SUPPORTED BY COMPARATIVE
CLINICAL EVIDENCE
Yesafili™ has achieved all benchmarks for biosimilarity in efficacy and safety to the reference aflibercept.1-3
Totality of evidence for YESAFILI is based on similarity in analytical and clinical data, with extrapolation to available Eylea® indications.1-3
EFFICACY
Study Design3
*In addition to the 324 patients, 1 extra patient will be randomized for each patient who meets any of the prespecified criteria related to missed/delayed dosing or study assessments because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The maximum number of these extra patients will be 70.
†Additional visits for patients participating in the pharmacokinetic substudy.
VISION OUTCOMES3,4
Primary Endpoint: Demonstrated BCVA Equivalence
YESAFILI demonstrated clinical equivalence to Eylea based on the mean change in BCVA from baseline to Week 8.3,4
Secondary Endpoint: Sustained BCVA Equivalence
There were no statistically significant differences in BCVA mean change between the 2 treatment groups from baseline to Week 52.3,4
Secondary Endpoint: Similar Visual Improvement
There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of patients who gained a prespecified number of letters between the 2 treatment groups from baseline to Week 52.3,4
BCVA=best corrected visual acuity; ETDRS=Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study; LOCF=last observation carried forward; V=visit; wk=week.
ANATOMY OUTCOMES3,4
Secondary Endpoint: Demonstrated CST (central subfield thickness) Equivalence
YESAFILI met the key secondary endpoint of clinical equivalence to Eylea based on the mean change in CRT, measured as CST, from baseline to Week 8.3,4
Secondary Endpoint: Sustained CST Improvements
There were no statistically significant differences in mean change in CRT, measured as CST, between the 2 treatment groups from baseline to Week 52.3,4
*Measured as central subfield thickness by an MMRM.
CRT=central retinal thickness; CST=central subfield thickness; MMRM=mixed model repeated measures; V=visit; wk=week.
SAFETY
HIGHLY SIMILAR SAFETY AND IMMUNOGENICITY PROFILE3
Overall, YESAFILI and Eylea were well tolerated, and their safety profiles were similar with no significant safety concerns or events of endophthalmitis observed.3
OVERALL INCIDENCE OF TREATMENT-EMERGENT ADVERSE EVENTS (TEAEs)3
Demonstrated Comparable Safety
- The incidence of ocular and nonocular TEAEs was similar between the YESAFILI and Eylea arms3
- A total of 6 subjects discontinued treatment due to TEAEs: 3 (1.7%) each in the YESAFILI and Eylea arms3
SIMILAR IMMUNOGENICITY
- There were no statistically significant differences in the overall proportion of ADA-positive patients between the 2 treatment groups from baseline to Week 523,4
- Incidence of neutralizing antibodies was 0% in patients treated with YESAFILI and 0.6% in those treated with the reference biologic drug3,4

*For participants with multiple events of various severities or relationships, only the event with the highest severity or strongest relationship was counted.
†One event of eye inflammation was noted in the Eylea arm, and no event was observed in the YESAFILI arm. No endophthalmitis was reported in either treatment arm.
ADA=antidrug antibody; PT=preferred term; SOC=system organ class.
REFERENCES
1. YESAFILI. Prescribing information. Biocon Biologics Inc; 2026. 2. US Food and Drug Administration. Biosimilars: review and approval. Last updated December 13, 2022. Accessed April 16, 2026. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/biosimilars/review-and-approval 3. Bressler SB, Barve A, Ganapathi PC, et al. Aflibercept biosimilar MYL-1701P vs reference aflibercept in diabetic macular edema: the INSIGHT randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2024;142(10):952-960. 4. Data on file. Biocon Biologics; 2026.
