Outcome
| Type |
Measure |
Description |
Time frame |
Safety issue |
| Primary |
Change From Baseline in BCVA in the Study Eye Averaged Over Weeks 40, 44, and 48 |
Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score), and a gain in BCVA from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. The Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis adjusted for treatment arm, visit, visit-by-treatment arm interaction, baseline BCVA (continuous), baseline BCVA (=74, 73-55, and =54 letters), baseline LLD (<33 and =33 letters), and region (U.S. and Canada, Asia, and rest of the world). An unstructured covariance structure was used. Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were implicitly imputed by MMRM. Invalid BCVA values were excluded from analysis. 95% CI is a rounding of 95.03% CI. |
From Baseline through Week 48 |
|
| Secondary |
Change From Baseline in BCVA in the Study Eye Averaged Over Weeks 52, 56, and 60 |
Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score), and a gain in BCVA from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. The Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis adjusted for treatment arm, visit, visit-by-treatment arm interaction, baseline BCVA (continuous), baseline BCVA (=74, 73-55, and =54 letters), baseline LLD (<33 and =33 letters), and region (U.S. and Canada, Asia, and rest of the world). An unstructured covariance structure was used. Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were implicitly imputed by MMRM. Invalid BCVA values were excluded from analysis. 95% CI is a rounding of 95.03% CI. |
From Baseline through Week 60 |
|
| Secondary |
Change From Baseline in BCVA in the Study Eye Over Time |
Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score), and a gain in BCVA from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. The Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis adjusted for treatment arm, visit, visit-by-treatment arm interaction, baseline BCVA (continuous), baseline BCVA (=74, 73-55, and =54 letters), baseline LLD (<33 and =33 letters), and region (U.S. and Canada, Asia, and rest of the world). An unstructured covariance structure was used. Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were implicitly imputed by MMRM. Invalid BCVA values were excluded from analysis. 95% CI is a rounding of 95.03% CI. |
Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, 100, 104, 108, and 112 |
|
| Secondary |
Percentage of Participants Gaining Greater Than or Equal to (=)15, =10, =5, or =0 Letters From the Baseline BCVA in the Study Eye Averaged Over Weeks 40, 44, and 48 |
BCVA was measured on the ETDRS chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score), and a gain in BCVA from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. For each participant, an average BCVA value was calculated across the three visits, and this averaged value was used to determine if the endpoint was met. The results were summarized as the percentage of participants per treatment arm who met the endpoint. The weighted percentage of participants was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (=74 letters, 73-55 letters, and =54 letters), baseline LLD (=33 letters and <33 letters), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world). Treatment policy strategy and hypothetical strategy were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.03% CI. |
Baseline, average of Weeks 40, 44, and 48 |
|
| Secondary |
Percentage of Participants Gaining =15 Letters From the Baseline BCVA in the Study Eye Averaged Over Weeks 52, 56, and 60 |
BCVA was measured on the ETDRS chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score), and a gain in BCVA from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. For each participant, an average BCVA value was calculated across the three visits, and this averaged value was used to determine if the endpoint was met. The results were summarized as the percentage of participants per treatment arm who met the endpoint. The weighted percentage of participants was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (=74 letters, 73-55 letters, and =54 letters), baseline LLD (=33 letters and <33 letters), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world). Treatment policy strategy and hypothetical strategy were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.03% CI. |
Baseline, average of Weeks 52, 56, and 60 |
|
| Secondary |
Percentage of Participants Gaining =15 Letters From the Baseline BCVA in the Study Eye Over Time |
Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score), and a gain in BCVA letter score from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. The weighted percentage of participants was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (=74 letters, 73-55 letters, and =54 letters), baseline LLD (=33 letters and <33 letters), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded from analysis. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.03% CI. |
Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, 100, 104, 108, and 112 |
|
| Secondary |
Percentage of Participants Gaining =10 Letters From the Baseline BCVA in the Study Eye Over Time |
Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score), and a gain in BCVA letter score from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. The weighted percentage of participants was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (=74 letters, 73-55 letters, and =54 letters), baseline LLD (=33 letters and <33 letters), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded from analysis. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.03% CI. |
Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, 100, 104, 108, and 112 |
|
| Secondary |
Percentage of Participants Gaining =5 Letters From the Baseline BCVA in the Study Eye Over Time |
Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score), and a gain in BCVA letter score from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. The weighted percentage of participants was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (=74 letters, 73-55 letters, and =54 letters), baseline LLD (=33 letters and <33 letters), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded from analysis. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.03% CI. |
Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, 100, 104, 108, and 112 |
|
| Secondary |
Percentage of Participants Gaining =0 Letters From the Baseline BCVA in the Study Eye Over Time |
Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score), and a gain in BCVA letter score from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. The weighted percentage of participants was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (=74 letters, 73-55 letters, and =54 letters), baseline LLD (=33 letters and <33 letters), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded from analysis. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.03% CI. |
Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, 100, 104, 108, and 112 |
|
| Secondary |
Percentage of Participants Avoiding a Loss of =15, =10, or =5 Letters From the Baseline BCVA in the Study Eye Averaged Over Weeks 40, 44, and 48 |
Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. For each participant, an average BCVA value was calculated across the three visits, and this averaged value was then used to determine if the endpoint was met. The results were summarized as the percentage of participants per treatment arm who met the endpoint. The weighted percentage of participants was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (=74 letters, 73-55 letters, and =54 letters), baseline LLD (=33 letters and <33 letters), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world). Treatment policy strategy and hypothetical strategy were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.03% CI. |
Baseline, average of Weeks 40, 44, and 48 |
|
| Secondary |
Percentage of Participants Avoiding a Loss of =15 Letters From the Baseline BCVA in the Study Eye Averaged Over Weeks 52, 56, and 60 |
Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. For each participant, an average BCVA value was calculated across the three visits, and this averaged value was then used to determine if the endpoint was met. The results were summarized as the percentage of participants per treatment arm who met the endpoint. The weighted percentage of participants was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (=74 letters, 73-55 letters, and =54 letters), baseline LLD (=33 letters and <33 letters), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world). Treatment policy strategy and hypothetical strategy were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.03% CI. |
Baseline, average of Weeks 52, 56, and 60 |
|
| Secondary |
Percentage of Participants Avoiding a Loss of =15 Letters From the Baseline BCVA in the Study Eye Over Time |
Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The weighted percentage of participants avoiding a loss of letters in BCVA from baseline was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (=74 letters, 73-55 letters, and =54 letters), baseline LLD (=33 letters and <33 letters), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded from analysis. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.03% CI. |
Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, 100, 104, 108, and 112 |
|
| Secondary |
Percentage of Participants Avoiding a Loss of =10 Letters From the Baseline BCVA in the Study Eye Over Time |
Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The weighted percentage of participants avoiding a loss of letters in BCVA from baseline was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (=74 letters, 73-55 letters, and =54 letters), baseline LLD (=33 letters and <33 letters), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded from analysis. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.03% CI. |
Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, 100, 104, 108, and 112 |
|
| Secondary |
Percentage of Participants Avoiding a Loss of =5 Letters From the Baseline BCVA in the Study Eye Over Time |
Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The weighted percentage of participants avoiding a loss of letters in BCVA from baseline was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (=74 letters, 73-55 letters, and =54 letters), baseline LLD (=33 letters and <33 letters), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded from analysis. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.03% CI. |
Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, 100, 104, 108, and 112 |
|
| Secondary |
Percentage of Participants Gaining =15 Letters From the Baseline BCVA or Achieving BCVA Snellen Equivalent of 20/20 or Better (BCVA =84 Letters) in the Study Eye Averaged Over Weeks 40, 44, and 48 |
BCVA was measured on the ETDRS chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score), and a gain in BCVA from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. For each participant, an average BCVA value was calculated across the three visits, and this averaged value was used to determine if the endpoint was met. The results were summarized as the percentage of participants per treatment arm who met the endpoint. The weighted percentage of participants was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (=74 letters, 73-55 letters, and =54 letters), baseline LLD (=33 letters and <33 letters), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world). Treatment policy strategy and hypothetical strategy were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.03% CI. |
Baseline, average of Weeks 40, 44, and 48 |
|
| Secondary |
Percentage of Participants Gaining =15 Letters From the Baseline BCVA or Achieving BCVA Snellen Equivalent of 20/20 or Better (BCVA =84 Letters) in the Study Eye Over Time |
Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score), and a gain in BCVA letter score from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. The weighted percentage of participants was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (=74 letters, 73-55 letters, and =54 letters), baseline LLD (=33 letters and <33 letters), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded from analysis. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.03% CI. |
Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, 100, 104, 108, and 112 |
|
| Secondary |
Percentage of Participants With BCVA Snellen Equivalent of 20/40 or Better (BCVA =69 Letters) in the Study Eye Averaged Over Weeks 40, 44, and 48 |
BCVA was measured on the ETDRS chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score), and a gain in BCVA from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. For each participant, an average BCVA value was calculated across the three visits, and this averaged value was used to determine if the endpoint was met. The results were summarized as the percentage of participants per treatment arm who met the endpoint. The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (<69 letters vs. =69 letters), baseline LLD (=33 letters and <33 letters), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world). Treatment policy strategy and hypothetical strategy were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.03% CI. |
Baseline, average of Weeks 40, 44, and 48 |
|
| Secondary |
Percentage of Participants With BCVA Snellen Equivalent of 20/40 or Better (BCVA =69 Letters) in the Study Eye Over Time |
Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score), and a gain in BCVA letter score from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. The weighted percentage of participants was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (<69 letters vs. =69 letters), baseline LLD (=33 letters and <33 letters), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded from analysis. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.03% CI. |
Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, 100, 104, 108, and 112 |
|
| Secondary |
Percentage of Participants With BCVA Snellen Equivalent of 20/200 or Worse (BCVA =38 Letters) in the Study Eye Averaged Over Weeks 40, 44, and 48 |
BCVA was measured on the ETDRS chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score), and a gain in BCVA from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. For each participant, an average BCVA value was calculated across the three visits, and this averaged value was used to determine if the endpoint was met. The results were summarized as the percentage of participants per treatment arm who met the endpoint. The weighted percentage of participants was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (=74 letters, 73-55 letters, and =54 letters), baseline LLD (=33 letters and <33 letters), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world). Treatment policy strategy and hypothetical strategy were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.03% CI. |
Baseline, average of Weeks 40, 44, and 48 |
|
| Secondary |
Percentage of Participants With BCVA Snellen Equivalent of 20/200 or Worse (BCVA =38 Letters) in the Study Eye Over Time |
Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was measured on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at a starting distance of 4 meters. The BCVA letter score ranges from 0 to 100 (best score), and a gain in BCVA letter score from baseline indicates an improvement in visual acuity. The weighted percentage of participants was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (=74 letters, 73-55 letters, and =54 letters), baseline LLD (=33 letters and <33 letters), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world; Asia and rest of the world were combined). Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. Invalid BCVA values were excluded from analysis. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.03% CI. |
Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, 100, 104, 108, and 112 |
|
| Secondary |
Percentage of Participants in the Faricimab Arm on Once Every 8-Weeks, 12-Weeks, or 16-Weeks Treatment Intervals Among Those Completing Week 48 |
Percentages are based on the number of participants randomized to the faricimab arm who have not discontinued the study at Week 48. The treatment interval at a given visit is defined as the treatment interval decision followed at that visit. The 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.03% CI. |
Week 48 |
|
| Secondary |
Percentage of Participants in the Faricimab Arm on Once Every 8-Weeks, 12-Weeks, or 16-Weeks Treatment Intervals Among Those Completing Week 60 |
Percentages are based on the number of participants randomized to the faricimab arm who have not discontinued the study at Week 60. The treatment interval at a given visit is defined as the treatment interval decision followed at that visit. The 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.03% CI. |
Week 60 |
|
| Secondary |
Percentage of Participants in the Faricimab Arm on Once Every 8-Weeks, 12-Weeks, or 16-Weeks Treatment Intervals Among Those Completing Week 112 |
Percentages are based on the number of participants randomized to the faricimab arm who have not discontinued the study at Week 112. Treatment interval at a given visit is defined as the treatment interval decision followed at that visit. Treatment interval at Week 112 is calculated using data recorded at Week 108. The 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.03% CI. |
Weeks 108 and 112 |
|
| Secondary |
Number of Study Drug Injections Received in the Study Eye Through Week 48 |
|
From Baseline through Week 48 |
|
| Secondary |
Number of Study Drug Injections Received in the Study Eye Through Week 60 |
|
From Baseline through Week 60 |
|
| Secondary |
Number of Study Drug Injections Received in the Study Eye Through Week 108 |
|
From Baseline through Week 108 |
|
| Secondary |
Change From Baseline in Central Subfield Thickness in the Study Eye Averaged Over Weeks 40, 44, and 48 |
Central subfield thickness (CST) was defined as the distance between the internal limiting membrane (ILM) and the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) using optical coherence tomography (OCT), as assessed by the central reading center. For the Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis, the model adjusted for treatment group, visit, visit-by-treatment group iteraction, baseline CST (continuous), baseline BCVA (=74 letters, 73-55 letters, and =54 letters), baseline LLD (<33 letters and =33 letters), and region (U.S. and Canada, Asia, and the rest of the world). An unstructured covariance structure was used. Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were implicitly imputed by MMRM. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.03% CI. |
From Baseline through Week 48 |
|
| Secondary |
Change From Baseline in Central Subfield Thickness in the Study Eye Averaged Over Weeks 52, 56, and 60 |
Central subfield thickness (CST) was defined as the distance between the internal limiting membrane (ILM) and the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) using optical coherence tomography (OCT), as assessed by the central reading center. For the Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis, the model adjusted for treatment group, visit, visit-by-treatment group interaction, baseline CST (continuous), baseline BCVA (=74 letters, 73-55 letters, and =54 letters), baseline LLD (<33 letters and =33 letters), and region (U.S. and Canada, Asia, and the rest of the world). An unstructured covariance structure was used. Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were implicitly imputed by MMRM. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.03% CI. |
From Baseline through Week 60 |
|
| Secondary |
Change From Baseline in Central Subfield Thickness in the Study Eye Over Time |
Central subfield thickness (CST) was defined as the distance between the internal limiting membrane (ILM) and the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) using optical coherence tomography (OCT), as assessed by the central reading center. For the Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis, the model adjusted for treatment group, visit, visit-by-treatment group interaction, baseline CST (continuous), baseline BCVA (=74 letters, 73-55 letters, and =54 letters), baseline LLD (<33 letters and =33 letters), and region (U.S. and Canada, Asia, and the rest of the world). An unstructured covariance structure was used. Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were implicitly imputed by MMRM. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.03% CI. |
Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, 100, 104, 108, and 112 |
|
| Secondary |
Percentage of Participants With Absence of Intraretinal Fluid in the Study Eye Over Time |
Intraretinal fluid was measured using optical coherence tomography (OCT) in the central subfield (center 1 millimetre [mm]). The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants with absence of intraretinal fluid were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (=74 letters, 73-55 letters, and =54 letters), baseline LLD (=33 letters and <33 letters), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world). Asia and rest of the world regions were combined due to a small number of enrolled participants. Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.03% CI. |
Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 104, 108, and 112 |
|
| Secondary |
Percentage of Participants With Absence of Subretinal Fluid in the Study Eye Over Time |
Subretinal fluid was measured using optical coherence tomography (OCT) in the central subfield (center 1 mm). The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants with absence of subretinal fluid were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (=74 letters, 73-55 letters, and =54 letters), baseline LLD (=33 letters and <33 letters), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world). Asia and rest of the world regions were combined due to a small number of enrolled participants. Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.03% CI. |
Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 104, 108, and 112 |
|
| Secondary |
Percentage of Participants With Absence of Intraretinal Fluid and Subretinal Fluid in the Study Eye Over Time |
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 with absence of intraretinal and subretinal fluid were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (=74 letters, 73-55 letters, and =54 letters), baseline LLD (=33 letters and <33 letters), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world). Asia and rest of the world regions were combined due to a small number of enrolled participants. Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.03% CI. |
Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 104, 108, and 112 |
|
| Secondary |
Percentage of Participants With Absence of Pigment Epithelial Detachment in the Study Eye Over Time |
Pigment epithelial detachment was measured using optical coherence tomography (OCT) in the central subfield (center 1 mm). The weighted estimates of the percentage of participants with absence of pigment epithelial detachment were based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) weights stratified by baseline BCVA (=74 letters, 73-55 letters, and =54 letters), baseline LLD (=33 letters and <33 letters), and region (U.S. and Canada vs. rest of the world). Asia and rest of the world regions were combined due to a small number of enrolled participants. Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) and hypothetical strategy (i.e., all values censored after the occurrence of the intercurrent event) were applied to non-COVID-19 related and COVID-19 related intercurrent events, respectively. Missing data were not imputed. 95% confidence interval (CI) is a rounding of 95.03% CI. |
Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 104, 108, and 112 |
|
| Secondary |
Percentage of Participants With Absence of Intraretinal Cysts in the Study Eye Over Time |
|
Up to 112 weeks |
|
| Secondary |
Change From Baseline in Total Area of Choroidal Neovascularization Lesion in the Study Eye at Week 48 |
The total area of the choroidal neovascularization lesion in the study eye was evaluated by a central reading center using fundus fluorescein angiography (FFA). Assessments were censored following COVID-19 related intercurrent events. Baseline was defined as the last available measurement obtained on or prior to randomization. |
Baseline and Week 48 |
|
| Secondary |
Change From Baseline in Total Area of Choroidal Neovascularization Lesion in the Study Eye at Week 112 |
The total area of the choroidal neovascularization lesion in the study eye was evaluated by a central reading center using fundus fluorescein angiography (FFA). Assessments were censored following COVID-19 related intercurrent events. Baseline was defined as the last available measurement obtained on or prior to randomization. |
Baseline and Week 112 |
|
| Secondary |
Change From Baseline in Total Area of Choroidal Neovascularization Leakage in the Study Eye at Week 48 |
The total area of choroidal neovascularization leakage in the study eye was evaluated by a central reading center using fundus fluorescein angiography (FFA). Assessments were censored following COVID-19 related intercurrent events. Baseline was defined as the last available measurement obtained on or prior to randomization. |
Baseline and Week 48 |
|
| Secondary |
Change From Baseline in Total Area of Choroidal Neovascularization Leakage in the Study Eye at Week 112 |
The total area of choroidal neovascularization leakage in the study eye was evaluated by a central reading center using fundus fluorescein angiography (FFA). Assessments were censored following COVID-19 related intercurrent events. Baseline was defined as the last available measurement obtained on or prior to randomization. |
Baseline and Week 112 |
|
| Secondary |
Percentage of Participants With at Least One Adverse Event |
This analysis of adverse events (AEs) includes both ocular and non-ocular (systemic) AEs. Multiple occurrences of the same AE in one individual are counted only once. Investigators sought information on AEs at each contact with the participants. All AEs were recorded and the investigator made an assessment of seriousness, severity, and causality of each AE. AEs of special interest included the following: Cases of potential drug-induced liver injury that include an elevated ALT or AST in combination with either an elevated bilirubin or clinical jaundice, as defined by Hy's Law; Suspected transmission of an infectious agent by the study drug; Sight-threatening AEs that cause a drop in visual acuity (VA) score =30 letters lasting more than 1 hour, require surgical or medical intervention to prevent permanent loss of sight, or are associated with severe intraocular inflammation (IOI). |
From first dose of study drug through end of study (up to 112 weeks) |
|
| Secondary |
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. Multiple occurrences of the same AE in one individual are counted only once. Investigators sought information on AEs at each contact with the participants. All AEs were recorded and the investigator made an assessment of seriousness, severity, and causality of each AE. Ocular AEs of special interest included the following: Suspected transmission of an infectious agent by the study drug; Sight-threatening AEs that cause a drop in visual acuity (VA) score =30 letters lasting more than 1 hour, require surgical or medical intervention to prevent permanent loss of sight, or are associated with severe intraocular inflammation (IOI). |
From first dose of study drug through end of study (up to 112 weeks) |
|
| Secondary |
Percentage of Participants With at Least One Non-Ocular Adverse Event |
This analysis of adverse events (AEs) only includes non-ocular (systemic) AEs. Multiple occurrences of the same AE in one individual are counted only once. Investigators sought information on AEs at each contact with the participants. All AEs were recorded and the investigator made an assessment of seriousness, severity, and causality of each AE. The non-ocular AE of special interest was: Cases of potential drug-induced liver injury that include an elevated ALT or AST in combination with either an elevated bilirubin or clinical jaundice, as defined by Hy's Law. |
From first dose of study drug through end of study (up to 112 weeks) |
|
| Secondary |
Plasma Concentration of Faricimab Over Time |
Faricimab concentration in plasma was determined using a validated immunoassay method. |
Pre-dose at Baseline, Weeks 4, 16, 20, 48, 76, and 112 |
|
| Secondary |
Percentage of Participants Who Tested 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. |
Pre-dose at Baseline, Weeks 4, 20, 48, 76, and 112 |
|
