A Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Faricimab (RO6867461) in Participants With Diabetic Macular Edema (YOSEMITE)
- Conditions
- Diabetic Macular Edema
- Interventions
- Registration Number
- NCT03622580
- 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
- 940
- 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
- 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 the past 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 & Design
- Study Type
- INTERVENTIONAL
- Study Design
- PARALLEL
- Arm && Interventions
Group Intervention Description 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. 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 once every 4 weeks (Q4W), 8 weeks (Q8W), 12 weeks (Q12W), or 16 weeks (Q16W) up to Week 96, followed by the final study visit at Week 100. 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. 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 once every 4 weeks (Q4W), 8 weeks (Q8W), 12 weeks (Q12W), or 16 weeks (Q16W) up 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.
- 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 With a ≥2-Step Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Improvement From Baseline on the ETDRS Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale 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.
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.
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 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 ≥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.
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, 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 ≥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 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 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 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 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.
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 ≥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 ≥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 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 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 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 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 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 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 ≥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 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 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 20/40 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 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 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 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 ≥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 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 ≥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 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 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, 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 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 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.
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 on a Once Every 4-Weeks, 8-Weeks, 12-Weeks, or 16-Weeks Treatment Interval at Week 52, Treatment-Naive Population Week 52 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
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 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 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.
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 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.
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.
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 (184)
Orange County Retina Med Group
🇺🇸Santa Ana, California, United States
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
🇺🇸Riverside, California, United States
Cumberland Valley Retina PC
🇺🇸Hagerstown, Maryland, United States
Sierra Eye Associates
🇺🇸Reno, Nevada, United States
Western Carolina Retinal Associate PA
🇺🇸Asheville, North Carolina, United States
OSU Eye Physicians & Surgeons
🇺🇸Columbus, Ohio, United States
Texas Retina Associates
🇺🇸Dallas, Texas, United States
University of Vermont Medical Center; Investigational Drug Service, Pharmacy Department/Baird 1
🇺🇸Burlington, Vermont, United States
Ophthalmic Consultants of Boston
🇺🇸Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Midwest Eye Institute
🇺🇸Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
Retina & Vitreous of Texas
🇺🇸Houston, Texas, United States
Azienda Ospedaliera di Perugia Ospedale S. Maria Della Misericordia; Clinica Oculistica
🇮🇹Perugia, Umbria, Italy
Macula Retina Consultores
🇲🇽Mexico, D.F., Mexico
Arizona Retina and Vitreous Consultants
🇺🇸Phoenix, Arizona, United States
W Coast Retina Med Group Inc
🇺🇸San Francisco, California, United States
Cincinnati Eye Institute
🇺🇸Cincinnati, Ohio, United States
Retina Associates of Utah
🇺🇸Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
University of Utah; Division of Gastroenterology/Hepatology
🇺🇸Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
TG Laser Oftalmica
🇵🇪Lima, Peru
University of New Mexico
🇺🇸Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States
Ospedale Clinicizzato SS Annunziata; Clinica Oftalmologica
🇮🇹Chieti, Abruzzo, Italy
Kepler Universitätskliniken GmbH - Med Campus III; Abt. für Augenheilkunde
🇦🇹Linz, Austria
Instituto Mexicano de Oftalmologia I.A.P.
🇲🇽Querétaro, Mexico
Mácula D&T
🇵🇪Lima, Peru
Oftalmolaser
🇵🇪Lima, Peru
Nemocnica s poliklinikou Trebišov, a.s.
🇸🇰Trebišov, Slovakia
Nagoya City University Hospital
🇯🇵Aichi, Japan
Retinal Diagnostic Center
🇺🇸Campbell, California, United States
Retina Consultants, San Diego
🇺🇸Poway, California, United States
Colorado Retina Associates, PC
🇺🇸Lakewood, Colorado, United States
Retina Associates Southwest PC
🇺🇸Tucson, Arizona, United States
East Bay Retina Consultants
🇺🇸Oakland, California, United States
Rand Eye
🇺🇸Deerfield Beach, Florida, United States
Retina Care Specialists
🇺🇸Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, United States
Spokane Eye Clinical Research
🇺🇸Spokane, Washington, United States
Medizinische Universität Wien; Universitätsklinik für Augenheilkunde und Optometrie
🇦🇹Wien, Austria
Carolina Eye Associates
🇺🇸Southern Pines, North Carolina, United States
West Virginia University Eye Institute
🇺🇸Morgantown, West Virginia, United States
Retina Assoc of Cleveland Inc
🇺🇸Cleveland, Ohio, United States
Charles Retina Institute
🇺🇸Memphis, Tennessee, United States
University of Wisconsin
🇺🇸Madison, Wisconsin, United States
Retina Res Institute of Texas
🇺🇸Abilene, Texas, United States
Retina Specialists
🇺🇸DeSoto, Texas, United States
Piedmont Eye Center
🇺🇸Lynchburg, Virginia, United States
Wagner Macula & Retina Center
🇺🇸Norfolk, Virginia, United States
LKH-Univ.Klinikum Graz; Universitäts-Augenklinik
🇦🇹Graz, Austria
Centre Odeon; Exploration Ophtalmologique
🇫🇷Paris, France
Hanusch Krankenhaus; Abteilung für Augenkrankheiten mit Augen-Tagesklinik
🇦🇹Wien, Austria
Pentagram Eye Hospital (Medical Center "Pentagram")
🇧🇬Sofia, Bulgaria
Specialized Hospital for Active Treatment of Eye Diseases Zora
🇧🇬Sofia, Bulgaria
Medical Center for Eye Health - Focus Ltd
🇧🇬Sofia, Bulgaria
Spec. Ophth. Hospital for Active Treatment- Academic Pashev
🇧🇬Sofia, Bulgaria
Universitäts-Augenklinik Bonn
🇩🇪Bonn, Germany
Ambulatory - Medical Center for Specialized Medical Assistance - "Eye Clinic Sveta Petka" Ltd
🇧🇬Varna, Bulgaria
Centre Paradis Monticelli; Ophtalmologie
🇫🇷Marseille, France
CHU Nantes - Hôtel Dieu; Ophthalmology
🇫🇷Nantes, France
Toho University Sakura Medical Center
🇯🇵Chiba, Japan
Hopital Lariboisiere; Ophtalmologie
🇫🇷Paris, France
Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Klinik für Augenheilkunde
🇩🇪Hannover, Germany
Szegedi Tudományegyetem ÁOK; Department of Ophtalmology
🇭🇺Szeged, Hungary
Augenabteilung am St. Franziskus-Hospital
🇩🇪Münster, Germany
Debreceni Egyetem Klinikai Kozpont; Szemeszeti Klinika
🇭🇺Debrecen, Hungary
Universitätsklinikum Münster; Augenheilkunde
🇩🇪Münster, Germany
Sugita Eye Hospital
🇯🇵Aichi, Japan
UNIVERSITA' DEGLI STUDI DI GENOVA - Di.N.O.G.;CLINICA OCULISTICA
🇮🇹Genova, Liguria, Italy
Oftalmosalud Srl
🇵🇪Lima, Peru
Optomed Sp. z o.o.
🇵🇱Rybnik, Poland
Kliniczny Szpital Wojewodzki nr 1 im. F. Chopina; Klinika Okulistyki
🇵🇱Rzeszów, Poland
VISSUM Instituto Oftalmológico de Alicante
🇪🇸Alicante, Spain
Szpital sw. Lukasza
🇵🇱Bielsko-Biala, Poland
Szpital Specjalistyczny nr 1; Oddzial Okulistyki
🇵🇱Bytom, Poland
Gabinet Okulistyczny Prof Edward Wylegala
🇵🇱Katowice, Poland
Dobry Wzrok Sp Z O O
🇵🇱Gdańsk, Poland
Centrum Medyczne UNO-MED
🇵🇱Krakow, Poland
Centro Oftalmológico Mira, S.C
🇲🇽Del. Cuauhtemoc, Mexico CITY (federal District), Mexico
Hospital de la Ceguera APEC
🇲🇽Mexico, D.F., Mexico
Instituto Oftalmologico Gomez Ulla; Servicio de Oftalmologia
🇪🇸Santiago de Compostela, LA Coruña, Spain
Hospital Universitario de Gran Canaria; Servicio de oftalmologia
🇪🇸Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, LAS Palmas, Spain
Hacettepe University Medical Faculty; Department of Ophthalmology
🇹🇷Ankara, Turkey
Ege University Medical Faculty; Department of Ophthalmology
🇹🇷Izmir, Turkey
Selcuk University Faculty of Medicine; Department Of Ophthalmology
🇹🇷Konya, Turkey
Kozawa eye hospital and diabetes center
🇯🇵Ibaraki, Japan
St. Marianna University Hospital
🇯🇵Kanagawa, Japan
Ideta Eye Hospital
🇯🇵Kumamoto, Japan
Kyoto University Hospital
🇯🇵Kyoto, Japan
Mie University Hospital
🇯🇵Mie, Japan
University of Miyazaki Hospital
🇯🇵Miyazaki, Japan
Nara Medical University Hospital
🇯🇵Nara, Japan
Kitano Hospital
🇯🇵Osaka, Japan
National Defense Medical College Hospital
🇯🇵Saitama, Japan
Osaka City University Hospital
🇯🇵Osaka, Japan
Tokushima University Hospital
🇯🇵Tokushima, Japan
Tokyo Women's Medical University Hospital
🇯🇵Tokyo, Japan
Kyorin University Hospital
🇯🇵Tokyo, Japan
Tokyo Medical University Hachioji Medical Center
🇯🇵Tokyo, Japan
Yamaguchi University Hospital
🇯🇵Yamaguchi, Japan
Universitätsmedizin Göttingen Georg-August-Universität; Klinik für Augenheilkunde 3.B1.266
🇩🇪Göttingen, Germany
Clinica Universitaria de Navarra; Servicio de Oftalmologia
🇪🇸Madrid, Spain
Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro
🇪🇸Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain
Complejo Hospitalario Universitario Albacete; Servicio de oftalmologia
🇪🇸Albacete, Spain
Centro de Oftalmologia Barraquer; Servicio Oftalmologia
🇪🇸Barcelona, Spain
Hospital de Santa Creu I Sant Pau; Servicio de Oftalmologia
🇪🇸Barcelona, Spain
Hospital Clinic de Barcelona; Consultas Externas Oftalmologia
🇪🇸Barcelona, Spain
FSBI "Scientific Research Institute of Eye Diseases" of Russian Academy of medical Sciences
🇷🇺Moscow, Russian Federation
MaculaCare, PLLC
🇺🇸New York, New York, United States
Retina Consultants of Southern California
🇺🇸Redlands, California, United States
Capital Region Retina
🇺🇸Albany, New York, United States
Graystone Eye
🇺🇸Hickory, North Carolina, United States
Budapest Retina Associates Kft.
🇭🇺Budapest, Hungary
Eye Medical Center
🇺🇸Fresno, California, United States
Southern CA Desert Retina Cons
🇺🇸Palm Desert, California, United States
Barnet Dulaney Perkins Eye Center
🇺🇸Mesa, Arizona, United States
California Eye Specialists Medical group Inc.
🇺🇸Pasadena, California, United States
Retina Specialty Institute
🇺🇸Pensacola, Florida, United States
Southern Vitreoretinal Assoc
🇺🇸Tallahassee, Florida, United States
Georgia Retina PC
🇺🇸Marietta, Georgia, United States
Wolfe Eye Clinic
🇺🇸West Des Moines, Iowa, United States
Retina Consultants of Hawaii
🇺🇸'Aiea, Hawaii, United States
Retina Associates
🇺🇸Lenexa, Kansas, United States
Paducah Retinal Center
🇺🇸Paducah, Kentucky, United States
Maine Eye Center
🇺🇸Portland, Maine, United States
Retina Associates of Kentucky
🇺🇸Lexington, Kentucky, United States
The Retina Care Center
🇺🇸Baltimore, Maryland, United States
Retina Group of Washington
🇺🇸Chevy Chase, Maryland, United States
Johns Hopkins Med; Wilmer Eye Inst
🇺🇸Baltimore, Maryland, United States
Foundation for Vision Research
🇺🇸Grand Rapids, Michigan, United States
Vitreo-Retinal Associates, PC
🇺🇸Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
Beetham Eye Institute, Joslin Diabetes Center
🇺🇸Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Associated Retinal Consultants, P.C.
🇺🇸Traverse City, Michigan, United States
Assoc Retinal Consultants PC
🇺🇸Royal Oak, Michigan, United States
Vitreoretinal Surgery
🇺🇸Edina, Minnesota, United States
Midwest Vision Research Foundation
🇺🇸Chesterfield, Missouri, United States
Mid Atlantic Retina - Wills Eye Hospital
🇺🇸Cherry Hill, New Jersey, United States
Retinal & Ophthalmic Cons PC
🇺🇸Northfield, New Jersey, United States
NJ Retina
🇺🇸Edison, New Jersey, United States
Retina Associates of NJ
🇺🇸Teaneck, New Jersey, United States
Retina Vit Surgeons/Central NY
🇺🇸Liverpool, New York, United States
Long Is. Vitreoretinal Consult
🇺🇸Great Neck, New York, United States
Island Retina
🇺🇸Shirley, New York, United States
Char Eye Ear &Throat Assoc
🇺🇸Charlotte, North Carolina, United States
Midwest Retina
🇺🇸Dublin, Ohio, United States
Retina Vitreous Center
🇺🇸Edmond, Oklahoma, United States
Black Hills Eye Institute
🇺🇸Rapid City, South Dakota, United States
Retina Consultants of Texas
🇺🇸Bellaire, Texas, United States
Valley Retina Institute P.A.
🇺🇸Harlingen, Texas, United States
Eye Care Assoc of East Texas
🇺🇸Tyler, Texas, United States
Med Center Ophthalmology Assoc
🇺🇸San Antonio, Texas, United States
Strategic Clinical Research Group, LLC
🇺🇸Willow Park, Texas, United States
Emerson Clinical Research Institute
🇺🇸Falls Church, Virginia, United States
Hopital Pellegrin; Ophtalmologie
🇫🇷Bordeaux, France
Pole Vision Val d'Ouest; Ophtalmologie
🇫🇷Ecully, France
Universitätsmedizin der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Augenklinik und Poliklinik
🇩🇪Mainz, Germany
Zala Megyei Kórház; SZEMESZET
🇭🇺Zalaegerszeg, Hungary
Rambam Medical Center; Opthalmology
🇮🇱Haifa, Israel
Markusovszky Egyetemi Oktatokorhaz ; SZEMESZET
🇭🇺Szombathely, Hungary
Ganglion Medial Center
🇭🇺Pécs, Hungary
Rabin MC; Ophtalmology
🇮🇱Petach Tikva, Israel
Hadassah MC; Ophtalmology
🇮🇱Jerusalem, Israel
Tel Aviv Sourasky MC; Ophtalmology
🇮🇱Tel Aviv, Israel
Kaplan Medical Center
🇮🇱Rehovot, Israel
Fondazione G.B. Bietti Per Lo Studio E La Ricerca in Oftalmologia-Presidio Ospedaliero Britannico
🇮🇹Roma, Lazio, Italy
Irccs Ospedale San Raffaele;U.O. Oculistica
🇮🇹Milano, Lombardia, Italy
Nagoya University Hospital
🇯🇵Aichi, Japan
Aichi Medical University Hospital
🇯🇵Aichi, Japan
Fondazione Irccs Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico-Clinica Regina Elena;U.O.C Oculistica
🇮🇹Milano, Lombardia, Italy
Kurume University Hospital
🇯🇵Fukuoka, Japan
Hyogo Prefectural Amagasaki General Medical Center (Hyogo AGMC)
🇯🇵Hyogo, Japan
Hayashi Eye Hospital
🇯🇵Fukuoka, Japan
Hokkaido University Hospital
🇯🇵Hokkaido, Japan
Asahikawa Medical University Hospital
🇯🇵Hokkaido, Japan
Shiga University Of Medical Science Hospital
🇯🇵Shiga, Japan
Seirei Hamamatsu General Hospital
🇯🇵Shizuoka, Japan
Medical Military Academy n.a S.M.Kirov
🇷🇺St.Petersburg, Russian Federation
Fakultna nemocnica Trencin Ocna klinika
🇸🇰Trencin, Slovakia
SPEKTRUM Osrodek Okulistyki Klinicznej
🇵🇱Wroclaw, Poland
Fakultna nemocnica s poliklinikou Zilina; Ocne oddelenie
🇸🇰Zilina, Slovakia
Vitreo-Retinal Consultants
🇺🇸Wichita, Kansas, United States
Clinic Optimed
🇷🇺UFA, Baskortostan, Russian Federation
University of California, Davis, Eye Center
🇺🇸Sacramento, California, United States
Retina Northwest
🇺🇸Portland, Oregon, United States
Retina Associates of Florida, LLC
🇺🇸Tampa, Florida, United States
University of South Florida
🇺🇸Tampa, Florida, United States
Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center
🇺🇸Winston-Salem, North Carolina, United States
Austin Clinical Research LLC
🇺🇸Austin, Texas, United States
Related News
Results of ELEVATIM Show Improvement in Diabetic Macular Edema With Vabysmo for ...
- Prev
- 1
- Next