular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). J Clin Med. 2021;10(11):2436. CrossRef PubMed 9. Brown DM, Kaiser PK, Michels M, et al; ANCHOR Study Group. Ranibizumab versus verteporfin for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(14):1432-1444. CrossRef PubMed 10. Busbee BG, Ho AC, Brown DM, et al; HARBOR Study Group. Twelve-month efficacy and safety of 0.5 mg or 2.0 mg ranibi- zumab in patients with subfoveal neovascular age-related mac- ular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(5):1046-1056. CrossRef PubMed 11. Cohen SY, Mimoun G, Oubraham H, et al; LUMIERE Study Group. Changes in visual acuity in patients with wet age- related macular degeneration treated with intravitreal ranibi- zumab in daily clinical practice: the LUMIERE study. Retina. 2013;33(3):474-481. CrossRef PubMed 12. Dugel PU, Koh A, Ogura Y, et al; HAWK and HARRIER Study Investigators. HAWK and HARRIER: phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-masked trials of brolucizumab for neo- vascular age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2020;127(1):72-84. CrossRef PubMed 13. Heier JS, Brown DM, Chong V, et al; VIEW 1 and VIEW 2 Study Groups. Intravitreal aflibercept (VEGF trap-eye) in wet age- related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2012;119(12): 2537-2548. CrossRef PubMed 14. Holz FG, Tadayoni R, Beatty S, et al. Multi-country real-life experience of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy for wet age-related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol. 2015;99(2):220-226. CrossRef PubMed 15. Rosenfeld PJ, Brown DM, Heier JS, et al; MARINA Study Group. Ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degenera- tion. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(14):1419-1431. CrossRef PubMed https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.05.035 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28712657 https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30393-5 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29032195 https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30489-7 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33275949 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.06.018 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22794258 https://doi.org/10.1002/phar.1264 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23580402 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.10.036 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23332590 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26978865 https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10112436 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34070899 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa062655 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17021319 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.10.014 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23352196 https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0b013e31827b6324 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23266880 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2019.04.017 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30986442 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.09.006 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23084240 https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-305327 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25193672 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa054481 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17021318 Galeone et al Drug Target Insights 2024; 18: 111 © 2024 The Authors. Published by AboutScience - www.aboutscience.eu 16. Staurenghi G, Bandello F, Viola F, et al. Effectiveness of anti- vascular endothelial growth factors in neovascular age-related macular degeneration and variables associated with visual acuity outcomes: results from the EAGLE study. Khetan V, ed. PLoS One. 2021;16(9):e0256461. CrossRef PubMed 17. Martin DF, Maguire MG, Ying GS, Grunwald JE, Fine SL, Jaffe GJ; CATT Research Group. Ranibizumab and bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(20):1897-1908. CrossRef PubMed 18. Calabria S, Ronconi G, Dondi L, et al. La popolazione con degenerazione maculare neovascolare correlata all’età trattata con anti-Vegf attraverso i dati amministrativi sanitari. Recenti Prog Med. 2023;114(7):447-461. PubMed 19. Kodjikian L, Mehanna CJ, Cohen SY, et al. The role of future treatments in the management of neovascular age-related macular degeneration in Europe. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2021;31(5): 2179-2188. CrossRef PubMed 20. Lanzetta P. Anti-VEGF therapies for age-related macular degen- eration: a powerful tactical gear or a blunt weapon? The choice is ours. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2021;259(12): 3561-3567. CrossRef PubMed 21. Daien V, Finger RP, Talks JS, et al. Evolution of treatment para- digms in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a review of real-world evidence. Br J Ophthalmol. 2021;105(11): 1475-1479. CrossRef PubMed 22. Kertes PJ, Galic IJ, Greve M, et al. Efficacy of a treat-and-extend regimen with ranibizumab in patients with neovascular age- related macular disease: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2020;138(3):244-250. CrossRef PubMed 23. Kim LN, Mehta H, Barthelmes D, Nguyen V, Gillies MC. Meta- analysis of real-world outcomes of intravitreal ranibizumab for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degenera- tion. Retina. 2016;36(8):1418-1431. CrossRef PubMed 24. Okada M, Kandasamy R, Chong EW, McGuiness M, Guymer RH. The treat-and-extend injection regimen versus alternate dos- ing strategies in age-related macular degeneration: a system- atic review and meta-analysis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2018;192: 184-197. CrossRef PubMed 25. Silva R, Berta A, Larsen M, Macfadden W, Feller C, Monés J; TREND Study Group. Treat-and-extend versus monthly regi- men in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: results with ranibizumab from the TREND study. Ophthalmology. 2018;125(1):57-65. CrossRef PubMed 26. Wykoff CC, Clark WL, Nielsen JS, Brill JV, Greene LS, Heggen CL. Optimizing anti-VEGF treatment outcomes for patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration. JMCP. 2018; 24(2-a Suppl):S3-S15. CrossRef PubMed 27. AIFA. Determina 2 Ottobre 2023 Riclassificazione Del Medicinale per Uso Umano «Vabysmo», Ai Sensi Dell’articolo 8, Comma 10, Della Legge 24 Dicembre 1993, n. 537. (Determina n. 602/2023). (23A05528) (GU n.235 Del 7-10-2023). 2023. Online. (Accessed July 2024) 28. AIFA. Determina 28 Dicembre 2020 Istituzione Della Nota AIFA 98 Relativa Alla Prescrizione e Alla Somministrazione Intravitreale Di Anti-VEGF Nella AMD e DME. (Determina n. DG/1379/2020). (20A07338) (GU n.323 Del 31-12-2020). 2020. Online. (Accessed July 2024) 29. AIFA. Determina 30 Gennaio 2015 Inserimento Di Una Indicazi- one Terapeutica Del Medicinale per Uso Umano «Bevacizumab – Avastin» Nell’elenco Ex Lege n. 648/1996 – Parziale Modifica Alla Determina n. 622 DG/2014 Del 23 Giugno 2014 e Sostituzione Della Stessa. (Determina n. 79/2015). (15A01013) (GU n.38 Del 16-2-2015). 2015. Online. (Accessed July 2024) 30. Heier JS, Khanani AM, Quezada Ruiz C, et al; TENAYA and LUCERNE Investigators. Efficacy, durability, and safety of intra- vitreal faricimab up to every 16 weeks for neovascular age- related macular degeneration (TENAYA and LUCERNE): two randomised, double-masked, phase 3, non-inferiority trials. Lancet. 2022;399(10326):729-740. CrossRef PubMed 31. Parravano MC, Viola F, Nicolo M, et al. Real-world evidence of anti-VEGF therapies in neovascular age-related macular degeneration in Italy: the RADIANCE study. Eur J Ophthalmol. (In Press) 32. Chesnaye NC, Stel VS, Tripepi G, et al. An introduction to inverse probability of treatment weighting in observational research. Clin Kidney J. 2021;15(1):14-20. CrossRef PubMed 33. Holz FG, Tadayoni R, Beatty S, et al. Determinants of visual acuity outcomes in eyes with neovascular AMD treated with anti-VEGF agents: an instrumental variable analysis of the AURA study. Eye (Lond). 2016;30(8):1063-1071. CrossRef PubMed 34. Li JQ, Welchowski T, Schmid M, Mauschitz MM, Holz FG, Finger RP. Prevalence and incidence of age-related macular degen- eration in Europe: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2020;104(8):1077-1084. CrossRef PubMed 35. Pina Marín B, Gajate Paniagua NM, Gómez-Baldó L, Gallego- Pinazo R. Burden of disease assessment in patients with neo- vascular age-related macular degeneration in Spain: results of the AMD-MANAGE study. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2022;32(1): 385-394. CrossRef PubMed https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256461 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34469431/ https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1102673 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21526923 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37392108 https://doi.org/10.1177/11206721211018348 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34053331 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-021-05451-2 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34669026 https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-317434 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33130553 https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.5540 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31917441 https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000001142 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27388744 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2018.05.026 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29885297 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.07.014 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28893454 https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2018.24.2-a.s3 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29383980/ https://www.aifa.gov.it/documents/20142/961234/Determina_602-2023_Vabysmo.pdf https://www.aifa.gov.it/documents/20142/1728119/Determina_28-12-2020_nota98.pdf https://www.aifa.gov.it/documents/20142/241028/Avastin_AMD_648_79_2015.pdf https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00010-1 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35085502 https://doi.org/10.1093/ckj/sfab158 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35035932 https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2016.90 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27197868 https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-314422 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31712255 https://doi.org/10.1177/11206721211001716 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33719641