AzTrials
AzTrials

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.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

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

Other trials in United States

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

Other trials in Japan

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

Other trials in Spain

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

Other trials in Poland

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

Other trials in France

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

Other trials in Germany

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

Other trials in Hungary

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

Other trials in Italy

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

Other trials in Bulgaria

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

Other trials in Israel

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

Other trials in Austria

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

Other trials in Mexico

Peru4 sites
  • Mácula D&T

    Lima, 27

  • Oftalmosalud Srl

    Lima, 27

  • TG Laser Oftalmica

    Lima, 27

  • Oftalmolaser

    Lima, Lima 33

Other trials in Peru

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

Other trials in Russia

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

Other trials in Slovakia

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

Other trials in Turkey (Türkiye)

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).

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 groups in NCT03622580
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8WExperimentalParticipants 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 PTIExperimentalParticipants 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 Q8WActive comparatorParticipants 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.

  1. 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)
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. 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

  22. 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

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. 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

  26. 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

  27. 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

  28. 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

  29. 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

  30. 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

  31. 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

  32. 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

  33. 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

  34. 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

  35. 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

  36. 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

  37. 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

  38. 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

  39. 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

  40. 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

  41. 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

  42. 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

  43. 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

  44. 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

  45. 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

  46. 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

  47. 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

  48. 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

  49. 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

  50. 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

  51. 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

  52. 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

  53. 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

  54. 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

  55. 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)

  56. 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)

  57. 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)

  58. 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

  59. 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.

  1. First posted9 Aug 2018
  2. Study start5 Sep 2018
  3. Primary completion20 Oct 2020
  4. Study completion3 Sep 2021

Resources

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)
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
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 38158159
  • Wang 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 42771326
  • Sheth 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 41534798
  • Jaffe 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 40668667
  • Zarbin 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 38852921
  • von 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 38758639
  • Gamble 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 37955955
  • Stockwell 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 37585454
  • Shimura 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 36897413
  • Eter 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 36246184
  • Wykoff 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

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.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in