A Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Faricimab in Participants With Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration (TENAYA)

Phase 3

Completed

Conditions: Wet Macular Degeneration

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

Registration Number: NCT03823287

Lead Sponsor: Hoffmann-La Roche

Brief Summary: This study will evaluate the efficacy, safety, durability, and pharmacokinetics of faricimab administered at intervals as specified in the protocol, compared with aflibercept once every 8 weeks (Q8W), in participants with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).

Detailed Description: Not available

Recruitment & Eligibility

Status: COMPLETED

Sex: All

Target Recruitment: 671

Inclusion Criteria

Treatment-naïve choroidal neovascularization (CNV) secondary to age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) in the study eye
Ability to comply with the study protocol, in the investigator's judgment
For women of childbearing potential: agreement to remain abstinent (refrain from heterosexual intercourse) or use acceptable contraceptive measures that result in failure rate <1% per year during the treatment period and for at least 3 months after the final dose of study treatment
Other protocol-specified inclusion criteria may apply

Exclusion Criteria

Uncontrolled blood pressure, defined as systolic blood pressure >180 millimeters of mercury (mmHg) and/or diastolic blood pressure >100 mmHg while a patient is at rest on Day 1
Pregnancy or breastfeeding, or intention to become pregnant during the study
CNV due to causes other than AMD in the study eye
Any history of macular pathology unrelated to AMD affecting vision or contributing to the presence of intraretinal or subretinal fluid in the study eye
Any concurrent intraocular condition in the study eye that, in the opinion of the investigator, could either reduce the potential for visual improvement or require medical or surgical intervention during the study
Uncontrolled glaucoma in the study eye
Any prior or concomitant treatment for CNV or vitreomacular-interface abnormalities in the study eye
Prior IVT administration of faricimab in either eye
History of idiopathic or autoimmune-associated uveitis in either eye
Active ocular inflammation or suspected or active ocular or periocular infection in either eye
Other protocol-specified exclusion criteria may apply

Study & Design

Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL

Study Design: PARALLEL

Arm && Interventions

Group	Intervention	Description
Aflibercept	Sham Procedure	-
Faricimab	Sham Procedure	-
Faricimab	Faricimab	-
Aflibercept	Aflibercept	-

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Change From Baseline in BCVA in the Study Eye Averaged Over Weeks 40, 44, and 48	From Baseline through Week 48	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 from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. The Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis adjusted for treatment arm, visit, visit-by-treatment arm interaction, baseline BCVA (continuous), baseline BCVA (≥74, 73-55, and ≤54 letters), baseline LLD (\<33 and ≥33 letters), and region (U.S. and Canada, Asia, and rest of the world). An unstructured covariance structure was used. Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after 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% CI is a rounding of 95.03% CI.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Percentage of Participants With Absence of Pigment Epithelial Detachment in the Study Eye Over Time	Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 104, 108, and 112	Pigment epithelial detachment was measured using optical coherence tomography (OCT) in the central subfield (center 1 mm). The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants with absence of pigment epithelial detachment were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥74 letters, 73-55 letters, and ≤54 letters), baseline LLD (≥33 letters and \<33 letters), 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 95.03% CI.
Change From Baseline in Total Area of Choroidal Neovascularization Lesion in the Study Eye at Week 112	Baseline and Week 112	The total area of the choroidal neovascularization lesion in the study eye was evaluated by a central reading center using fundus fluorescein angiography (FFA). Assessments were censored following COVID-19 related intercurrent events. Baseline was defined as the last available measurement obtained on or prior to randomization.
Percentage of Participants With Absence of Intraretinal Cysts in the Study Eye Over Time	Up to 112 weeks
Percentage of Participants With at Least One Non-Ocular Adverse Event	From first dose of study drug through end of study (up to 112 weeks)	This analysis of adverse events (AEs) only includes non-ocular (systemic) AEs. Multiple occurrences of the same AE in one individual are counted only once. 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. 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.
Change From Baseline in Total Area of Choroidal Neovascularization Lesion in the Study Eye at Week 48	Baseline and Week 48	The total area of the choroidal neovascularization lesion in the study eye was evaluated by a central reading center using fundus fluorescein angiography (FFA). Assessments were censored following COVID-19 related intercurrent events. Baseline was defined as the last available measurement obtained on or prior to randomization.
Change From Baseline in Total Area of Choroidal Neovascularization Leakage in the Study Eye at Week 112	Baseline and Week 112	The total area of choroidal neovascularization leakage in the study eye was evaluated by a central reading center using fundus fluorescein angiography (FFA). Assessments were censored following COVID-19 related intercurrent events. Baseline was defined as the last available measurement obtained on or prior to randomization.
Change From Baseline in Total Area of Choroidal Neovascularization Leakage in the Study Eye at Week 48	Baseline and Week 48	The total area of choroidal neovascularization leakage in the study eye was evaluated by a central reading center using fundus fluorescein angiography (FFA). Assessments were censored following COVID-19 related intercurrent events. Baseline was defined as the last available measurement obtained on or prior to randomization.
Percentage of Participants With at Least One Adverse Event	From first dose of study drug through end of study (up to 112 weeks)	This analysis of adverse events (AEs) includes both ocular and non-ocular (systemic) AEs. Multiple occurrences of the same AE in one individual are counted only once. 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 (IOI).
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 112 weeks)	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. Multiple occurrences of the same AE in one individual are counted only once. 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 at Baseline, Weeks 4, 16, 20, 48, 76, and 112	Faricimab concentration in plasma was determined using a validated immunoassay method.
Percentage of Participants Who Tested Positive for Treatment-Emergent Anti-Drug Antibodies Against Faricimab During the Study	Pre-dose at Baseline, Weeks 4, 20, 48, 76, and 112	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.
Percentage of Participants Gaining ≥5 Letters From the Baseline BCVA in the Study Eye Over Time	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, 100, 104, 108, and 112	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 percentage of participants was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥74 letters, 73-55 letters, and ≤54 letters), baseline LLD (≥33 letters and \<33 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 95.03% CI.
Change From Baseline in BCVA in the Study Eye Averaged Over Weeks 52, 56, and 60	From Baseline through Week 60	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 from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. The Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis adjusted for treatment arm, visit, visit-by-treatment arm interaction, baseline BCVA (continuous), baseline BCVA (≥74, 73-55, and ≤54 letters), baseline LLD (\<33 and ≥33 letters), and region (U.S. and Canada, Asia, and rest of the world). An unstructured covariance structure was used. Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after 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% CI is a rounding of 95.03% CI.
Change From Baseline in BCVA in the Study Eye Over Time	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, 100, 104, 108, and 112	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 from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. The Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis adjusted for treatment arm, visit, visit-by-treatment arm interaction, baseline BCVA (continuous), baseline BCVA (≥74, 73-55, and ≤54 letters), baseline LLD (\<33 and ≥33 letters), and region (U.S. and Canada, Asia, and rest of the world). An unstructured covariance structure was used. Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after 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% CI is a rounding of 95.03% CI.
Percentage of Participants Gaining Greater Than or Equal to (≥)15, ≥10, ≥5, or ≥0 Letters From the Baseline BCVA in the Study Eye Averaged Over Weeks 40, 44, and 48	Baseline, average of Weeks 40, 44, and 48	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 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 percentage of participants was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥74 letters, 73-55 letters, and ≤54 letters), baseline LLD (≥33 letters and \<33 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 95.03% CI.
Percentage of Participants Gaining ≥15 Letters From the Baseline BCVA in the Study Eye Averaged Over Weeks 52, 56, and 60	Baseline, average of Weeks 52, 56, and 60	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 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 percentage of participants was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥74 letters, 73-55 letters, and ≤54 letters), baseline LLD (≥33 letters and \<33 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 95.03% CI.
Percentage of Participants Gaining ≥15 Letters From the Baseline BCVA in the Study Eye Over Time	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, 100, 104, 108, and 112	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 percentage of participants was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥74 letters, 73-55 letters, and ≤54 letters), baseline LLD (≥33 letters and \<33 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 95.03% CI.
Percentage of Participants Gaining ≥10 Letters From the Baseline BCVA in the Study Eye Over Time	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, 100, 104, 108, and 112	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 percentage of participants was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥74 letters, 73-55 letters, and ≤54 letters), baseline LLD (≥33 letters and \<33 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 95.03% CI.
Percentage of Participants Gaining ≥0 Letters From the Baseline BCVA in the Study Eye Over Time	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, 100, 104, 108, and 112	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 percentage of participants was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥74 letters, 73-55 letters, and ≤54 letters), baseline LLD (≥33 letters and \<33 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 95.03% CI.
Percentage of Participants Avoiding a Loss of ≥15, ≥10, or ≥5 Letters From the Baseline BCVA in the Study Eye Averaged Over Weeks 40, 44, and 48	Baseline, average of Weeks 40, 44, and 48	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 percentage of participants was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥74 letters, 73-55 letters, and ≤54 letters), baseline LLD (≥33 letters and \<33 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 95.03% CI.
Percentage of Participants Avoiding a Loss of ≥15 Letters From the Baseline BCVA in the Study Eye Averaged Over Weeks 52, 56, and 60	Baseline, average of Weeks 52, 56, and 60	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 percentage of participants was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥74 letters, 73-55 letters, and ≤54 letters), baseline LLD (≥33 letters and \<33 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 95.03% CI.
Percentage of Participants Avoiding a Loss of ≥15 Letters From the Baseline BCVA in the Study Eye Over Time	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, 100, 104, 108, and 112	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 percentage of participants avoiding a loss of letters in BCVA from baseline was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥74 letters, 73-55 letters, and ≤54 letters), baseline LLD (≥33 letters and \<33 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 95.03% CI.
Percentage of Participants With BCVA Snellen Equivalent of 20/200 or Worse (BCVA ≤38 Letters) in the Study Eye Averaged Over Weeks 40, 44, and 48	Baseline, average of Weeks 40, 44, and 48	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 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 percentage of participants was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥74 letters, 73-55 letters, and ≤54 letters), baseline LLD (≥33 letters and \<33 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 95.03% CI.
Percentage of Participants With BCVA Snellen Equivalent of 20/200 or Worse (BCVA ≤38 Letters) in the Study Eye Over Time	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, 100, 104, 108, and 112	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 percentage of participants was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥74 letters, 73-55 letters, and ≤54 letters), baseline LLD (≥33 letters and \<33 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 95.03% CI.
Percentage of Participants in the Faricimab Arm on Once Every 8-Weeks, 12-Weeks, or 16-Weeks Treatment Intervals Among Those Completing Week 48	Week 48	Percentages are based on the number of participants randomized to the faricimab arm who have not discontinued the study at Week 48. The treatment interval at a given visit is defined as the treatment interval decision followed at that visit. The 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.03% CI.
Percentage of Participants in the Faricimab Arm on Once Every 8-Weeks, 12-Weeks, or 16-Weeks Treatment Intervals Among Those Completing Week 60	Week 60	Percentages are based on the number of participants randomized to the faricimab arm who have not discontinued the study at Week 60. The treatment interval at a given visit is defined as the treatment interval decision followed at that visit. The 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.03% CI.
Percentage of Participants in the Faricimab Arm on Once Every 8-Weeks, 12-Weeks, or 16-Weeks Treatment Intervals Among Those Completing Week 112	Weeks 108 and 112	Percentages are based on the number of participants randomized to the faricimab arm who have not discontinued the study at Week 112. Treatment interval at a given visit is defined as the treatment interval decision followed at that visit. Treatment interval at Week 112 is calculated using data recorded at Week 108. The 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.03% CI.
Number of Study Drug Injections Received in the Study Eye Through Week 48	From Baseline through Week 48
Number of Study Drug Injections Received in the Study Eye Through Week 60	From Baseline through Week 60
Number of Study Drug Injections Received in the Study Eye Through Week 108	From Baseline through Week 108
Percentage of Participants Avoiding a Loss of ≥10 Letters From the Baseline BCVA in the Study Eye Over Time	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, 100, 104, 108, and 112	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 percentage of participants avoiding a loss of letters in BCVA from baseline was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥74 letters, 73-55 letters, and ≤54 letters), baseline LLD (≥33 letters and \<33 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 95.03% CI.
Percentage of Participants Avoiding a Loss of ≥5 Letters From the Baseline BCVA in the Study Eye Over Time	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, 100, 104, 108, and 112	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 percentage of participants avoiding a loss of letters in BCVA from baseline was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥74 letters, 73-55 letters, and ≤54 letters), baseline LLD (≥33 letters and \<33 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 95.03% CI.
Percentage of Participants Gaining ≥15 Letters From the Baseline BCVA or Achieving BCVA Snellen Equivalent of 20/20 or Better (BCVA ≥84 Letters) in the Study Eye Averaged Over Weeks 40, 44, and 48	Baseline, average of Weeks 40, 44, and 48	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 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 percentage of participants was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥74 letters, 73-55 letters, and ≤54 letters), baseline LLD (≥33 letters and \<33 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 95.03% CI.
Percentage of Participants Gaining ≥15 Letters From the Baseline BCVA or Achieving BCVA Snellen Equivalent of 20/20 or Better (BCVA ≥84 Letters) in the Study Eye Over Time	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, 100, 104, 108, and 112	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 percentage of participants was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥74 letters, 73-55 letters, and ≤54 letters), baseline LLD (≥33 letters and \<33 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 95.03% CI.
Percentage of Participants With BCVA Snellen Equivalent of 20/40 or Better (BCVA ≥69 Letters) in the Study Eye Averaged Over Weeks 40, 44, and 48	Baseline, average of Weeks 40, 44, and 48	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 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 letters vs. ≥69 letters), baseline LLD (≥33 letters and \<33 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 95.03% CI.
Percentage of Participants With BCVA Snellen Equivalent of 20/40 or Better (BCVA ≥69 Letters) in the Study Eye Over Time	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, 100, 104, 108, and 112	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 percentage of participants was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (\<69 letters vs. ≥69 letters), baseline LLD (≥33 letters and \<33 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 95.03% CI.
Change From Baseline in Central Subfield Thickness in the Study Eye Averaged Over Weeks 40, 44, and 48	From Baseline through Week 48	Central subfield thickness (CST) was defined as the distance between the internal limiting membrane (ILM) and the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) using optical coherence tomography (OCT), as assessed by the central reading center. For the Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis, the model adjusted for treatment group, visit, visit-by-treatment group interaction, baseline CST (continuous), baseline BCVA (≥74 letters, 73-55 letters, and ≤54 letters), baseline LLD (\<33 letters and ≥33 letters), and region (U.S. and Canada, Asia, and the rest of the world). 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 95.03% CI.
Change From Baseline in Central Subfield Thickness in the Study Eye Averaged Over Weeks 52, 56, and 60	From Baseline through Week 60	Central subfield thickness (CST) was defined as the distance between the internal limiting membrane (ILM) and the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) using optical coherence tomography (OCT), as assessed by the central reading center. For the Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis, the model adjusted for treatment group, visit, visit-by-treatment group interaction, baseline CST (continuous), baseline BCVA (≥74 letters, 73-55 letters, and ≤54 letters), baseline LLD (\<33 letters and ≥33 letters), and region (U.S. and Canada, Asia, and the rest of the world). 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 95.03% CI.
Change From Baseline in Central Subfield Thickness in the Study Eye Over Time	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, 100, 104, 108, and 112	Central subfield thickness (CST) was defined as the distance between the internal limiting membrane (ILM) and the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) using optical coherence tomography (OCT), as assessed by the central reading center. For the Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis, the model adjusted for treatment group, visit, visit-by-treatment group interaction, baseline CST (continuous), baseline BCVA (≥74 letters, 73-55 letters, and ≤54 letters), baseline LLD (\<33 letters and ≥33 letters), and region (U.S. and Canada, Asia, and the rest of the world). 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 95.03% CI.
Percentage of Participants With Absence of Intraretinal Fluid in the Study Eye Over Time	Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 104, 108, and 112	Intraretinal fluid was measured using optical coherence tomography (OCT) in the central subfield (center 1 millimetre \[mm\]). The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants with absence of intraretinal fluid were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥74 letters, 73-55 letters, and ≤54 letters), baseline LLD (≥33 letters and \<33 letters), 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 95.03% CI.
Percentage of Participants With Absence of Subretinal Fluid in the Study Eye Over Time	Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 104, 108, and 112	Subretinal fluid was measured using optical coherence tomography (OCT) in the central subfield (center 1 mm). The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants with absence of subretinal fluid were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥74 letters, 73-55 letters, and ≤54 letters), baseline LLD (≥33 letters and \<33 letters), 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 95.03% CI.
Percentage of Participants With Absence of Intraretinal Fluid and Subretinal Fluid in the Study Eye Over Time	Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 104, 108, and 112	Intraretinal fluid and subretinal fluid were measured using optical coherence tomography (OCT) in the central subfield (center 1 millimetre \[mm\]). The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants with absence of intraretinal and subretinal fluid were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (≥74 letters, 73-55 letters, and ≤54 letters), baseline LLD (≥33 letters and \<33 letters), 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 95.03% CI.

Trial Locations

Locations (159): Dobry Wzrok Sp Z O O
🇵🇱
Gdańsk, Poland
Gabinet Okulistyczny Prof Edward Wylegala
🇵🇱
Katowice, Poland
SPEKTRUM Osrodek Okulistyki Klinicznej
🇵🇱
Wroclaw, Poland
Retina Assoc of Western NY
🇺🇸
Rochester, New York, United States
Retina Consultants of Southern California
🇺🇸
Redlands, California, United States
Associated Retinal Consultants
🇺🇸
Grand Rapids, Michigan, United States
Retina Associates of St. Louis
🇺🇸
Florissant, Missouri, United States
Long Is. Vitreoretinal Consult
🇺🇸
Hauppauge, New York, United States
Retina Vit Surgeons/Central NY
🇺🇸
Liverpool, New York, United States
Het Oogziekenhuis Rotterdam
🇳🇱
Rotterdam, Netherlands
University of British Columbia - Vancouver Coastal Health Authority
🇨🇦
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Graystone Eye
🇺🇸
Hickory, North Carolina, United States
Carolina Eye Associates
🇺🇸
Southern Pines, North Carolina, United States
Nara Medical University Hospital
🇯🇵
Nara, Japan
Iida Municipal Hospital
🇯🇵
Nagano, Japan
Tel Aviv Sourasky MC; Ophtalmology
🇮🇱
Tel Aviv, Israel
Chiba University Hospital
🇯🇵
Chiba, Japan
Ganglion Medial Center
🇭🇺
Pécs, Hungary
Zala Megyei Kórház; SZEMESZET
🇭🇺
Zalaegerszeg, Hungary
Calgary Retina Consultants
🇨🇦
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Chukyo Hospital
🇯🇵
Aichi, Japan
Nagoya City University Hospital
🇯🇵
Aichi, Japan
Hyogo Medical University Hospital
🇯🇵
Hyogo, Japan
Retina Group of Washington
🇺🇸
Chevy Chase, Maryland, United States
Kagawa University Hospital
🇯🇵
Kagawa, Japan
Kaplan Medical Center; Ophtalmology
🇮🇱
Rehovot, Israel
Ophthalmic Cons of Long Island
🇺🇸
Oceanside, New York, United States
Universitätsklinik Heidelberg; Augenklinik
🇩🇪
Heidelberg, Germany
Institut De L'Oeil Des Laurentides
🇨🇦
Boisbriand, Quebec, Canada
The Retina Centre of Ottawa
🇨🇦
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Fukushima Medical University Hospital
🇯🇵
Fukushima, Japan
Hokkaido University Hospital
🇯🇵
Hokkaido, Japan
Retina Associates of NJ
🇺🇸
Teaneck, New Jersey, United States
Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Klinik für Augenheilkunde
🇩🇪
Freiburg, Germany
Montemayor & Asociados (Oftalmologos)
🇲🇽
Monterrey Nuevo LEON, Mexico
Nagoya University Hospital
🇯🇵
Aichi, Japan
Asahikawa Medical University Hospital
🇯🇵
Hokkaido, Japan
University of Ottawa Eye Institute
🇨🇦
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Rambam Medical Center; Opthalmology
🇮🇱
Haifa, Israel
Debreceni Egyetem Klinikai Kozpont; Szemeszeti Klinika
🇭🇺
Debrecen, Hungary
Szpital Specjalistyczny nr 1; Oddzial Okulistyki
🇵🇱
Bytom, Poland
Aichi Medical University Hospital
🇯🇵
Aichi, Japan
Sapporo City General Hospital
🇯🇵
Hokkaido, Japan
Hadassah MC; Ophtalmology
🇮🇱
Jerusalem, Israel
Specjalistyczny Ośrodek Okulistyczny Oculomedica
🇵🇱
Bydgoszcz, Poland
Royal Victoria Infirmary
🇬🇧
Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
Manchester Royal Infirmary
🇬🇧
Manchester, United Kingdom
Szpital sw. Lukasza
🇵🇱
Bielsko-Biala, Poland
Centrum Medyczne Dietla 19 Sp. Z O.O.
🇵🇱
Kraków, Poland
Vista Klinik Ophthalmologische Klinik
🇨🇭
Binningen, Switzerland
ETZ Elisabeth
🇳🇱
Tilburg, Netherlands
Gloucestershire Royal Hospital
🇬🇧
Gloucester, United Kingdom
Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro
🇪🇸
Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain
Southampton General Hospital
🇬🇧
Southampton, United Kingdom
Kocaeli Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi; Department of Ophthalmology
🇹🇷
Kocaeli, Turkey
Bristol Eye Hospital
🇬🇧
Bristol, United Kingdom
Clinica Universitaria de Navarra; Servicio de Oftalmologia
🇪🇸
Madrid, Spain
Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
🇬🇧
London, United Kingdom
New Cross Hospital
🇬🇧
Wolverhampton, United Kingdom
Stadtspital Triemli Ophthalmologische Klinik
🇨🇭
Zürich, Switzerland
Ankara Baskent University Medical Faculty; Department of Ophthalmology
🇹🇷
Ankara, Turkey
Bradford Royal Infirmary
🇬🇧
Bradford, United Kingdom
Oftalvist Valencia
🇪🇸
Burjassot, Valencia, Spain
Clinica Baviera; Servicio Oftalmologia
🇪🇸
Madrid, Spain
Selcuk University Faculty of Medicine; Department Of Ophthalmology
🇹🇷
Konya, Turkey
Retina Associates
🇺🇸
Lenexa, Kansas, United States
Azienda Ospedaliera di Perugia Ospedale S. Maria Della Misericordia; Clinica Oculistica
🇮🇹
Perugia, Umbria, Italy
Hyogo Prefectural Amagasaki General Medical Center (Hyogo AGMC)
🇯🇵
Hyogo, Japan
Mie University Hospital
🇯🇵
Mie, Japan
Kagoshima University Hospital
🇯🇵
Kagoshima, Japan
Kozawa eye hospital and diabetes center
🇯🇵
Ibaraki, Japan
Kyoto University Hospital
🇯🇵
Kyoto, Japan
Ideta Eye Hospital
🇯🇵
Kumamoto, Japan
University of Miyazaki Hospital
🇯🇵
Miyazaki, Japan
University of the Ryukyus Hospital
🇯🇵
Okinawa, Japan
Kitano Hospital
🇯🇵
Osaka, Japan
National Defense Medical College Hospital
🇯🇵
Saitama, Japan
Nihon University Hospital
🇯🇵
Tokyo, Japan
Tokyo Women's Medical University Hospital
🇯🇵
Tokyo, Japan
The York Hospital
🇬🇧
York, United Kingdom
Retina Associates Southwest PC
🇺🇸
Tucson, Arizona, United States
Retinal Diagnostic Center
🇺🇸
Campbell, California, United States
Jacobs Retina center at the Shiley eye Institute UCSD
🇺🇸
La Jolla, California, United States
The Retina Partners
🇺🇸
Encino, California, United States
Southern CA Desert Retina Cons
🇺🇸
Palm Desert, California, United States
California Eye Specialists Medical group Inc.
🇺🇸
Pasadena, California, United States
Retina Consultants, San Diego
🇺🇸
Poway, California, United States
Retina Group of New England
🇺🇸
Waterford, Connecticut, United States
Fort Lauderdale Eye Institute
🇺🇸
Plantation, Florida, United States
Retina Consultants of Southern
🇺🇸
Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States
Retina Specialty Institute
🇺🇸
Pensacola, Florida, United States
Retina Vitreous Assoc of FL
🇺🇸
Saint Petersburg, Florida, United States
NJ Retina
🇺🇸
Edison, New Jersey, United States
The Retina Consultants
🇺🇸
Slingerlands, New York, United States
Budapest Retina Associates Kft.
🇭🇺
Budapest, Hungary
Char Eye Ear &Throat Assoc
🇺🇸
Charlotte, North Carolina, United States
Black Hills Eye Institute
🇺🇸
Rapid City, South Dakota, United States
Valley Retina Institute P.A.
🇺🇸
Harlingen, Texas, United States
Charles Retina Institute
🇺🇸
Germantown, Tennessee, United States
Spokane Eye Clinical Research
🇺🇸
Spokane, Washington, United States
Ivey Eye Institute
🇨🇦
London, Ontario, Canada
Universitätsklinikum Tübingen
🇩🇪
Tübingen, Germany
Fondazione Irccs Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico-Clinica Regina Elena;U.O.C Oculistica
🇮🇹
Milano, Lombardia, Italy
Fondazione G.B. Bietti Per Lo Studio E La Ricerca in Oftalmologia-Presidio Ospedaliero Britannico
🇮🇹
Roma, Lazio, Italy
Rabin MC; Ophtalmology
🇮🇱
Petach Tikva, Israel
Kurume University Hospital
🇯🇵
Fukuoka, Japan
Daiyukai Daiichi Hospital
🇯🇵
Aichi, Japan
Toho University Sakura Medical Center
🇯🇵
Chiba, Japan
Hayashi Eye Hospital
🇯🇵
Fukuoka, Japan
Southern TOHOKU Eye Clinic
🇯🇵
Fukushima, Japan
Shinshu University Hospital
🇯🇵
Nagano, Japan
Japanese Red Cross Nagasaki Genbaku Hospital
🇯🇵
Nagasaki, Japan
Tokushima University Hospital
🇯🇵
Tokushima, Japan
Kansai Medical University Medical Center
🇯🇵
Osaka, Japan
Osaka Metropolitan University Hospital
🇯🇵
Osaka, Japan
Kansai Medical University Hospital
🇯🇵
Osaka, Japan
Takeuchi eye clinic
🇯🇵
Tokyo, Japan
Shiga University Of Medical Science Hospital
🇯🇵
Shiga, Japan
Kyorin University Hospital
🇯🇵
Tokyo, Japan
Tokyo Medical University Hachioji Medical Center
🇯🇵
Tokyo, Japan
Centro Oftalmológico Mira, S.C
🇲🇽
Del. Cuauhtemoc, Mexico CITY (federal District), Mexico
Yamaguchi University Hospital
🇯🇵
Yamaguchi, Japan
Macula Retina Consultores
🇲🇽
Mexico, D.F., Mexico
Hospital dos de maig; servicio de oftalmologia
🇪🇸
Barcelona, Spain
Hospital General de Catalunya
🇪🇸
San Cugat Del Valles, Barcelona, Spain
FSBI "Scientific Research Institute of Eye Diseases" of Russian Academy of medical Sciences
🇷🇺
Moscow, Russian Federation
Clinics of Eye Diseases, LLC
🇷🇺
Kazan, Tatarstan, Russian Federation
Medical Military Academy n.a S.M.Kirov
🇷🇺
St.Petersburg, Sankt Petersburg, Russian Federation
Instituto Oftalmologico Gomez Ulla; Servicio de Oftalmologia
🇪🇸
Santiago de Compostela, LA Coruña, Spain
Frimley Park Hospital
🇬🇧
Frimley, United Kingdom
St James University Hospital
🇬🇧
Leeds, United Kingdom
University Hospital of Wales
🇬🇧
Cardiff, United Kingdom
Royal Liverpool University Hospital; St Paul's Clinical Eye Research Centre
🇬🇧
Liverpool, United Kingdom
Hull Royal Infirmary
🇬🇧
Hull, United Kingdom
South Coast Retina Center
🇺🇸
Los Angeles, California, United States
Rand Eye
🇺🇸
Deerfield Beach, Florida, United States
Florida Eye Associates
🇺🇸
Melbourne, Florida, United States
Johns Hopkins Med; Wilmer Eye Inst
🇺🇸
Baltimore, Maryland, United States
Midwest Vision Research Foundation
🇺🇸
Chesterfield, Missouri, United States
Tennessee Retina PC.
🇺🇸
Nashville, Tennessee, United States
Barnet Dulaney Perkins Eye Center
🇺🇸
Mesa, Arizona, United States
Retinal Research Institute, LLC
🇺🇸
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
University of California, Davis, Eye Center
🇺🇸
Sacramento, California, United States
Northwestern Medical Group/Northwestern University
🇺🇸
Chicago, Illinois, United States
Western Carolina Retinal Associate PA
🇺🇸
Asheville, North Carolina, United States
Charleston Neuroscience Inst
🇺🇸
Ladson, South Carolina, United States
Retina & Vitreous of Texas
🇺🇸
Houston, Texas, United States
Toronto Retina Institute
🇨🇦
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Unity Health Toronto
🇨🇦
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Tufts Medical Center; Ophthalmology
🇺🇸
Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Sierra Eye Associates
🇺🇸
Reno, Nevada, United States
Texas Retina Associates
🇺🇸
Dallas, Texas, United States
Cincinnati Eye Institute
🇺🇸
Cincinnati, Ohio, United States
Retina Northwest
🇺🇸
Portland, Oregon, United States
Mid Atlantic Retina - Wills Eye Hospital
🇺🇸
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
Michel Giunta Clinique Medical
🇨🇦
Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
Retina Consultants of Texas
🇺🇸
The Woodlands, Texas, United States
Rocky Mountain Retina
🇺🇸
Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
Royal Free Hospital
🇬🇧
London, United Kingdom