Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 15, 2025
Author Spotlight: Overcoming Anti-VEGF Resistance Through Advanced Vascular Morphology Assessment in Choroidal Neovascularization
Published on: August 11, 2023
Comparison of functional and morphologic changes between brolucizumab and faricimab in neovascular age-related
Maiko Maruyama-Inoue1, Yasuo Yanagi2, Tatsuya Inoue2
1Department of Ophthalmology and Micro-technology, Yokohama City University Medical Center, 4-57 Urafune-cho, Minami-ku, Yokohama, Japan. maicoo@urahp.yokohama-cu.ac.jp.
Purpose:
This study aimed to compare functional and morphologic changes in the loading phase between patients with treatment-naïve macular neovascularization (MNV) due to neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) treated with either intravitreal brolucizumab (IVBr) or intravitreal faricimab (IVF) injections in a clinical setting.
Methods:
We retrospectively studied 92 consecutive eyes of 90 patients with neovascular nAMD who were scheduled to receive IVBr (42 eyes of 41 patients) or IVF (50 eyes of 49 patients) injections between October 2021 and December 2022. All patients received three consecutive monthly injections of 6.0 mg/0.05 mL brolucizumab or 6.0 mg/0.05 mL faricimab. The best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central foveal thickness (CFT), and central choroidal thickness (CCT) at baseline and 1, 2, and 4 months after the initial treatment were measured and compared between the groups.
Results:
Thirty-seven eyes in IVBr group and forty-seven eyes in IVF group who finished treatments in the loading phase were assessed at the follow-up examination. The BCVA, CFT, and CCT changed significantly after loading phase in both groups (P < 0.05 for both comparisons). The IVBr group had more rapid improvement of the BCVA (P = 0.037) at 1 month than the IVF group, but there was no difference at 4 months (P = 0.367). The CFT and CCT decreases tended to be greater in the IVBr group than in the IVF group throughout the follow-up period. Of the five eyes excluded from the IVBr group, one eye (2.4%) each had intraocular inflammation (IOI) and was a non-responder, and two eyes (4.8%) had retinal pigment epithelial tears after treatment. Of the three eyes excluded from the IVF group, two eyes (4.0%) did not respond to the treatment.
Conclusions:
Both IVBr and IVF injections were well-tolerated and improved the VA in treatment-naïve patients with MNV due to nAMD after a loading phase, although IVBr caused a trend toward faster visual improvements in the BCVA. The IVBr group also had greater reductions of the CFT and CCT than the IVF group. However, the potential for adverse events and no response to treatment with each drug are considerations.
