Published in Research

First real-world data shows early promise of high-dose aflibercept for wet AMD

This is editorially independent content
6 min read

Recent findings published in Eye offer an early look at the first real-world data of aflibercept 8 mg for the treatment of neovascular (wet) age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).

Real-world data?! How exciting… but first, a look at this drug.

Developed by Regeneron and Bayer AG, aflibercept 8 mg was approved by the FDA in 2023 under the brand name EYLEA HD.

Its indications: Wet AMD; diabetic macular edema (DME); diabetic retinopathy (DR); and—most recently—macular edema following retinal vein occlusion (RVO).

And its recommended dosing for wet AMD?

Per the drug’s prescribing information (PI): 8 mg (0.07 mL of 114.3 mg/mL solution) administered via intravitreal (IVT) injection every 4 weeks (monthly) for the first 3 months, followed by:

  • 8 mg every 8 to 16 weeks (2 to 4 months)

Plus, the FDA approved an expanded dosing option for the therapeutic in November 2025 across all indications.

Now, what should we know about this new research?

Published online just last week, the new results are based on 8-week data from the ongoing SPECTRUM study, referred to as the “first global real-world study” of the high-dose aflibercept therapeutic for wet AMD.

  • Its design: A 24-month, prospective study (NCT06075147) in progress across 18 countries
    • Initiated in February 2024 with an expected January 2028 completion
  • Its participants: An estimated 2,500 treatment-naïve (TN) or previously-treated (PT) wet AMD or DME patients aged 18+ (see here for inclusion criteria), separated into four cohorts.
  • Its setup: See here for a look at each participant group’s intervention/treatment plan.

And the outcome measures?

Measured from baseline to 12 months, the primary outcome is change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), as measured via Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters chart or Snellen chart.

Secondary outcome measures can be found here (and include central retinal thickness [CRT).

So what is this early data based on?

That would be the 8-week results of the first ~100 patients (aged ≥50) in each of two cohorts with either TN (n 114) or PT (n = 104) wet AMD,

See here for participants’ baseline characteristics.

  • Notably: No intervention was included in the study.

Now to the data—starting with the injections.

After baseline until Day 70 (and with the first injection administered at baseline):

Patients received a mean ± SD (median) of:

  • 3.0 ± 0.3 (3) injections in the TN cohort
  • 2.6 ± 0.6 (3) injections in the PT cohort

Take note: The week 8 injection data included any injections received at week 8, while the week 8 outcomes reflected the number of injections administered prior to the week 8 visit.

Next up: Visual outcomes and CRT changes.

The mean (95% CI) change in VA from baseline at week 8 was

  • +3.2 (1.2, 5.1) letters in the TN cohort
  • 0.0 (−1.6, 1.6) letters in the PT cohort

And the mean change in CRT was:

  • −115 (−141, −89) µm in the TN cohort
  • −39 (−60, −19) µm in the TN cohort

What else?

Investigators also found that the number of patients in both groups without intraretinal or subretinal fluid actually increased from baseline to week 8 (see here and scroll down for a visual).

No intraretinal fluid

  • In the TN cohort: 46.2% (baseline); 75.7% (week 4); 79.8% (week 8)
  • In the PT cohort: 42.6% (baseline); 70.8% (week 4); 65.6% (week 8)

No subretinal fluid

  • In the TN cohort: 21.3% (baseline); 74.3% (week 4); 82.8% (week 8)
  • In the PT cohort: 36.3% (baseline); 62.5% (week 4); 58.8% (week 8)

Any adverse events to report?

Ocular treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and non-ocular TEAs occurred in:

  • 2.6% and 3.9% as well as 4.4% and 0 patients within the TN and PT cohorts, respectively.

A couple of notes:

  • Two ocular TEAEs in the PT cohort were determined to be study drug-related (increased intraocular pressure [IOP] and vitreous floaters; n = 1 each)
  • No serious ocular or non-ocular TEAEs developed in either cohort—including no cases of intraocular inflammation (IOI)

Got it. And how do these findings compare to prior aflibercept 8 mg research?

The study authors noted that the therapeutic’s safety profile was “consistent with that reported for the PULSAR trial.”

Keep in mind: The PULSAR trial (NCT04423718) was a wet AMD-targeted phase 3 trial whose data (along with the DME-focused PHOTON trial) supported aflibercept 8 mg’s initial FDA approval.

  • See here for our last reporting on it (extended 3-year data released in early 2025).

Any final takeaways?

Considering this is just 8-week data from the ongoing study—there’s definitely no final conclusions as of yet.

  • In fact, the study authors made a note that the analyses are “exploratory only” and—considering the results are based on just ~100 from each cohort—“this patient subset may not be fully reflective of the overall global SPECTRUM nAMD cohorts.

So you know what that means: Keep an eye out for additional data from the study between now and its anticipated 2027 (primary completion) and 2028 (study completion) end dates.