Diabetic Macular EdemaPhase 3NCT03622580
A Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Faricimab (RO6867461) in Participants With Diabetic Macular Edema (YOSEMITE)
A Phase 3 study testing Aflibercept and Faricimab in people with Diabetic Macular Edema, run by Hoffmann-La Roche at 185 sites in 16 countries.
Trial 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). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Diabetic Macular Edema
- What is being tested?
- Aflibercept and Faricimab
- Type of treatment
- Injection or infusion
- Could I receive a placebo?
- Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
- How many people
- 940 participants
- Where
- 185 sitesin 16 countries
- Study dates
- 5 Sep 2018to 3 Sep 2021
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- 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
Who cannot join
- 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
Show all 10Show fewer
- 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
Trial locations and contacts
185 sites in 16 countries.
185 sites in 16 countries
United States85 sites
Retina Consultants of Hawaii
‘Aiea, Hawaii, 96701
Retina Res Institute of Texas
Abilene, Texas, 79606
Capital Region Retina
Albany, New York, 12206
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87131
Western Carolina Retinal Associate PA
Asheville, North Carolina, 28803
Austin Clinical Research LLC
Austin, Texas, 78750
The Retina Care Center
Baltimore, Maryland, 21209
Johns Hopkins Med; Wilmer Eye Inst
Baltimore, Maryland, 21287
Retina Consultants of Texas
Bellaire, Texas, 77401
Ophthalmic Consultants of Boston
Boston, Massachusetts, 02114
Beetham Eye Institute, Joslin Diabetes Center
Boston, Massachusetts, 02215
University of Vermont Medical Center; Investigational Drug Service, Pharmacy Department/Baird 1
Burlington, Vermont, 05401
Retinal Diagnostic Center
Campbell, California, 95008
Char Eye Ear &Throat Assoc
Charlotte, North Carolina, 28210
Mid Atlantic Retina - Wills Eye Hospital
Cherry Hill, New Jersey, 08034
Midwest Vision Research Foundation
Chesterfield, Missouri, 63017
Retina Group of Washington
Chevy Chase, Maryland, 20815
Cincinnati Eye Institute
Cincinnati, Ohio, 45242
Retina Assoc of Cleveland Inc
Cleveland, Ohio, 44122
OSU Eye Physicians & Surgeons
Columbus, Ohio, 43212
Texas Retina Associates
Dallas, Texas, 75231
Rand Eye
Deerfield Beach, Florida, 33064
Retina Specialists
DeSoto, Texas, 75115
Midwest Retina
Dublin, Ohio, 43016
Vitreoretinal Surgery
Edina, Minnesota, 55435
NJ Retina
Edison, New Jersey, 08820
Retina Vitreous Center
Edmond, Oklahoma, 73013
Emerson Clinical Research Institute
Falls Church, Virginia, 22042
Eye Medical Center
Fresno, California, 93720
Foundation for Vision Research
Grand Rapids, Michigan, 49546
Long Is. Vitreoretinal Consult
Great Neck, New York, 11021
Cumberland Valley Retina PC
Hagerstown, Maryland, 21740
Valley Retina Institute P.A.
Harlingen, Texas, 78550
Graystone Eye
Hickory, North Carolina, 28602
Retina & Vitreous of Texas
Houston, Texas, 77025
Midwest Eye Institute
Indianapolis, Indiana, 46290
Colorado Retina Associates, PC
Lakewood, Colorado, 80228
Retina Associates
Lenexa, Kansas, 66215
Retina Associates of Kentucky
Lexington, Kentucky, 40509
Retina Vit Surgeons/Central NY
Liverpool, New York, 13088
Piedmont Eye Center
Lynchburg, Virginia, 24502
University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin, 53792
Georgia Retina PC
Marietta, Georgia, 30060
Charles Retina Institute
Memphis, Tennessee, 38119
Barnet Dulaney Perkins Eye Center
Mesa, Arizona, 85206
West Virginia University Eye Institute
Morgantown, West Virginia, 26506
MaculaCare, PLLC
New York, New York, 10021
Wagner Macula & Retina Center
Norfolk, Virginia, 23502
Retinal & Ophthalmic Cons PC
Northfield, New Jersey, 08225
East Bay Retina Consultants
Oakland, California, 94609
Paducah Retinal Center
Paducah, Kentucky, 42001
Retina Care Specialists
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, 33410
Southern CA Desert Retina Cons
Palm Desert, California, 92211
California Eye Specialists Medical group Inc.
Pasadena, California, 91107
Retina Specialty Institute
Pensacola, Florida, 32503
Arizona Retina and Vitreous Consultants
Phoenix, Arizona, 85021
Maine Eye Center
Portland, Maine, 04101
Retina Northwest
Portland, Oregon, 97221
Retina Consultants, San Diego
Poway, California, 92064
Black Hills Eye Institute
Rapid City, South Dakota, 57701
Retina Consultants of Southern California
Redlands, California, 92373
Sierra Eye Associates
Reno, Nevada, 89502
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California, 92505
Assoc Retinal Consultants PC
Royal Oak, Michigan, 48073
University of California, Davis, Eye Center
Sacramento, California, 95817
Retina Associates of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah, 84107
University of Utah; Division of Gastroenterology/Hepatology
Salt Lake City, Utah, 84132
Med Center Ophthalmology Assoc
San Antonio, Texas, 78240
W Coast Retina Med Group Inc
San Francisco, California, 94107
Orange County Retina Med Group
Santa Ana, California, 92705
Island Retina
Shirley, New York, 11967
Carolina Eye Associates
Southern Pines, North Carolina, 28387
Spokane Eye Clinical Research
Spokane, Washington, 99204
Southern Vitreoretinal Assoc
Tallahassee, Florida, 32308
Retina Associates of Florida, LLC
Tampa, Florida, 33609
University of South Florida
Tampa, Florida, 33612
Retina Associates of NJ
Teaneck, New Jersey, 07666
Associated Retinal Consultants, P.C.
Traverse City, Michigan, 49686
Retina Associates Southwest PC
Tucson, Arizona, 85704
Eye Care Assoc of East Texas
Tyler, Texas, 75701
Wolfe Eye Clinic
West Des Moines, Iowa, 50266
Vitreo-Retinal Consultants
Wichita, Kansas, 67214
Strategic Clinical Research Group, LLC
Willow Park, Texas, 76087
Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 27157
Vitreo-Retinal Associates, PC
Worcester, Massachusetts, 01605
Japan27 sites
Sugita Eye Hospital
Aichi, 460-0008
Nagoya University Hospital
Aichi, 466-8560
Nagoya City University Hospital
Aichi, 467-8602
Aichi Medical University Hospital
Aichi, 480-1195
Toho University Sakura Medical Center
Chiba, 285-8741
Hayashi Eye Hospital
Fukuoka, 812-0011
Kurume University Hospital
Fukuoka, 830-0011
Hokkaido University Hospital
Hokkaido, 060-8648
Asahikawa Medical University Hospital
Hokkaido, 078-8510
Hyogo Prefectural Amagasaki General Medical Center (Hyogo AGMC)
Hyōgo, 660-8550
Kozawa eye hospital and diabetes center
Ibaraki, 310-0845
St. Marianna University Hospital
Kanagawa, 216-8511
Ideta Eye Hospital
Kumamoto, 860-0027
Kyoto University Hospital
Kyoto, 606-8507
Mie University Hospital
Mie, 514-8507
University of Miyazaki Hospital
Miyazaki, 889-1692
Nara Medical University Hospital
Nara, 634-8522
Kitano Hospital
Osaka, 530-8480
Osaka City University Hospital
Osaka, 545-8586
National Defense Medical College Hospital
Saitama, 359-8513
Shiga University Of Medical Science Hospital
Shiga, 520-2192
Seirei Hamamatsu General Hospital
Shizuoka, 430-8558
Tokushima University Hospital
Tokushima, 770-8503
Tokyo Women's Medical University Hospital
Tokyo, 162-8666
Kyorin University Hospital
Tokyo, 181-8611
Tokyo Medical University Hachioji Medical Center
Tokyo, 193-0998
Yamaguchi University Hospital
Yamaguchi, 755-8505
Spain10 sites
Complejo Hospitalario Universitario Albacete; Servicio de oftalmologia
Albacete, 02006
VISSUM Instituto Oftalmológico de Alicante
Alicante, 03016
Centro de Oftalmologia Barraquer; Servicio Oftalmologia
Barcelona, 08021
Hospital Clinic de Barcelona; Consultas Externas Oftalmologia
Barcelona, 08028
Hospital de Santa Creu I Sant Pau; Servicio de Oftalmologia
Barcelona, 08041
Hospital Universitario de Gran Canaria; Servicio de oftalmologia
Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, LAS Palmas, 35016
Clinica Universitaria de Navarra; Servicio de Oftalmologia
Madrid, 28027
Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro
Majadahonda, Madrid, 28222
Clinica Universitaria de Navarra; Servicio de Oftalmologia
Pamplona, Navarre, 31008
Instituto Oftalmologico Gomez Ulla; Servicio de Oftalmologia
Santiago de Compostela, LA Coruña, 15706
Poland8 sites
Szpital sw. Lukasza
Bielsko-Biala, 43-309
Szpital Specjalistyczny nr 1; Oddzial Okulistyki
Bytom, 41-902
Dobry Wzrok Sp Z O O
Gdansk, 80-402
Gabinet Okulistyczny Prof Edward Wylegala
Katowice, 40-594
Centrum Medyczne UNO-MED
Krakow, 31-070
Optomed Sp. z o.o.
Rybnik, 44-203
Kliniczny Szpital Wojewodzki nr 1 im. F. Chopina; Klinika Okulistyki
Rzeszów, 35-055
SPEKTRUM Osrodek Okulistyki Klinicznej
Wroclaw, 53-334
France6 sites
Hopital Pellegrin; Ophtalmologie
Bordeaux, 33000
Pole Vision Val d'Ouest; Ophtalmologie
Écully, 69130
Centre Paradis Monticelli; Ophtalmologie
Marseille, 13008
CHU Nantes - Hôtel Dieu; Ophthalmology
Nantes, 44093
Centre Odeon; Exploration Ophtalmologique
Paris, 75006
Hopital Lariboisiere; Ophtalmologie
Paris, 75010
Germany6 sites
Universitäts-Augenklinik Bonn
Bonn, 53127
Universitätsmedizin Göttingen Georg-August-Universität; Klinik für Augenheilkunde 3.B1.266
Göttingen, 37075
Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Klinik für Augenheilkunde
Hanover, 30625
Universitätsmedizin der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Augenklinik und Poliklinik
Mainz, 55131
Augenabteilung am St. Franziskus-Hospital
Münster, 48145
Universitätsklinikum Münster; Augenheilkunde
Münster, 48149
Hungary6 sites
Budapest Retina Associates Kft.
Budapest, 1133
Debreceni Egyetem Klinikai Kozpont; Szemeszeti Klinika
Debrecen, 4032
Ganglion Medial Center
Pécs, 7621
Szegedi Tudományegyetem ÁOK; Department of Ophtalmology
Szeged, 6720
Markusovszky Egyetemi Oktatokorhaz ; SZEMESZET
Szombathely, 9700
Zala Megyei Kórház; SZEMESZET
Zalaegerszeg, 8900
Italy6 sites
Ospedale Clinicizzato SS Annunziata; Clinica Oftalmologica
Chieti, Abruzzo, 66100
UNIVERSITA' DEGLI STUDI DI GENOVA - Di.N.O.G.;CLINICA OCULISTICA
Genoa, Liguria, 16132
Fondazione Irccs Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico-Clinica Regina Elena;U.O.C Oculistica
Milan, Lombardy, 20100
Irccs Ospedale San Raffaele;U.O. Oculistica
Milan, Lombardy, 20132
Azienda Ospedaliera di Perugia Ospedale S. Maria Della Misericordia; Clinica Oculistica
Perugia, Umbria, 06129
Fondazione G.B. Bietti Per Lo Studio E La Ricerca in Oftalmologia-Presidio Ospedaliero Britannico
Rome, Lazio, 00198
Bulgaria5 sites
Medical Center for Eye Health - Focus Ltd
Sofia, 1303
Pentagram Eye Hospital (Medical Center "Pentagram")
Sofia, 1309
Spec. Ophth. Hospital for Active Treatment- Academic Pashev
Sofia, 1517
Specialized Hospital for Active Treatment of Eye Diseases Zora
Sofia, 1784
Ambulatory - Medical Center for Specialized Medical Assistance - "Eye Clinic Sveta Petka" Ltd
Varna, 9002
Israel5 sites
Rambam Medical Center; Opthalmology
Haifa, 3109601
Hadassah MC; Ophtalmology
Jerusalem, 9112001
Rabin MC; Ophtalmology
Petah Tikva, 4941492
Kaplan Medical Center
Rehovot, 7610001
Tel Aviv Sourasky MC; Ophtalmology
Tel Aviv, 6423906
Austria4 sites
LKH-Univ.Klinikum Graz; Universitäts-Augenklinik
Graz, 8036
Kepler Universitätskliniken GmbH - Med Campus III; Abt. für Augenheilkunde
Linz, 4021
Medizinische Universität Wien; Universitätsklinik für Augenheilkunde und Optometrie
Vienna, 1090
Hanusch Krankenhaus; Abteilung für Augenkrankheiten mit Augen-Tagesklinik
Vienna, 1140
Mexico4 sites
Centro Oftalmológico Mira, S.C
Cuauhtémoc, Mexico CITY (federal District), 06760
Macula Retina Consultores
México, 01120
Hospital de la Ceguera APEC
México, 04030
Instituto Mexicano de Oftalmologia I.A.P.
Querétaro, 76090
Peru4 sites
Mácula D&T
Lima, 27
Oftalmosalud Srl
Lima, 27
TG Laser Oftalmica
Lima, 27
Oftalmolaser
Lima, Lima 33
Russia3 sites
FSBI "Scientific Research Institute of Eye Diseases" of Russian Academy of medical Sciences
Moscow, 119435
Medical Military Academy n.a S.M.Kirov
Saint Petersburg, 194044
Clinic Optimed
Ufa, Bashkortostan Republic, 450059
Slovakia3 sites
Nemocnica s poliklinikou Trebišov, a.s.
Trebišov, 075 01
Fakultna nemocnica Trencin Ocna klinika
Trenčín, 911 71
Fakultna nemocnica s poliklinikou Zilina; Ocne oddelenie
Žilina, 012 07
Turkey (Türkiye)3 sites
Hacettepe University Medical Faculty; Department of Ophthalmology
Ankara, 06100
Ege University Medical Faculty; Department of Ophthalmology
Izmir, 35100
Selcuk University Faculty of Medicine; Department Of Ophthalmology
Konya, 42130
About this study
Official title: A Phase III, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Masked, Active Comparator-Controlled Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Faricimab (RO6867461) in Patients With Diabetic Macular Edema (YOSEMITE)
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).
- Conditions
- Diabetic Macular Edema
- Being tested
- Aflibercept, Faricimab, Sham Procedure
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
AfliberceptDrug
Also called Eylea
Aflibercept 2 mg was administered by intravitreal (IVT) injection into the study eye once every 8 weeks (Q8W).
FaricimabDrug
Also called VABYSMO™, RO6867461, RG7716
Faricimab 6 mg was administered by IVT injection into the study eye either once every 8 weeks (Q8W) in arm A or according to a personalized treatment interval (PTI) in arm B.
Sham ProcedureProcedure or surgery
The sham is a procedure that mimics an IVT injection and involves the blunt end of an empty syringe (without a needle) being pressed against the anesthetized eye. It was administered to participants in all three treatments arms at applicable clinic visits to maintain masking among treatment arms.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W | Experimental | 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. Receives: Drug: Faricimab; Procedure: Sham Procedure |
| B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI | Experimental | 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. Receives: Drug: Faricimab; Procedure: Sham Procedure |
| C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W | Active comparator | 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. Receives: Drug: Aflibercept; Procedure: Sham Procedure |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Change From Baseline in BCVA in the Study Eye Averaged Over Weeks 48, 52, and 56, ITT and Treatment-Naive Populations
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.
Measured: From Baseline through Week 56
Secondary outcomes (59)
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
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.
Measured: Baseline and Week 52
Change From Baseline in BCVA in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population
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.
Measured: 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
Change From Baseline in BCVA in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population
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.
Measured: 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
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
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.
Measured: Baseline, average of Weeks 48, 52, and 56
Percentage of Participants Gaining ≥15 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population
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.
Measured: 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
Percentage of Participants Gaining ≥10 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population
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.
Measured: 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
Percentage of Participants Gaining ≥5 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population
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.
Measured: 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
Percentage of Participants Gaining ≥0 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population
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.
Measured: 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
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
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.
Measured: Baseline, average of Weeks 48, 52, and 56
Percentage of Participants Gaining ≥15 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population
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.
Measured: 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
Percentage of Participants Gaining ≥10 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population
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.
Measured: 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
Percentage of Participants Gaining ≥5 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population
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.
Measured: 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
Percentage of Participants Gaining ≥0 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population
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.
Measured: 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
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
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.
Measured: Baseline, average of Weeks 48, 52, and 56
Percentage of Participants Avoiding a Loss of ≥15 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population
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.
Measured: 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
Percentage of Participants Avoiding a Loss of ≥10 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population
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.
Measured: 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
Percentage of Participants Avoiding a Loss of ≥5 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population
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.
Measured: 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
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
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.
Measured: Baseline, average of Weeks 48, 52, and 56
Percentage of Participants Avoiding a Loss of ≥15 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population
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.
Measured: 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
Percentage of Participants Avoiding a Loss of ≥10 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population
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.
Measured: 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
Percentage of Participants Avoiding a Loss of ≥5 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population
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.
Measured: 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
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
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.
Measured: Baseline, average of Weeks 48, 52, and 56
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
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.
Measured: 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
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
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.
Measured: 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
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
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.
Measured: Baseline, average of Weeks 48, 52, and 56
Percentage of Participants With BCVA Snellen Equivalent of 20/40 or Better (BCVA ≥69 Letters) in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population
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.
Measured: 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
Percentage of Participants With BCVA Snellen Equivalent of 20/40 or Better (BCVA ≥69 Letters) in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population
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.
Measured: 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
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
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.
Measured: Baseline, average of Weeks 48, 52, and 56
Percentage of Participants With BCVA Snellen Equivalent of 20/200 or Worse (BCVA ≤38 Letters) in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population
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.
Measured: 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
Percentage of Participants With BCVA Snellen Equivalent of 20/200 or Worse (BCVA ≤38 Letters) in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population
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.
Measured: 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
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
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.
Measured: Baseline, Weeks 16, 52, and 96
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
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.
Measured: Baseline, Weeks 16, 52, and 96
Percentage of Participants With a ≥3-Step Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Improvement From Baseline on the ETDRS Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population
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.
Measured: Baseline, Weeks 16, 52, and 96
Percentage of Participants With a ≥3-Step Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Improvement From Baseline on the ETDRS Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population
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.
Measured: Baseline, Weeks 16, 52, and 96
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
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.
Measured: Baseline, Weeks 16, 52, and 96
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
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.
Measured: Baseline, Weeks 16, 52, and 96
Percentage of Participants Without Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy (PDR) at Baseline Who Developed New PDR at Week 52, ITT and Treatment-Naive Populations
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.
Measured: Baseline and Week 52
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
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.
Measured: Baseline and 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, ITT Population
Measured: 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
Measured: 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
Measured: Week 96
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
Measured: 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
Measured: From start of PTI (Week 12 or later) until Week 52
Percentage of Participants in the Faricimab 6 mg PTI Arm at Week 96 Who Achieved a Once Every 12-Weeks or 16-Weeks Treatment Interval Without an Interval Decrease Below Once Every 12 Weeks, ITT and Treatment-Naive Populations
Measured: 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
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.
Measured: From Baseline through Week 56
Change From Baseline in Central Subfield Thickness in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population
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.
Measured: 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
Change From Baseline in Central Subfield Thickness in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population
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.
Measured: 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
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
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.
Measured: Average of Weeks 48, 52, and 56
Percentage of Participants With Absence of Diabetic Macular Edema in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population
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.
Measured: 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
Percentage of Participants With Retinal Dryness in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population
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.
Measured: 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
Percentage of Participants With Absence of Intraretinal Fluid in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population
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.
Measured: Baseline, Weeks 16, 48, 52, 56, 92, 96, and 100
Percentage of Participants With Absence of Subretinal Fluid in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population
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.
Measured: Baseline, Weeks 16, 48, 52, 56, 92, 96, and 100
Percentage of Participants With Absence of Intraretinal Fluid and Subretinal Fluid in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population
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.
Measured: Baseline, Weeks 16, 48, 52, 56, 92, 96, and 100
Change From Baseline in the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire-25 (NEI VFQ-25) Composite Score Over Time, ITT Population
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.
Measured: Baseline, Weeks 24, 52, and 100
Percentage of Participants With at Least One Adverse Event
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.
Measured: From first dose of study drug through end of study (up to 2 years)
Percentage of Participants With at Least One Ocular Adverse Event in the Study Eye or the Fellow Eye
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.
Measured: From first dose of study drug through end of study (up to 2 years)
Percentage of Participants With at Least One Non-Ocular Adverse Event
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.
Measured: From first dose of study drug through end of study (up to 2 years)
Plasma Concentration of Faricimab Over Time
Faricimab concentration in plasma was determined using a validated immunoassay method.
Measured: Pre-dose on Day 1 (Baseline); Weeks 4, 28, 52, 76, and 100
Percentage of Participants Who Test Positive for Treatment-Emergent Anti-Drug Antibodies Against Faricimab During the Study
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.
Measured: Baseline, Weeks 4, 28, 52, 76, and 100
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted9 Aug 2018
- Study start5 Sep 2018
- Primary completion20 Oct 2020
- Study completion3 Sep 2021
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (11)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Diabetic Macular EdemaStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Hoffmann-La RocheThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Triple blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 940 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Hoffmann-La Roche
- Sponsor type
- Industry (pharma, biotech, devices)
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Clinical Trials, Study director, Hoffmann-La Roche
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03622580
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- GR40349
- Other IDs
- 2017-005104-10, 2017
- Status last verified
- Jul 2025
- First submitted
- 1 Aug 2018
- Last updated
- 11 Jul 2025
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- Yes
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: For eligible studies, qualified researchers may request access to individual patient level clinical data. See Roche's commitment to transparency of clinical study information here: https://go.roche.com/data\_sharing
Publications
Wong TY, Haskova Z, Asik K, Baumal CR, Csaky KG, Eter N, Ives JA, Jaffe GJ, Korobelnik JF, Lin H, Murata T, Ruamviboonsuk P, Schlottmann PG, Seres AI, Silverman D, Sun X, Tang Y, Wells JA, Yoon YH, Wykoff CC; YOSEMITE and RHINE Investigators. Faricimab Treat-and-Extend for Diabetic Macular Edema: Two-Year Results from the Randomized Phase 3 YOSEMITE and RHINE Trials. Ophthalmology. 2024 Jun;131(6):708-723. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2023.12.026. Epub 2023 Dec 28.
PubMed 38158159Wang Y, Hibar DP, Sadda S, Lim JI, Chan CK, Tan GS, Talcott KE, Gibson K, Maunz A, Lu H, Albrecht T, Amador M, Litts KM. Early Intraretinal Fluid Reduction is Linked to Vision Gains in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema. Ophthalmol Ther. 2026 Sep 22. doi: 10.1007/s40123-026-01504-z. Online ahead of print.
PubMed 42771326Sheth VS, Schlottmann P, Lai TYY, Abreu F, Chang A, Eter N, Gibson K, Hu AY, Korobelnik JF, Kotak A, Kotecha A, O'Leary OE, Pearce I, Sim DA, Sun JK, Tang Y, Khanani AM. Four-Year Outcomes of Faricimab in Diabetic Macular Edema: Results from the RHONE-X Extension Trial. Ophthalmology. 2026 May;133(5):599-612. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2026.01.001. Epub 2026 Jan 12.
PubMed 41534798Jaffe GJ, Deak G, Gibson K, Khurana RN, Nudleman E, Ogura Y, Schmidt-Erfurth U, Wang T, Westenskow PD, Wong D, Yiu G, Willis JR. IMPACT OF FARICIMAB VERSUS AFLIBERCEPT ON EPIRETINAL MEMBRANE FORMATION OVER 2 YEARS IN PATIENTS WITH DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA IN THE PHASE 3 YOSEMITE AND RHINE TRIALS. Retina. 2025 Nov 1;45(11):2003-2011. doi: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000004572.
PubMed 40668667Zarbin M, Tabano D, Ahmed A, Amador M, Ding A, Holekamp N, Lu XY, Stoilov I, Yang M. Efficacy of Faricimab versus Aflibercept in Diabetic Macular Edema in the 20/50 or Worse Vision Subgroup in Phase III YOSEMITE and RHINE Trials. Ophthalmology. 2024 Nov;131(11):1258-1270. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2024.05.025. Epub 2024 Jun 8.
PubMed 38852921von Schulthess EL, Maunz A, Chakravarthy U, Holekamp N, Pauleikhoff D, Patel K, Bachmeier I, Yu S, Cohen Y, Scherb MP, Jones IL, Gibson K, Willis JR, Glittenberg C, Singh RP, Fauser S. Intraretinal Hyper-Reflective Foci Are Almost Universally Present and Co-Localize With Intraretinal Fluid in Diabetic Macular Edema. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2024 May 1;65(5):26. doi: 10.1167/iovs.65.5.26.
PubMed 38758639Gamble A, Khan T, Hughes A, Guo Y, Vasaitis S, Bidwell J, Christman B. Telehealth Diabetes Prevention Program for Adults With Prediabetes in an Academic Medical Center Setting: Protocol for a Hybrid Type III Trial. JMIR Res Protoc. 2023 Nov 13;12:e50183. doi: 10.2196/50183.
PubMed 37955955Stockwell AD, Chang MC, Mahajan A, Forrest W, Anegondi N, Pendergrass RK, Selvaraj S, Reeder J, Wei E, Iglesias VA, Creps NM, Macri L, Neeranjan AN, van der Brug MP, Scales SJ, McCarthy MI, Yaspan BL. Multi-ancestry GWAS analysis identifies two novel loci associated with diabetic eye disease and highlights APOL1 as a high risk locus in patients with diabetic macular edema. PLoS Genet. 2023 Aug 16;19(8):e1010609. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1010609. eCollection 2023 Aug.
PubMed 37585454Shimura M, Kitano S, Ogata N, Mitamura Y, Oh H, Ochi H, Ohsawa S, Hirakata A; YOSEMITE and RHINE Investigators. Efficacy, durability, and safety of faricimab with extended dosing up to every 16 weeks in Japanese patients with diabetic macular edema: 1-year results from the Japan subgroup of the phase 3 YOSEMITE trial. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2023 May;67(3):264-279. doi: 10.1007/s10384-023-00979-8. Epub 2023 Mar 10.
PubMed 36897413Eter N, Singh RP, Abreu F, Asik K, Basu K, Baumal C, Chang A, Csaky KG, Haskova Z, Lin H, Ruiz CQ, Ruamviboonsuk P, Silverman D, Wykoff CC, Willis JR. YOSEMITE and RHINE: Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trials of Faricimab for Diabetic Macular Edema: Study Design and Rationale. Ophthalmol Sci. 2021 Dec 30;2(1):100111. doi: 10.1016/j.xops.2021.100111. eCollection 2022 Mar.
PubMed 36246184Wykoff CC, Abreu F, Adamis AP, Basu K, Eichenbaum DA, Haskova Z, Lin H, Loewenstein A, Mohan S, Pearce IA, Sakamoto T, Schlottmann PG, Silverman D, Sun JK, Wells JA, Willis JR, Tadayoni R; YOSEMITE and RHINE Investigators. Efficacy, durability, and safety of intravitreal faricimab with extended dosing up to every 16 weeks in patients with diabetic macular oedema (YOSEMITE and RHINE): two randomised, double-masked, phase 3 trials. Lancet. 2022 Feb 19;399(10326):741-755. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00018-6. Epub 2022 Jan 24.
PubMed 35085503
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 11 Jul 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Phase III, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Masked, Active Comparator-Controlled Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Faricimab (RO6867461) in Patients With Diabetic Macular Edema (YOSEMITE)
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03622580
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- GR40349
- Conditions
- Diabetic Macular Edema
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 940 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Hoffmann-La RocheIndustry (pharma, biotech, devices)
- Study start
- 5 Sep 2018 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 20 Oct 2020 (actual)
- Study completion
- 3 Sep 2021 (actual)
- First posted
- 9 Aug 2018 (actual)
- Results
- Posted 22 Mar 2022
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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).
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Triple blind (participant, investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W | Experimental | Drug: Faricimab, Procedure: Sham ProcedureParticipants 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 | Experimental | Drug: Faricimab, Procedure: Sham ProcedureParticipants 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 | Active comparator | Drug: Aflibercept, Procedure: Sham ProcedureParticipants 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. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- 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
Key exclusion criteria (10 listed)
- 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
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| AfliberceptAlso: EyleaAflibercept 2 mg was administered by intravitreal (IVT) injection into the study eye once every 8 weeks (Q8W). | Drug | C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W |
| FaricimabAlso: VABYSMO™, RO6867461, RG7716Faricimab 6 mg was administered by IVT injection into the study eye either once every 8 weeks (Q8W) in arm A or according to a personalized treatment interval (PTI) in arm B. | Drug | A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W, B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI |
| Sham ProcedureThe sham is a procedure that mimics an IVT injection and involves the blunt end of an empty syringe (without a needle) being pressed against the anesthetized eye. It was administered to participants in all three treatments arms at applicable clinic visits to maintain masking among treatment arms. | Procedure or surgery | A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W, B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI, C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W |
Primary outcome
Change From Baseline in BCVA in the Study Eye Averaged Over Weeks 48, 52, and 56, ITT and Treatment-Naive Populations
Time frame: 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.
59 secondary outcomes
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
Time frame: Baseline and Week 52
Change From Baseline in BCVA in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population
Time frame: 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
Change From Baseline in BCVA in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population
Time frame: 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
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
Time frame: Baseline, average of Weeks 48, 52, and 56
Percentage of Participants Gaining ≥15 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population
Time frame: 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
Percentage of Participants Gaining ≥10 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population
Time frame: 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
Percentage of Participants Gaining ≥5 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population
Time frame: 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
Percentage of Participants Gaining ≥0 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population
Time frame: 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
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
Time frame: Baseline, average of Weeks 48, 52, and 56
Percentage of Participants Gaining ≥15 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population
Time frame: 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
Percentage of Participants Gaining ≥10 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population
Time frame: 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
Percentage of Participants Gaining ≥5 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population
Time frame: 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
Percentage of Participants Gaining ≥0 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population
Time frame: 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
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
Time frame: Baseline, average of Weeks 48, 52, and 56
Percentage of Participants Avoiding a Loss of ≥15 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population
Time frame: 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
Percentage of Participants Avoiding a Loss of ≥10 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population
Time frame: 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
Percentage of Participants Avoiding a Loss of ≥5 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population
Time frame: 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
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
Time frame: Baseline, average of Weeks 48, 52, and 56
Percentage of Participants Avoiding a Loss of ≥15 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population
Time frame: 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
Percentage of Participants Avoiding a Loss of ≥10 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population
Time frame: 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
Percentage of Participants Avoiding a Loss of ≥5 Letters in BCVA From Baseline in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population
Time frame: 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
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
Time frame: Baseline, average of Weeks 48, 52, and 56
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
Time frame: 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
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
Time frame: 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
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
Time frame: Baseline, average of Weeks 48, 52, and 56
Percentage of Participants With BCVA Snellen Equivalent of 20/40 or Better (BCVA ≥69 Letters) in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population
Time frame: 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
Percentage of Participants With BCVA Snellen Equivalent of 20/40 or Better (BCVA ≥69 Letters) in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population
Time frame: 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
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
Time frame: Baseline, average of Weeks 48, 52, and 56
Percentage of Participants With BCVA Snellen Equivalent of 20/200 or Worse (BCVA ≤38 Letters) in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population
Time frame: 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
Percentage of Participants With BCVA Snellen Equivalent of 20/200 or Worse (BCVA ≤38 Letters) in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population
Time frame: 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
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
Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 16, 52, and 96
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
Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 16, 52, and 96
Percentage of Participants With a ≥3-Step Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Improvement From Baseline on the ETDRS Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale in the Study Eye Over Time, ITT Population
Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 16, 52, and 96
Percentage of Participants With a ≥3-Step Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Improvement From Baseline on the ETDRS Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale in the Study Eye Over Time, Treatment-Naive Population
Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 16, 52, and 96
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
Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 16, 52, and 96
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
Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 16, 52, and 96
Percentage of Participants Without Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy (PDR) at Baseline Who Developed New PDR at Week 52, ITT and Treatment-Naive Populations
Time frame: Baseline and Week 52
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
Time frame: Baseline and 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, ITT Population
Time frame: 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
Time frame: Week 52
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 11 Jul 2025.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Results publication: PubMed 38158159Wong TY, Haskova Z, Asik K, Baumal CR, Csaky KG, Eter N, Ives JA, Jaffe GJ, Korobelnik JF, Lin H, Murata T, Ruamviboonsuk P, Schlottmann PG, Seres AI, Silverman D, Sun X, Tang Y, Wells JA, Yoon YH, Wykoff CC; YOSEMITE and RHINE Investigators. Faricimab Treat-and-Extend for Diabetic Macular Edema: Two-Year Results from the Randomized Phase 3 YOSEMITE and RHINE Trials. Ophthalmology. 2024 Jun;131(6):708-723. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2023.12.026. Epub 2023 Dec 28.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 42771326Wang Y, Hibar DP, Sadda S, Lim JI, Chan CK, Tan GS, Talcott KE, Gibson K, Maunz A, Lu H, Albrecht T, Amador M, Litts KM. Early Intraretinal Fluid Reduction is Linked to Vision Gains in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema. Ophthalmol Ther. 2026 Sep 22. doi: 10.1007/s40123-026-01504-z. Online ahead of print.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 41534798Sheth VS, Schlottmann P, Lai TYY, Abreu F, Chang A, Eter N, Gibson K, Hu AY, Korobelnik JF, Kotak A, Kotecha A, O'Leary OE, Pearce I, Sim DA, Sun JK, Tang Y, Khanani AM. Four-Year Outcomes of Faricimab in Diabetic Macular Edema: Results from the RHONE-X Extension Trial. Ophthalmology. 2026 May;133(5):599-612. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2026.01.001. Epub 2026 Jan 12.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 40668667Jaffe GJ, Deak G, Gibson K, Khurana RN, Nudleman E, Ogura Y, Schmidt-Erfurth U, Wang T, Westenskow PD, Wong D, Yiu G, Willis JR. IMPACT OF FARICIMAB VERSUS AFLIBERCEPT ON EPIRETINAL MEMBRANE FORMATION OVER 2 YEARS IN PATIENTS WITH DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA IN THE PHASE 3 YOSEMITE AND RHINE TRIALS. Retina. 2025 Nov 1;45(11):2003-2011. doi: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000004572.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 38852921Zarbin M, Tabano D, Ahmed A, Amador M, Ding A, Holekamp N, Lu XY, Stoilov I, Yang M. Efficacy of Faricimab versus Aflibercept in Diabetic Macular Edema in the 20/50 or Worse Vision Subgroup in Phase III YOSEMITE and RHINE Trials. Ophthalmology. 2024 Nov;131(11):1258-1270. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2024.05.025. Epub 2024 Jun 8.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 38758639von Schulthess EL, Maunz A, Chakravarthy U, Holekamp N, Pauleikhoff D, Patel K, Bachmeier I, Yu S, Cohen Y, Scherb MP, Jones IL, Gibson K, Willis JR, Glittenberg C, Singh RP, Fauser S. Intraretinal Hyper-Reflective Foci Are Almost Universally Present and Co-Localize With Intraretinal Fluid in Diabetic Macular Edema. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2024 May 1;65(5):26. doi: 10.1167/iovs.65.5.26.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 37955955Gamble A, Khan T, Hughes A, Guo Y, Vasaitis S, Bidwell J, Christman B. Telehealth Diabetes Prevention Program for Adults With Prediabetes in an Academic Medical Center Setting: Protocol for a Hybrid Type III Trial. JMIR Res Protoc. 2023 Nov 13;12:e50183. doi: 10.2196/50183.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 37585454Stockwell AD, Chang MC, Mahajan A, Forrest W, Anegondi N, Pendergrass RK, Selvaraj S, Reeder J, Wei E, Iglesias VA, Creps NM, Macri L, Neeranjan AN, van der Brug MP, Scales SJ, McCarthy MI, Yaspan BL. Multi-ancestry GWAS analysis identifies two novel loci associated with diabetic eye disease and highlights APOL1 as a high risk locus in patients with diabetic macular edema. PLoS Genet. 2023 Aug 16;19(8):e1010609. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1010609. eCollection 2023 Aug.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 36897413Shimura M, Kitano S, Ogata N, Mitamura Y, Oh H, Ochi H, Ohsawa S, Hirakata A; YOSEMITE and RHINE Investigators. Efficacy, durability, and safety of faricimab with extended dosing up to every 16 weeks in Japanese patients with diabetic macular edema: 1-year results from the Japan subgroup of the phase 3 YOSEMITE trial. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2023 May;67(3):264-279. doi: 10.1007/s10384-023-00979-8. Epub 2023 Mar 10.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 36246184Eter N, Singh RP, Abreu F, Asik K, Basu K, Baumal C, Chang A, Csaky KG, Haskova Z, Lin H, Ruiz CQ, Ruamviboonsuk P, Silverman D, Wykoff CC, Willis JR. YOSEMITE and RHINE: Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trials of Faricimab for Diabetic Macular Edema: Study Design and Rationale. Ophthalmol Sci. 2021 Dec 30;2(1):100111. doi: 10.1016/j.xops.2021.100111. eCollection 2022 Mar.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 35085503Wykoff CC, Abreu F, Adamis AP, Basu K, Eichenbaum DA, Haskova Z, Lin H, Loewenstein A, Mohan S, Pearce IA, Sakamoto T, Schlottmann PG, Silverman D, Sun JK, Wells JA, Willis JR, Tadayoni R; YOSEMITE and RHINE Investigators. Efficacy, durability, and safety of intravitreal faricimab with extended dosing up to every 16 weeks in patients with diabetic macular oedema (YOSEMITE and RHINE): two randomised, double-masked, phase 3 trials. Lancet. 2022 Feb 19;399(10326):741-755. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00018-6. Epub 2022 Jan 24.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. For eligible studies, qualified researchers may request access to individual patient level clinical data. See Roche's commitment to transparency of clinical study information here: https://go.roche.com/data_sharing
Related trials for Diabetic Macular Edema
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Real World Evidence in China: Faricimab Use in Diabetic Macular Edema, Retinal Vein Occlusion, and Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration (The Farseeing Study)
Diabetic Macular Edema, Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration
Active, not recruitingPhase 2
Long-Term Follow-Up Study of RGX-314 Administered in the Suprachoroidal Space for Participants With and Without Diabetic Retinopathy
Diabetic Retinopathy, DR
RecruitingPhase 3
A Phase 3 Trial for Intravitreal Injection of 4D-150 in Adults With Diabetic Macular Edema (DME).
Diabetic Macular Edema (DME)
RecruitingPhase 2
Oral N-Acetylcysteine on Diabetic Macular Edema
Diabetic Macular Edema (DME)
Active, not recruitingPhase 3
COMO: A Phase 3 Randomized, Double-Masked Study Comparing the Efficacy of EYP-1901 Against Aflibercept in DME
Diabetic Macular Edema, DME
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Clinical Trials study director
Hoffmann-La Roche
185 sites in 16 countries: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 3 study testing Aflibercept and Faricimab in people with Diabetic Macular Edema, run by Hoffmann-La Roche at 185 sites in 16 countries.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 10 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 11 Jul 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 185 sites in United States, Japan, Spain, Poland, France and 11 more countries. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 3 studies compare the treatment with the current standard treatment or a placebo in a large group, to confirm how well it works and watch for side effects.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 22 Mar 2022). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Change From Baseline in BCVA in the Study Eye Averaged Over Weeks 48, 52, and 56, ITT and Treatment-Naive Populations (time frame: From Baseline through Week 56). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03622580, which also lists 11 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 11 Jul 2025.