LEVERAGING SPECIALIST OPHTHALMOLOGY EMR DATA TO EVALUATE REAL-WORLD EFFECTIVENESS OF ANTI-VEGF THERAPIES FOR DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA
Author(s)
Nick Boucher, BSc1, Nitika Aggarwal, .2, Mark Yates, BSc, PhD, MD3.
1Thermo Fisher Scientific, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2Thermo Fisher Scientific, Ontario, ON, Canada, 3Director of RWD Strategy, Thermo Fisher Scientific, London, United Kingdom.
1Thermo Fisher Scientific, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2Thermo Fisher Scientific, Ontario, ON, Canada, 3Director of RWD Strategy, Thermo Fisher Scientific, London, United Kingdom.
OBJECTIVES: Real-world evidence (RWE) is increasingly used to inform healthcare decision-making, but robust evaluation of ophthalmic therapies requires specialist electronic medical record (EMR) data. In diabetic macular edema (DME), both visual acuity (VA) outcomes and treatment burden are important measures of value. This study compared real-world VA outcomes and injection intervals for faricimab versus other anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapies in treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced eyes.
METHODS: De-identified specialist ophthalmology EMR data from the Vestrum Health database (January 2021-April 2026) were analysed. Eyes receiving faricimab, bevacizumab, ranibizumab, or aflibercept were included. Outcomes were mean VA change and mean interval between injections in treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced eyes. Statistical analyses were performed in R using t-tests for continuous variables and chi-square tests for categorical variables, with p<0.01 considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: Among 21,029 treatment-naïve eyes, mean VA gains by injection 6 were 5.7, 7.8, 7.5, and 7.1 letters for faricimab (n=1,350), bevacizumab (n=11,925), ranibizumab (n=1,113), and aflibercept (n=6,641), respectively. After stratification by baseline VA, outcomes with faricimab were comparable to other anti-VEGF therapies. Among 2,103 eyes switched to faricimab, mean VA gains after two injections were 1.2, 1.3, and 3.8 letters following prior aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab, respectively. A higher proportion of treatment-naïve faricimab-treated eyes achieved a mean interval of at least 50 days between injections 5 and 6 versus bevacizumab and ranibizumab (both p<0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Specialist ophthalmology EMR data enable robust comparative RWE that is not feasible using general EMR or claims databases alone. Faricimab demonstrated visual outcomes comparable with other anti-VEGF therapies while achieving longer dosing intervals in routine clinical practice, supporting assessment of both clinical effectiveness and treatment burden for healthcare decision-making.
METHODS: De-identified specialist ophthalmology EMR data from the Vestrum Health database (January 2021-April 2026) were analysed. Eyes receiving faricimab, bevacizumab, ranibizumab, or aflibercept were included. Outcomes were mean VA change and mean interval between injections in treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced eyes. Statistical analyses were performed in R using t-tests for continuous variables and chi-square tests for categorical variables, with p<0.01 considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: Among 21,029 treatment-naïve eyes, mean VA gains by injection 6 were 5.7, 7.8, 7.5, and 7.1 letters for faricimab (n=1,350), bevacizumab (n=11,925), ranibizumab (n=1,113), and aflibercept (n=6,641), respectively. After stratification by baseline VA, outcomes with faricimab were comparable to other anti-VEGF therapies. Among 2,103 eyes switched to faricimab, mean VA gains after two injections were 1.2, 1.3, and 3.8 letters following prior aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab, respectively. A higher proportion of treatment-naïve faricimab-treated eyes achieved a mean interval of at least 50 days between injections 5 and 6 versus bevacizumab and ranibizumab (both p<0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Specialist ophthalmology EMR data enable robust comparative RWE that is not feasible using general EMR or claims databases alone. Faricimab demonstrated visual outcomes comparable with other anti-VEGF therapies while achieving longer dosing intervals in routine clinical practice, supporting assessment of both clinical effectiveness and treatment burden for healthcare decision-making.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
CO41
Topic
Clinical Outcomes, Real World Data & Information Systems
Topic Subcategory
Comparative Effectiveness or Efficacy
Disease
Diabetes/Endocrine/Metabolic Disorders (including obesity), Sensory System Disorders (Ear, Eye, Dental, Skin)