Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose To evaluate short-term real-world outcomes after switching to faricimab using a modified treat-and-extend (TAE) regimen with a single loading dose in patients with retinal vein occlusion (RVO) refractory to prior anti-VEGF therapy. Methods In this prospective study, 27 eyes of 27 patients with macular edema (ME) secondary to RVO and persistent intraretinal fluid (IRF) and central subfield thickness (CST) ≥ 270 μm despite ≥ 3 prior anti-VEGF injections at treatment intervals ≤ 6 weeks were switched to faricimab. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) parameters, including CST, IRF, and subretinal fluid (SRF), were assessed from baseline (1st faricimab injection) until 3rd faricimab injection (final visit). Outcomes were analyzed for all RVO combined and stratified by central (CRVO) and branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). Results In the all RVO combined cohort, median BCVA improved significantly from 0.2 logMAR to 0.1 logMAR ( p  = 0.022), and median CST decreased from 291 μm to 268 μm ( p  < 0.001) over a mean follow-up of 11.7 weeks. The proportion of eyes with IRF was significantly reduced ( p  < 0.001), and a dry macula was achieved in 48.1% of eyes at the final visit. The mean treatment interval increased significantly from 4.6 to 7.3 weeks, with an intended interval extension achieved in 88.9% of eyes. After stratification, both CRVO and BRVO subgroups showed significant CST reduction and significant treatment interval extension, while BCVA improved numerically in both subgroups without reaching statistical significance. No safety-related adverse events were observed. Conclusions In real-world practice, switching to faricimab using a modified TAE regimen with a single loading dose appears to be effective in RVO patients refractory to prior anti-VEGF therapy, yielding significant functional improvement with early interval extension and no safety concerns. Clinical trial number German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) registration ID: DRKS00036984.

This paper examines German and foreign bank factors that can explain net flows of cross-border central bank liquidity between Germany and the rest of the euro area. Using data from the German component of Eurosystem’s real-time gross settlement system TARGET2 and BankFocus for the period between 2009 and 2021, we provide empirical evidence that only few balance sheet items and profit and loss accounts affect net flows with Germany. We control for bilateral bank-specific relationships and time-varying macroeconomic country effects in our regressions. In general, German bank factors seem to be more important than characteristics of foreign banks. A German bank that exhibits relatively high claims against central banks seems to attract less additional central bank liquidity from abroad than a German bank with fewer existing central bank claims. Net claims against central banks, which also control for liabilities, have no effect on net transactions in TARGET2. However, higher overall liquidity of a German credit institution corresponds to additional net inflows. Foreign bank factors only matter for central bank payments and intragroup payments. We also document heterogeneities across different types of transactions which influence the German TARGET2 balance. While customer payments, interbank payments and central bank payments have increased net flows to Germany in sum, intragroup payments and ancillary systems’ transactions have led to net outflows.

This paper examines German and foreign bank factors that can explain cross-border central bank liquidity flows between Germany and the rest of the euro area. Using data from the German component of Eurosystem's real-time gross settlement system TARGET2 and BankFocus for the period between 2009 and 2021, we provide empirical evidence that only few balance sheet items and profit and loss accounts affect flows with Germany. We control for bilateral bank-specific relationships and time-varying macroeconomic country effects in our regressions. In general, German bank factors seem to be more important than characteristics of foreign banks. A German bank that exhibits relatively high claims against a central bank seems to attract less additional central bank liquidity from abroad than a German bank with fewer existing central bank claims. However, higher overall liquidity of a German credit institution corresponds to additional net inflows. Foreign bank factors only matter for central bank payments and intragroup payments. We also document heterogeneities across different types of transactions which influence the German TARGET2 balance. While customer payments, interbank payments and central bank payments have increased net flows to Germany in sum, intragroup payments and ancillary systems' transactions have led to net outflows.