A Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Faricimab (RO6867461) in Participants With Diabetic Macular Edema

Phase 3

Completed

Conditions: Diabetic Macular Edema

Interventions: Drug: Aflibercept
Drug: Faricimab
Procedure: Sham Procedure

Registration Number: NCT03622593

Lead Sponsor: Hoffmann-La Roche

Brief Summary: This study will evaluate the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of faricimab administered at 8-week intervals or as specified in the protocol following treatment initiation, compared with aflibercept once every 8 weeks (Q8W), in participants with diabetic macular edema (DME).

Detailed Description: Not available

Recruitment & Eligibility

Status: COMPLETED

Sex: All

Target Recruitment: 951

Inclusion Criteria

Documented diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (Type 1 or Type 2)
Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of less than or equal to (≤)10% within 2 months prior to Day 1
Macular thickening secondary to diabetic macular edema (DME) involving the center of the fovea
Decreased visual acuity attributable primarily to DME
Ability and willingness to undertake all scheduled visits and assessments
For women of childbearing potential: agreement to remain abstinent or use acceptable contraceptive methods that result in a failure rate of <1% per year during the treatment period and for at least 3 months after the final dose of study treatment

Exclusion Criteria

Currently untreated diabetes mellitus or previously untreated patients who initiated oral or injectable anti-diabetic medication within 3 months prior to Day 1
Uncontrolled blood pressure, defined as a systolic value greater than (>)180 millimeters of mercury (mmHg) and/or a diastolic value >100 mmHg while a patient is at rest
Currently pregnant or breastfeeding, or intend to become pregnant during the study
Treatment with panretinal photocoagulation or macular laser within 3 months prior to Day 1 to the study eye
Any intraocular or periocular corticosteroid treatment within 6 months prior to Day 1 to the study eye
Prior administration of IVT faricimab in either eye
Active intraocular or periocular infection or active intraocular inflammation in the study eye
Any current or history of ocular disease other than DME that may confound assessment of the macula or affect central vision in the study eye
Any current ocular condition which, in the opinion of the investigator, is currently causing or could be expected to contribute to irreversible vision loss due to a cause other than DME in the study eye
Other protocol-specified inclusion/exclusion criteria may apply

Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL

Study Design: PARALLEL

Arm && Interventions

Group	Intervention	Description
C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W	Sham Procedure	Participants randomized to Arm C received 2 milligrams (mg) aflibercept intravitreal (IVT) injections Q4W to Week 16, followed by 2 mg aflibercept IVT injections Q8W to Week 96, followed by the final study visit at Week 100.
C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W	Aflibercept	Participants randomized to Arm C received 2 milligrams (mg) aflibercept intravitreal (IVT) injections Q4W to Week 16, followed by 2 mg aflibercept IVT injections Q8W to Week 96, followed by the final study visit at Week 100.
A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W	Sham Procedure	Participants randomized to Arm A received 6 milligrams (mg) faricimab intravitreal (IVT) injections once every 4 weeks (Q4W) to Week 20, followed by 6 mg faricimab IVT injections once every 8 weeks (Q8W) to Week 96, followed by the final study visit at Week 100.
B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI	Sham Procedure	Participants randomized to Arm B received 6 milligrams (mg) faricimab intravitreal (IVT) injections Q4W to at least Week 12, followed by a personalized treatment interval (PTI) dosing of 6 mg faricimab IVT injections up to once every 16 weeks (Q16W) through Week 96, followed by the final study visit at Week 100.
A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W	Faricimab	Participants randomized to Arm A received 6 milligrams (mg) faricimab intravitreal (IVT) injections once every 4 weeks (Q4W) to Week 20, followed by 6 mg faricimab IVT injections once every 8 weeks (Q8W) to Week 96, followed by the final study visit at Week 100.
B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI	Faricimab	Participants randomized to Arm B received 6 milligrams (mg) faricimab intravitreal (IVT) injections Q4W to at least Week 12, followed by a personalized treatment interval (PTI) dosing of 6 mg faricimab IVT injections up to once every 16 weeks (Q16W) through Week 96, followed by the final study visit at Week 100.

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Change From Baseline in BCVA in the Study Eye Averaged Over Weeks 48, 52, and 56, ITT and Treatment-Naive Populations	From Baseline through Week 56	Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score), and a gain in BCVA letter score from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. For the Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis, the model adjusted for treatment arm, visit, visit-by-treatment arm interaction, baseline BCVA (continuous), baseline BCVA (\<64 vs. ≥64 letters), prior intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy (yes vs. no), and region of enrollment. An unstructured covariance structure was used. Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were implicitly imputed by MMRM. Invalid BCVA values were excluded. 97.5% CI is a rounding of 97.52% CI.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Percentage of Participants Gaining ≥0 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population	Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, and 100	Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score), and a gain in BCVA letter score from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters) and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded from analysis. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Change From Baseline in BCVA in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population	Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, and 100	Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score), and a gain in BCVA letter score from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. For the Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis, the model adjusted for treatment arm, visit, visit-by-treatment arm interaction, baseline BCVA (continuous), baseline BCVA (\<64 vs. ≥64 letters), prior intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy (yes vs. no), and region of enrollment. An unstructured covariance structure was used. Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were implicitly imputed by MMRM. Invalid BCVA values were excluded. 95% CI is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants Gaining ≥15 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population	Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, and 100	Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score), and a gain in BCVA letter score from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters), prior IVT anti-VEGF therapy (yes vs. no), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded from analysis. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Change From Baseline in BCVA in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population	Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, and 100	Best-Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score attainable), and a gain in BCVA letter score from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. For the Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis, the model adjusted for treatment group, visit, visit-by-treatment group interaction, baseline BCVA (continuous), baseline BCVA (\<64 vs. ≥64 letters), and region of enrollment. An unstructured covariance structure was used. Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were implicitly imputed by MMRM. Invalid BCVA values were excluded from analysis. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants Gaining ≥15, ≥10, ≥5, or ≥0 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Averaged Over Weeks 48, 52, and 56, Treatment-Naive Population	Baseline, average of Weeks 48, 52, and 56	BCVA was measured on the ETDRS chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score), and a gain in BCVA from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. For each participant, an average BCVA value was calculated across the three visits, and this averaged value was then used to determine if the endpoint was met. The results were summarized as the percentage of participants per treatment arm who met the endpoint. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters) and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world). Treatment policy strategy and hypothetical strategy were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants With a ≥2-Step Diabetic Retinopathy Severity (DRS) Improvement From Baseline on the ETDRS Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale (DRSS) at Week 52, ITT and Treatment-Naive Populations	Baseline and Week 52	The Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale (DRSS) classifies diabetic retinopathy into 12 severity steps ranging from absence of retinopathy to advanced proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Ocular imaging assessments were made independently by a central reading center. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters), prior IVT anti-VEGF therapy (yes vs. no), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world regions were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. 97.5% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 97.52% CI.
Percentage of Participants Gaining Greater Than or Equal to (≥)15, ≥10, ≥5, or ≥0 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Averaged Over Weeks 48, 52, and 56, ITT Population	Baseline, average of Weeks 48, 52, and 56	BCVA was measured on the ETDRS chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score), and a gain in BCVA from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. For each participant, an average BCVA value was calculated across the three visits, and this averaged value was then used to determine if the endpoint was met. The results were summarized as the percentage of participants per treatment arm who met the endpoint. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters), prior IVT anti-VEGF therapy (yes vs. no), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world). Treatment policy strategy and hypothetical strategy were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants Gaining ≥5 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population	Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, and 100	Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score), and a gain in BCVA letter score from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters), prior IVT anti-VEGF therapy (yes vs. no), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded from analysis. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants Gaining ≥10 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population	Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, and 100	Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score), and a gain in BCVA letter score from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters), prior IVT anti-VEGF therapy (yes vs. no), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded from analysis. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants Gaining ≥5 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population	Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, and 100	Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score), and a gain in BCVA letter score from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters) and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded from analysis. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants Avoiding a Loss of ≥15 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population	Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, and 100	Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants avoiding a loss of letters in BCVA from baseline were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters), prior IVT anti-VEGF therapy (yes vs. no), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded from analysis. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants Avoiding a Loss of ≥10 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population	Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, and 100	Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants avoiding a loss of letters in BCVA from baseline were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters), prior IVT anti-VEGF therapy (yes vs. no), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded from analysis. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants Avoiding a Loss of ≥15, ≥10, or ≥5 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Averaged Over Weeks 48, 52, and 56, Treatment-Naive Population	Baseline, average of Weeks 48, 52, and 56	Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. For each participant, an average BCVA value was calculated across the three visits, and this averaged value was then used to determine if the endpoint was met. The results were summarized as the percentage of participants per treatment arm who met the endpoint. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters) and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world were combined). Treatment policy strategy and hypothetical strategy were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants Gaining ≥15 Letters in BCVA From Baseline or Achieving BCVA Snellen Equivalent of 20/20 or Better (BCVA ≥84 Letters) in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population	Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, and 100	Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score), and a gain in BCVA letter score from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters), prior IVT anti-VEGF therapy (yes vs. no), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded from analysis. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants Gaining ≥0 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population	Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, and 100	Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score), and a gain in BCVA letter score from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters), prior IVT anti-VEGF therapy (yes vs. no), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded from analysis. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants Gaining ≥10 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population	Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, and 100	Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score), and a gain in BCVA letter score from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters) and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded from analysis. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants Avoiding a Loss of ≥15 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population	Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, and 100	Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants avoiding a loss of letters in BCVA from baseline were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters) and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded from analysis. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants Gaining ≥15 Letters in BCVA From Baseline or Achieving BCVA Snellen Equivalent of 20/20 or Better (BCVA ≥84 Letters) in the Study Eye Averaged Over Weeks 48, 52, and 56, ITT and Treatment-Naive Populations	Baseline, average of Weeks 48, 52, and 56	BCVA was measured on the ETDRS chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score), and a gain in BCVA from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. For each participant, an average BCVA value was calculated across the three visits, and this averaged value was then used to determine if the endpoint was met. The results were summarized as the percentage of participants per treatment arm who met the endpoint. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters), prior IVT anti-VEGF therapy (yes vs. no), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world). Treatment policy strategy and hypothetical strategy were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants Gaining ≥15 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population	Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, and 100	Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score), and a gain in BCVA letter score from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters) and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded from analysis. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants Avoiding a Loss of ≥5 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population	Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, and 100	Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants avoiding a loss of letters in BCVA from baseline were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters), prior IVT anti-VEGF therapy (yes vs. no), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded from analysis. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants With BCVA Snellen Equivalent of 20/200 or Worse (BCVA ≤38 Letters) in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population	Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, and 100	Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score), and a gain in BCVA letter score from baseline indicates an improvement invisual acuity. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters), prior IVT anti-VEGF therapy (yes vs. no), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded from analysis. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants With a ≥2-Step Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Improvement From Baseline on the ETDRS Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population	Baseline, Weeks 16, 52, and 96	The Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale (DRSS) classifies diabetic retinopathy into 12 severity steps ranging from absence of retinopathy to advanced proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Ocular imaging assessments were made independently by a central reading center. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters) and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world regions were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants With a ≥4-Step Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Improvement From Baseline on the ETDRS Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population	Baseline, Weeks 16, 52, and 96	The Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale (DRSS) classifies diabetic retinopathy into 12 severity steps ranging from absence of retinopathy to advanced proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Ocular imaging assessments were made independently by a central reading center. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters), prior IVT anti-VEGF therapy (yes vs. no), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world regions were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants in the Faricimab 6 mg PTI Arm on a Once Every 4-Weeks, 8-Weeks, 12-Weeks, or 16-Weeks Treatment Interval at Week 96, ITT Population	Week 96
Percentage of Participants Avoiding a Loss of ≥15, ≥10, or ≥5 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Averaged Over Weeks 48, 52, and 56, ITT Population	Baseline, average of Weeks 48, 52, and 56	Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. For each participant, an average BCVA value was calculated across the three visits, and this averaged value was then used to determine if the endpoint was met. The results were summarized as the percentage of participants per treatment arm who met the endpoint. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters), prior IVT anti-VEGF therapy (yes vs. no), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world were combined). Treatment policy strategy and hypothetical strategy were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants Avoiding a Loss of ≥10 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population	Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, and 100	Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants avoiding a loss of letters in BCVA from baseline were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters) and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded from analysis. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants Gaining ≥15 Letters in BCVA From Baseline or Achieving BCVA Snellen Equivalent of 20/20 or Better (BCVA ≥84 Letters) in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population	Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, and 100	Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score), and a gain in BCVA letter score from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters) and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded from analysis. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants With BCVA Snellen Equivalent of 20/40 or Better (BCVA ≥69 Letters) in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population	Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, and 100	Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score), and a gain in BCVA letter score from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥69 vs. \<69 letters) and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded from analysis. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants Avoiding a Loss of ≥5 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population	Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, and 100	Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants avoiding a loss of letters in BCVA from baseline were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters) and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded from analysis. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants With BCVA Snellen Equivalent of 20/40 or Better (BCVA ≥69 Letters) in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population	Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, and 100	Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score), and a gain in BCVA letter score from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥69 vs. \<69 letters), prior IVT anti-VEGF therapy (yes vs. no), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants With BCVA Snellen Equivalent of 20/200 or Worse (BCVA ≤38 Letters) in the Study Eye Averaged Over Weeks 48, 52, and 56, ITT and Treatment-Naive Populations	Baseline, average of Weeks 48, 52, and 56	BCVA was measured on the ETDRS chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score), and a gain in BCVA from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. For each participant, an average BCVA value was calculated across the three visits, and this averaged value was then used to determine if the endpoint was met. The results were summarized as the percentage of participants per treatment arm who met the endpoint. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters), prior IVT anti-VEGF therapy (yes vs. no), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world). Treatment policy strategy and hypothetical strategy were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants With a ≥3-Step Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Improvement From Baseline on the ETDRS Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population	Baseline, Weeks 16, 52, and 96	The Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale (DRSS) classifies diabetic retinopathy into 12 severity steps ranging from absence of retinopathy to advanced proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Ocular imaging assessments were made independently by a central reading center. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters), prior IVT anti-VEGF therapy (yes vs. no), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world regions were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants With BCVA Snellen Equivalent of 20/40 or Better (BCVA ≥69 Letters) in the Study Eye Averaged Over Weeks 48, 52, and 56, ITT and Treatment-Naive Populations	Baseline, average of Weeks 48, 52, and 56	BCVA was measured on the ETDRS chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score), and a gain in BCVA from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. For each participant, an average BCVA value was calculated across the three visits, and this averaged value was then used to determine if the endpoint was met. The results were summarized as the percentage of participants per treatment arm who met the endpoint. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥69 vs. \<69 letters), prior IVT anti-VEGF therapy (yes vs. no), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world). Treatment policy strategy and hypothetical strategy were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants With a ≥2-Step Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Improvement From Baseline on the ETDRS Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population	Baseline, Weeks 16, 52, and 96	The Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale (DRSS) classifies diabetic retinopathy into 12 severity steps ranging from absence of retinopathy to advanced proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Ocular imaging assessments were made independently by a central reading center. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters), prior IVT anti-VEGF therapy (yes vs. no), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world regions were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants Without High-Risk Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy (PDR) at Baseline Who Developed High-Risk PDR at Week 52, ITT and Treatment-Naive Populations	Baseline and Week 52	The Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale (DRSS) classifies diabetic retinopathy into 12 severity steps ranging from absence of retinopathy to advanced PDR. High-risk PDR was defined as an ETDRS DRSS score of ≥71 on the 7-field/4-wide field color fundus photographs assessment by a central reading center. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters), prior IVT anti-VEGF therapy (yes vs. no), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world regions were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. 95% CI is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants in the Faricimab 6 mg PTI Arm on a Once Every 4-Weeks, 8-Weeks, 12-Weeks, or 16-Weeks Treatment Interval at Week 52, ITT Population	Week 52
Percentage of Participants in the Faricimab 6 mg PTI Arm at Week 96 Who Achieved a Once Every 12-Weeks or 16-Weeks Treatment Interval Without an Interval Decrease Below Once Every 12 Weeks, ITT and Treatment-Naive Populations	From start of PTI (Week 12 or later) until Week 96
Percentage of Participants With a ≥3-Step Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Improvement From Baseline on the ETDRS Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population	Baseline, Weeks 16, 52, and 96	The Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale (DRSS) classifies diabetic retinopathy into 12 severity steps ranging from absence of retinopathy to advanced proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Ocular imaging assessments were made independently by a central reading center. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters) and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world regions were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants in the Faricimab 6 mg PTI Arm on a Once Every 4-Weeks, 8-Weeks, 12-Weeks, or 16-Weeks Treatment Interval at Week 52, Treatment-Naive Population	Week 52
Change From Baseline in Central Subfield Thickness in the Study Eye Averaged Over Weeks 48, 52, and 56, ITT and Treatment-Naive Populations	From Baseline through Week 56	Central subfield thickness (CST) was defined as the distance between the internal limiting membrane (ILM) and Bruch's membrane (BM) as assessed by a central reading center. For the Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis, the model adjusted for treatment group, visit, visit-by-treatment group interaction, baseline CST (continuous), baseline BCVA (\<64 vs. ≥64 letters), prior intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy (yes vs. no), and region of enrollment (U.S. and Canada vs. the rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world regions were combined). An unstructured covariance structure was used. Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were implicitly imputed by MMRM. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Change From Baseline in the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire-25 (NEI VFQ-25) Composite Score Over Time, ITT Population	Baseline, Weeks 24, 52, and 100	The NEI VFQ-25 captures a patient's perception of vision-related functioning and quality of life. The core measure includes 25 items that comprise 11 vision-related subscales and one item on general health. The composite score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores, or a positive change from baseline, indicating better vision-related functioning. For the Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis, the model adjusted for treatment arm, visit, visit-by-treatment arm interaction, baseline NEI VFQ-25 Composite Score (continuous), baseline BCVA (\<64 vs. ≥64 letters), prior intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy (yes vs. no), and region of enrollment. An unstructured covariance structure was used. Treatment policy strategy and hypothetical strategy were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were implicitly imputed by MMRM. 95% CI is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants With at Least One Adverse Event	From first dose of study drug through end of study (up to 2 years)	This analysis of adverse events (AEs) includes both ocular and non-ocular (systemic) AEs. Investigators sought information on AEs at each contact with the participants. All AEs were recorded and the investigator made an assessment of seriousness, severity, and causality of each AE. AEs of special interest included the following: Cases of potential drug-induced liver injury that include an elevated ALT or AST in combination with either an elevated bilirubin or clinical jaundice, as defined by Hy's Law; Suspected transmission of an infectious agent by the study drug; Sight-threatening AEs that cause a drop in visual acuity (VA) score ≥30 letters lasting more than 1 hour, require surgical or medical intervention to prevent permanent loss of sight, or are associated with severe intraocular inflammation.
Percentage of Participants With BCVA Snellen Equivalent of 20/200 or Worse (BCVA ≤38 Letters) in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population	Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, and 100	Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score attainable), and a gain in BCVA letter score from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters) and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded from analysis. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants With a ≥4-Step Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Improvement From Baseline on the ETDRS Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population	Baseline, Weeks 16, 52, and 96	The Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale (DRSS) classifies diabetic retinopathy into 12 severity steps ranging from absence of retinopathy to advanced proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Ocular imaging assessments were made independently by a central reading center. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters) and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world regions were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants Without Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy (PDR) at Baseline Who Developed New PDR at Week 52, ITT and Treatment-Naive Populations	Baseline and Week 52	The Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale (DRSS) classifies diabetic retinopathy into 12 severity steps ranging from absence of retinopathy to advanced proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). PDR was defined as an ETDRS DRSS score of ≥61 on the 7-field/4-wide field color fundus photographs assessment by a central reading center. The weighted percentages of participants were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters), prior IVT anti-VEGF therapy (yes vs. no), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world regions were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. 95% CI is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Change From Baseline in Central Subfield Thickness in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population	Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, and 100	Central subfield thickness (CST) was defined as the distance between the internal limiting membrane (ILM) and Bruch's membrane (BM) as assessed by a central reading center. For the Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis, the model adjusted for treatment group, visit, visit-by-treatment group interaction, baseline CST (continuous), baseline BCVA (\<64 vs. ≥64 letters), prior intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy (yes vs. no), and region of enrollment (U.S. and Canada vs. the rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world regions were combined). An unstructured covariance structure was used. Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were implicitly imputed by MMRM. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants With Absence of Intraretinal Fluid and Subretinal Fluid in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population	Baseline, Weeks 16, 48, 52, 56, 92, 96, and 100	Intraretinal fluid and subretinal fluid were measured using optical coherence tomography (OCT) in the central subfield (center 1 mm). The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters), prior IVT anti-VEGF therapy (yes vs. no), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world); Asia and rest of the world regions were combined due to a small number of enrolled participants. Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants in the Faricimab 6 mg PTI Arm on a Once Every 4-Weeks, 8-Weeks, 12-Weeks, or 16-Weeks Treatment Interval at Week 96, Treatment-Naive Population	Week 96
Percentage of Participants in the Faricimab 6 mg PTI Arm at Week 52 Who Achieved a Once Every 12-Weeks or 16-Weeks Treatment Interval Without an Interval Decrease Below Once Every 12 Weeks, ITT and Treatment-Naive Populations	From start of PTI (Week 12 or later) until Week 52
Percentage of Participants With Absence of Diabetic Macular Edema in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population	Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, and 100	Absence of diabetic macular edema was defined as achieving a central subfield thickness of \<325 microns in the study eye. Central subfield thickness was defined as the distance between the internal limiting membrane (ILM) and Bruch's membrane (BM) as assessed by a central reading center. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters), prior IVT anti-VEGF therapy (yes vs. no), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world regions were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants With Absence of Subretinal Fluid in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population	Baseline, Weeks 16, 48, 52, 56, 92, 96, and 100	Subretinal fluid was measured using optical coherence tomography (OCT) in the central subfield (center 1 mm). The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters), prior IVT anti-VEGF therapy (yes vs. no), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world); Asia and rest of the world regions were combined due to a small number of enrolled participants. Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants With at Least One Ocular Adverse Event in the Study Eye or the Fellow Eye	From first dose of study drug through end of study (up to 2 years)	This analysis of adverse events (AEs) only includes ocular AEs, which are categorized as having occurred either in the study eye or the fellow eye. Investigators sought information on AEs at each contact with the participants. All AEs were recorded and the investigator made an assessment of seriousness, severity, and causality of each AE. Ocular AEs of special interest included the following: Suspected transmission of an infectious agent by the study drug; Sight-threatening AEs that cause a drop in visual acuity (VA) score ≥30 letters lasting more than 1 hour, require surgical or medical intervention to prevent permanent loss of sight, or are associated with severe intraocular inflammation (IOI).
Plasma Concentration of Faricimab Over Time	Pre-dose on Day 1 (Baseline); Weeks 4, 28, 52, 76, and 100	Faricimab concentration in plasma was determined using a validated immunoassay method.
Change From Baseline in Central Subfield Thickness in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population	Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, and 100	Central subfield thickness (CST) was defined as the distance between the internal limiting membrane (ILM) and Bruch's membrane (BM) as assessed by a central reading center. For the Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis, the model adjusted for treatment group, visit, visit-by-treatment group interaction, baseline CST (continuous), baseline BCVA (\<64 vs. ≥64 letters), and region of enrollment (U.S. and Canada vs. the rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world regions were combined). An unstructured covariance structure was used. Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were implicitly imputed by MMRM. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants With Absence of Diabetic Macular Edema in the Study Eye Averaged Over Weeks 48, 52, and 56, ITT and Treatment-Naive Populations	Average of Weeks 48, 52, and 56	Absence of diabetic macular edema was defined as achieving a central subfield thickness (CST) of \<325 microns in the study eye. CST was defined as the distance between the internal limiting membrane and Bruch's membrane. For each participant, an average CST value was calculated across the three visits, and this averaged value was then used to determine if the endpoint was met. The results were summarized as the percentage of participants per treatment arm who met the endpoint. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters), prior IVT anti-VEGF therapy (yes vs. no), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world). Treatment policy strategy and hypothetical strategy were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants With Retinal Dryness in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population	Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, and 100	Retinal dryness was defined as achieving a central subfield thickness (ILM-BM) of \<280 microns. Central subfield thickness was defined as the distance between the internal limiting membrane (ILM) and Bruch's membrane (BM) as assessed by a central reading center. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters), prior IVT anti-VEGF therapy (yes vs. no), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world regions were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants With Absence of Intraretinal Fluid in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population	Baseline, Weeks 16, 48, 52, 56, 92, 96, and 100	Intraretinal fluid was measured using optical coherence tomography (OCT) in the central subfield (center 1 mm). The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥64 vs. \<64 letters), prior IVT anti-VEGF therapy (yes vs. no), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world); Asia and rest of the world regions were combined due to a small number of enrolled participants. Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.04% CI.
Percentage of Participants With at Least One Non-Ocular Adverse Event	From first dose of study drug through end of study (up to 2 years)	This analysis of adverse events (AEs) only includes non-ocular (systemic) AEs. Investigators sought information on adverse events (AEs) at each contact with the participants. All AEs were recorded and the investigator made an assessment of seriousness, severity, and causality of each AE. The non-ocular AE of special interest was: Cases of potential drug-induced liver injury that include an elevated ALT or AST in combination with either an elevated bilirubin or clinical jaundice, as defined by Hy's Law.
Percentage of Participants Who Test Positive for Treatment-Emergent Anti-Drug Antibodies Against Faricimab During the Study	Baseline, Weeks 4, 28, 52, 76, and 100	Anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) against fariciamb were detected in plasma using a validated bridging enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The percentage of participants with treatment-emergent ADA-positive samples includes post-baseline evaluable participants with at least one treatment-induced (defined as having an ADA-negative sample or missing sample at baseline and any positive post-baseline sample) or treatment-boosted (defined as having an ADA-positive sample at baseline and any positive post-baseline sample with a titer that is equal to or greater than 4-fold baseline titer) ADA-positive sample during the study treatment period.

Trial Locations

Locations (194): Toronto Retina Institute
🇨🇦
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Unity Health Toronto
🇨🇦
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Retina Consultants of Nevada
🇺🇸
Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
A.O. Universitaria S. Maria Della Misericordia Di Udine; Clinica Oculistica
🇮🇹
Udine, Veneto, Italy
Peterfy Sandor utcai Korhaz-Rendelointezet es Baleseti Kozpont, Szemeszet KR
🇭🇺
Budapest, Hungary
Hong Kong Eye Hospital; CUHK Eye Centre
🇭🇰
Mongkok, Hong Kong
Semmelweis Egyetem Szemészeti Vizsgálóhely
🇭🇺
Budapest, Hungary
Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes; Klinik für Augenheilkunde
🇩🇪
Homburg/Saar, Germany
Bajcsy-Zsilinszky Hospital
🇭🇺
Budapest, Hungary
Kyung Hee University Hospital
🇰🇷
Seoul, Korea, Republic of
Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Klinik für Augenheilkunde
🇩🇪
Freiburg, Germany
OFTALMIKA Sp. z o.o
🇵🇱
Bydgoszcz, Poland
ASST FATEBENEFRATELLI SACCO; Oculistica (Sacco)
🇮🇹
Milano, Lombardia, Italy
Universitätsklinikum Würzburg, Augenklinik und Poliklinik
🇩🇪
Würzburg, Germany
Seoul National University Hospital
🇰🇷
Seoul, Korea, Republic of
Magyar Honvedseg Egeszsegugyi Kozpont; Szemészeti Osztály
🇭🇺
Budapest, Hungary
Samsung Medical Center
🇰🇷
Seoul, Korea, Republic of
Universitätsklinikum Magdeburg A.ö.R., Universitätsaugenklinik
🇩🇪
Magdeburg, Germany
LMU Klinikum der Universität, Augenklinik
🇩🇪
München, Germany
Asan Medical Center.
🇰🇷
Seoul, Korea, Republic of
Klinikum rechts der Isar der TU München; Augenklinik
🇩🇪
München, Germany
Fondazione Ptv Policlinico Tor Vergata Di Roma;U.O.S.D. Patologie Renitiche
🇮🇹
Roma, Lazio, Italy
Hospital dos de maig; Pharmacy Service
🇪🇸
Barcelona, Spain
Optimum Profesorskie Centrum Okulistyki
🇵🇱
Gda?sk, Poland
Caminomed
🇵🇱
Tarnowskie Góry, Poland
Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, Klinik und Poliklinik für Augenheilkunde
🇩🇪
Dresden, Germany
Queen Mary Hospital; Department of Ophthalmology
🇭🇰
Hong Kong, Hong Kong
SP ZOZ Szpital Uniwersytecki w Krakowie Oddzia? Kliniczny Okulistyki i Onkologii Okulistycznej
🇵🇱
Krakow, Poland
Hôpital PURPAN - CHU TOULOUSE; Ophtalmologie
🇫🇷
Toulouse, France
Ospedale Classificato Equiparato Sacro Cuore ? Don Calabria; Dipartimento Oculistica
🇮🇹
Negrar - Verona, Veneto, Italy
Seoul National University Bundang Hospital
🇰🇷
Seongnam-si, Korea, Republic of
AIBILI - Association for Innovation and Biomedical Research on Light
🇵🇹
Coimbra, Portugal
Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
🇬🇧
London, United Kingdom
Institut de la Macula i la retina
🇪🇸
Barcelona, Spain
St James University Hospital
🇬🇧
Leeds, United Kingdom
Beyoglu Goz Training and Research Hospital; Department Of Ophthalmology
🇹🇷
Istanbul, Turkey
Kocaeli Üniversitesi T?p Fakültesi; Department of Ophthalmology
🇹🇷
Kocaeli, Turkey
Royal Victoria Infirmary
🇬🇧
Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
Fisabio-Ofalmologia Medica; Servicio de Oftalmología
🇪🇸
Valencia, Spain
Bradford Royal Infirmary
🇬🇧
Bradford, United Kingdom
University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol Eye Hospital
🇬🇧
Bristol, United Kingdom
Instituto Oftalmologico Fernandez Vega; Servicio de oftalmologia
🇪🇸
Oviedo, Asturias, Spain
Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra; Servicio de oftalmologia
🇪🇸
Pamplona, Navarra, Spain
Vista Klinik Ophthalmologische Klinik
🇨🇭
Binningen, Switzerland
Frimley Park Hospital
🇬🇧
Frimley, United Kingdom
Royal Liverpool University Hospital; St Paul's Clinical Eye Research Centre
🇬🇧
Liverpool, United Kingdom
Ankara Baskent University Medical Faculty; Department of Ophthalmology
🇹🇷
Ankara, Turkey
Clinica Baviera; Servicio Oftalmologia
🇪🇸
Madrid, Spain
Hospital Universitario Rio Hortega; Servicio de Oftalmologia
🇪🇸
Valladolid, Spain
King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital; Ophthalmology Department
🇹🇭
Bangkok, Thailand
James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
🇬🇧
Norfolk, United Kingdom
Sunderland Eye Infirmary
🇬🇧
Sunderland, United Kingdom
Ankara University Medical Faculty; Department of Ophthalmology
🇹🇷
Ankara, Turkey
Hospital Clinico San Carlos; Servicio de oftalmologia
🇪🇸
Madrid, Spain
Manchester Royal Eye Hospital
🇬🇧
Manchester, United Kingdom
Barnet Hospital; ROYAL FREE LONDON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
🇬🇧
Barnet, United Kingdom
Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, ROYAL VICTORIA HOSPITAL
🇬🇧
Belfast, United Kingdom
Hillingdon Hospital
🇬🇧
Middx, United Kingdom
Retina Consultants of Southern
🇺🇸
Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States
National Ophthalmic Research Institute
🇺🇸
Fort Myers, Florida, United States
Wuxi No.2 People's Hospital
🇨🇳
Wuxi, China
University of British Columbia - Vancouver Coastal Health Authority
🇨🇦
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Charleston Neuroscience Inst
🇺🇸
Ladson, South Carolina, United States
Poradnia Okulistyczna i Salon Optyczny w Gliwicach- PRYZMAT
🇵🇱
Gliwice, Poland
Intersec Research and Technology Complex ?Eye Microsurgery? n.a. S.N. Fyodorov; Cheboksary Branch
🇷🇺
Cheboksary, Marij EL, Russian Federation
Specjalistyczny O?rodek Okulistyczny Oculomedica
🇵🇱
Bydgoszcz, Poland
Taipei Veterans General Hospital; Ophthalmology
🇨🇳
Taipei, Taiwan
Centrum Zdrowia MDM
🇵🇱
Warszawa, Poland
Hospital de Braga; Servico de Oftalmologia
🇵🇹
Braga, Portugal
Tan Tock Seng Hospital; Ophthalmology Department
🇸🇬
Singapore, Singapore
Hospital de Santa Maria; Servico de Oftalmologia
🇵🇹
Lisboa, Portugal
Clinics of Eye Diseases, LLC
🇷🇺
Kazan, Tatarstan, Russian Federation
National Taiwan University Hospital; Ophthalmology
🇨🇳
Zhongzheng Dist., Taiwan
Maharaj Nakorn ChiangMai Hospital; Ophthalmology Department
🇹🇭
ChiangMai, Thailand
The Lions Eye Institute
🇦🇺
Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia
Oftalvist Valencia
🇪🇸
Burjassot, Valencia, Spain
Hospital das Clinicas - UFRGS
🇧🇷
Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
Retinal Research Institute, LLC
🇺🇸
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Associated Retina Consultants
🇺🇸
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Faculty Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady; Ophthalmology clinic
🇨🇿
Prague, Czechia
Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi; S.O.D. Oculistica
🇮🇹
Firenze, Toscana, Italy
Nuovo Ospedale S. Chiara - A.O.U.P Presidio Ospedaliero di Cisanello; U.O. Oculistica Universitaria
🇮🇹
Pisa, Toscana, Italy
The Affiliated Eye Hospital of Nanjing Medical University
🇨🇳
Nanjing City, China
Royal Free Hospital
🇬🇧
London, United Kingdom
Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
🇬🇧
Gloucestershire, United Kingdom
Kings College Hospital
🇬🇧
London, United Kingdom
University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust; Southampton Eye Unit
🇬🇧
Southampton, United Kingdom
Faculdade de Medicina do ABC - FMABC
🇧🇷
Santo Andre, SP, Brazil
University of Colorado; dept of ophthalmology
🇺🇸
Aurora, Colorado, United States
CHU Bocage; Ophtalmologie
🇫🇷
Dijon, France
Northwest Arkansas Retina Associates
🇺🇸
Springdale, Arkansas, United States
California Retina Consultants
🇺🇸
Santa Barbara, California, United States
Retina-Vitreous Associates Medical Group
🇺🇸
Beverly Hills, California, United States
The Retina Partners
🇺🇸
Encino, California, United States
Bay Area Retina Associates
🇺🇸
Walnut Creek, California, United States
Northern California Retina Vitreous Associates
🇺🇸
Mountain View, California, United States
Retinal Consultants Med Group
🇺🇸
Sacramento, California, United States
Retina Consultants of Orange County
🇺🇸
Fullerton, California, United States
Retina Group of New England
🇺🇸
Waterford, Connecticut, United States
Florida Eye Associates
🇺🇸
Melbourne, Florida, United States
Retina Group of Florida
🇺🇸
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, United States
Fort Lauderdale Eye Institute
🇺🇸
Plantation, Florida, United States
Bascom Palmer Eye Institute
🇺🇸
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, United States
Retina Vitreous Assoc of FL
🇺🇸
Saint Petersburg, Florida, United States
Southeast Retina Center
🇺🇸
Augusta, Georgia, United States
University Retina and Macula Associates, PC
🇺🇸
Oak Forest, Illinois, United States
Prairie Retina Center
🇺🇸
Springfield, Illinois, United States
Retina Specialists
🇺🇸
Towson, Maryland, United States
Tufts Medical Center; Ophthalmology
🇺🇸
Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Associated Retinal Consultants
🇺🇸
Grand Rapids, Michigan, United States
Vitreo-Retinal Associates
🇺🇸
Grand Rapids, Michigan, United States
Envision Ocular, LLC
🇺🇸
Bloomfield, New Jersey, United States
New York University
🇺🇸
New York, New York, United States
Long Is. Vitreoretinal Consult
🇺🇸
Hauppauge, New York, United States
Ophthalmic Cons of Long Island
🇺🇸
Oceanside, New York, United States
Retina Assoc of Western NY
🇺🇸
Rochester, New York, United States
The Retina Consultants
🇺🇸
Slingerlands, New York, United States
Cleveland Clinic Foundation; Cole Eye Institute
🇺🇸
Cleveland, Ohio, United States
Mid Atlantic Retina - Wills Eye Hospital
🇺🇸
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
University of Rochester Flaum Eye Institute
🇺🇸
Rochester, New York, United States
Southeastern Retina Associates Chattanooga
🇺🇸
Chattanooga, Tennessee, United States
Retina Consultants Of Carolina
🇺🇸
Greenville, South Carolina, United States
Southeastern Retina Associates
🇺🇸
Knoxville, Tennessee, United States
Palmetto Retina Center
🇺🇸
West Columbia, South Carolina, United States
Tennessee Retina PC
🇺🇸
Nashville, Tennessee, United States
Retina Consultants of Texas
🇺🇸
The Woodlands, Texas, United States
Retina Center of Texas
🇺🇸
Southlake, Texas, United States
Univ of Virginia Ophthalmology
🇺🇸
Charlottesville, Virginia, United States
Fundacion Zambrano
🇦🇷
Caba, Argentina
Retina Center Northwest
🇺🇸
Silverdale, Washington, United States
Oftalmos
🇦🇷
Capital Federal, Argentina
Oftar
🇦🇷
Mendoza, Argentina
Centro Oftalmólogos Especialistas
🇦🇷
Rosario, Argentina
Organizacion Medica de Investigacion
🇦🇷
San Nicolás, Argentina
Grupo Laser Vision
🇦🇷
Rosario, Argentina
Strathfield Retina Clinic
🇦🇺
Strathfield, New South Wales, Australia
Sydney Eye Hospital
🇦🇺
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Centre For Eye Research Australia
🇦🇺
East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Retina Specialists Victoria
🇦🇺
Rowville, Victoria, Australia
Sydney West Retina
🇦🇺
Westmead, New South Wales, Australia
Sydney Retina Clinic and Day Surgery
🇦🇺
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
CEMAPE - Centro Médico
🇧🇷
Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Hospital de Olhos de Aparecida - HOA
🇧🇷
Aparecida de Goiania, GO, Brazil
Centro Brasileiro de Cirurgia
🇧🇷
Goiania, GO, Brazil
Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo - UNIFESP*X; Oftalmologia
🇧🇷
Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Botelho Hospital da Visao
🇧🇷
Blumenau, SC, Brazil
Hosp de Olhos de Sorocaba
🇧🇷
Sorocaba, SP, Brazil
Hospital das Clinicas - FMUSP
🇧🇷
Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Calgary Retina Consultants
🇨🇦
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
QEII - HSC Department of Ophthalmology
🇨🇦
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Vitreous Retina Macula Specialists of Toronto
🇨🇦
Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada
Ivey Eye Institute
🇨🇦
London, Ontario, Canada
University of Ottawa Eye Institute
🇨🇦
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
University Health Network Toronto Western Hospital
🇨🇦
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Institut De L'Oeil Des Laurentides
🇨🇦
Boisbriand, Quebec, Canada
Hôpital Maisonneuve - Rosemont
🇨🇦
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Peking Union Medical College Hospital
🇨🇳
Beijing City, China
Beijing Friendship Hospital
🇨🇳
Beijing, China
Beijing Tongren Hospital
🇨🇳
Beijing, China
The Second Hospital of Jilin University
🇨🇳
Changchun, China
West China Hospital, Sichuan University
🇨🇳
Chengdu, China
Southwest Hospital , Third Military Medical University; Ophthalmology
🇨🇳
Chongqing City, China
Army Medical Center of PLA(Daping Hospital)
🇨🇳
Chongqing City, China
Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University
🇨🇳
Guangzhou City, China
Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital
🇨🇳
Shanghai, China
Shanghai First People's Hospital
🇨🇳
Shanghai, China
Tianjin Eye Hospital
🇨🇳
Tianjin City, China
Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital
🇨🇳
Tianjin City, China
Eye Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University
🇨🇳
Wenzhou City, China
FN Hradec Králové, O?ní klinika; Ophthalmology clinic
🇨🇿
Hradec Králové, Czechia
Faculty Hospital Ostrava; Ophthalmology clinic
🇨🇿
Ostrava, Czechia
AXON Clinical
🇨🇿
Prague, Czechia
Rigshospitalet Glostrup; Afdeling for Øjensygdomme, Center for Forskning
🇩🇰
Glostrup, Denmark
Sjællands Universitetshospital, Roskilde; Øjenafdelingen
🇩🇰
Roskilde, Denmark
Nemocnice Sokolov
🇨🇿
Sokolov, Czechia
Aalborg Universitetshospital; Øjenafdelingen
🇩🇰
Aalborg, Denmark
CHNO des Quinze Vingts; Ophtalmologie
🇫🇷
Paris, France
Chi De Creteil; Ophtalmologie
🇫🇷
Creteil, France
Hopital de la croix rousse; Ophtalmologie
🇫🇷
Lyon cedex, France
Centres Ophtalmologique St Exupéry; Ophtalmologie
🇫🇷
St Cyr Sur Loire, France
Centre Ophtalmologique; Imagerie et laser
🇫🇷
Paris, France
Rajavithi Hospital; Ophthalmology Department
🇹🇭
Bangkok, Thailand
East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust
🇬🇧
Canterbury, United Kingdom
Osrodek Chirurgii Oka prof. Zagorskiego Rzeszow
🇵🇱
Rzeszów, Poland
Espaco Medico Coimbra
🇵🇹
Coimbra, Portugal
?Intersec. Research and Technology Complex ?Eye Microsurgery? n a Fyodorov Irkutsk branch
🇷🇺
Irkutsk, Russian Federation
?Intersec Research and Technology Complex Eye Microsurgery n a Fyodorov Novosibirsk Branch
🇷🇺
Novosibirsk, Russian Federation
National University Hospital; Ophthalmology Department
🇸🇬
Singapore, Singapore
Singapore Eye Research Institute
🇸🇬
Singapore, Singapore
Hospital General de Catalunya
🇪🇸
San Cugat Del Valles, Barcelona, Spain
Chang Gung Medical Foundation - Linkou; Ophthalmology
🇨🇳
Taoyuan, Taiwan
Hospital Universitario de Bellvitge
🇪🇸
Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain
Austin Retina Associates
🇺🇸
Austin, Texas, United States
Retina Institute of Virginia
🇺🇸
Richmond, Virginia, United States

Related News

pharmacytimes.com

2 months ago

Results of ELEVATIM Show Improvement in Diabetic Macular Edema With Vabysmo for ...

Genentech's phase 3 ELEVATIM study showed Vabysmo effectively treats DME in underrepresented racial/ethnic groups, improving vision by 12.3 letters on average after 1 year, with no new safety issues.