RO6867461

Visual acuity is measured as a continuous integer letter score from 0 to 100, with higher numbers indicating better visual acuity. A letter score of 85 is approximately 20/20 and a letter score of 70 is approximately 20/40.

Initial randomized treatment will be excluded.

Thirteen healthcare providers (HCP; seven retina specialists and six assistants) across three sites participated in the study, and they worked mostly in pairs to administer a single intravitreal (IVT) injection of 6-mg faricimab to each of the 35 patients using the prefilled syringe (PFS). For each IVT injection, two Human Factors (HF) observers were positioned such that they could clearly observe the entire preparation and administration process. Each HCP team (i.e., retina specialist alone or retina specialist with assistant, as per local procedure) were asked to perform all preparation and administration steps in view of the HF observers. Critical tasks were observed by the HF observers who documented HCP performance using an assessment checklist. A successful task completion for each critical task was defined as normal use without use error, and the percentages of successful completions are calculated out of the total 35 PFS IVT injections administered.

Thirteen healthcare providers (HCP) across 3 sites participated in the study, and they worked mostly in pairs to administer a single intravitreal (IVT) injection of 6-mg faricimab to each of the 35 patients using the prefilled syringe (PFS). For each IVT injection, two Human Factors (HF) observers were positioned such that they could clearly observe the entire preparation and administration process. Each HCP team (i.e., retina specialist alone or retina specialist with assistant, as per local procedure) were asked to perform all preparation and administration steps in view of the HF observers. Critical tasks were observed by the HF observers who documented HCP performance using an assessment checklist. A use error was defined as user action or lack of user action while using the medical device that leads to a different result than that intended by the manufacturer or expected by the user. The percentages of use errors are calculated out of the total 35 PFS IVT injections administered.

This is an analysis of participants with at least one ocular adverse event (AE) that occurred in the study eye. Investigators sought information on AEs at each contact with the participants. All AEs were recorded and the investigator made an assessment of the seriousness, severity (e.g., mild, moderate, or severe intensity), and causality for each AE. AEs of special interest (AESI) included the following: Sight-threatening AEs that cause a drop in visual acuity (VA) score ≥30 letters lasting more than 1 hour, are associated with severe intraocular inflammation (IOI), or require surgical or medical intervention to prevent permanent loss of sight; suspected transmission of an infectious agent by the study drug; and, 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.

This is an analysis of participants with at least one ocular adverse event (AE) that occurred in the study eye. Investigators sought information on AEs at each contact with the participants. All AEs were recorded and the investigator made an assessment of the seriousness, severity, and causality for each AE. AEs of special interest (AESI) included the following: Sight-threatening AEs that cause a drop in visual acuity (VA) score ≥30 letters lasting more than 1 hour, are associated with severe intraocular inflammation (IOI), or require surgical or medical intervention to prevent permanent loss of sight; suspected transmission of an infectious agent by the study drug; and, 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.

This is an analysis of participants with at least one non-ocular (systemic) adverse event (AE). Investigators sought information on AEs at each contact with the participants. All AEs were recorded and the investigator made an assessment of the seriousness, severity (e.g., mild, moderate, or severe intensity), and causality for each AE. AEs of special interest (AESI) included the following: Sight-threatening AEs that cause a drop in visual acuity (VA) score ≥30 letters lasting more than 1 hour, are associated with severe intraocular inflammation (IOI), or require surgical or medical intervention to prevent permanent loss of sight; suspected transmission of an infectious agent by the study drug; and, 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.

Specular microscopy was performed for both eyes prior to application of any topical ophthalmic anesthetic, tonometry, or any other study treatment on the same day for the evaluation of corneal endothelial cell (CEC) density. The 1-year timepoint was defined as the earliest substudy visit closest to Week 52 occurring between Week 48 and Week 64. Data (from both study eye and fellow eye) collected after the fellow eye's use of prohibited therapies-such as faricimab, brolucizumab, bevacizumab, and Port Delivery System implantation-were excluded from the corneal endothelial cell analysis.

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 included the categorical covariates of treatment arm, visit, visit-by-treatment arm interaction, baseline BCVA (continuous), and randomization stratification factors \[baseline BCVA (≥55 and ≤54 letters), and region (U.S. and Canada, Asia, and rest of the world)\] as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance structure was used. Missing data were implicitly imputed by MMRM model assuming missing at random. Treatment policy strategy (i.e., all observed values used) was applied to all intercurrent events (discontinuation of treatment due to AEs or lack of efficacy, use of prohibited therapy). 95% CI is a rounding of 95.03% CI.

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.

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.

The ETDRS DRSS score of each participant's study eye was assessed using ultra-wide field color fundus photography (UWF-CFP) taken by trained personnel at the study sites. Analysis of the fundus photographs was performed by the central reading center, and the percentage of participants with a ≥2-step improvement from baseline was summarized along with a two-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson exact confidence interval. Baseline was defined as the participant's last observation prior to initiation of study drug.

Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at a starting test distance of 4 meters was measured using a set of three Precision VisionTM or Lighthouse distance acuity charts (modified ETDRS Charts 1, 2, and R) prior to dilating eyes by a trained and certified visual acuity examiner. The BCVA examiner was masked to study eye and treatment assignment and only performed the refraction and BCVA assessment. The BCVA examiner was also masked to the BCVA letter scores of a participant's previous visits and could only know the refraction data from previous visits. 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 analysis was performed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) model, which included an unstructured covariance and the categorical covariates of treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction and the continuous covariate of baseline BCVA.

Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at a starting test distance of 4 meters was measured using a set of three Precision VisionTM or Lighthouse distance acuity charts (modified ETDRS Charts 1, 2, and R) prior to dilating eyes by a trained and certified visual acuity examiner masked to study drug arm assignment. The BCVA examiner was masked to study eye and treatment assignment and only performed the refraction and BCVA assessment, but was not allowed to perform any other tasks involving direct care. The BCVA examiner was also masked to the BCVA letter scores of a participant's previous visits and could only know the participant's refraction data from previous visits. 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 primary analysis used a Linear Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measurements. Missing values were not imputed; it was assumed that the data were missing at random.

Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at a starting test distance of 4 meters was measured using a set of three Precision VisionTM or Lighthouse distance acuity charts (modified ETDRS Charts 1, 2, and R) prior to dilating eyes by a trained and certified visual acuity examiner masked to study drug arm assignment. The BCVA examiner was masked to study eye and treatment assignment and only performed the refraction and BCVA assessment, but was not allowed to perform any other tasks involving direct care. The BCVA examiner was also masked to the BCVA letter scores of a participant's previous visits and could only know the refraction data from previous visits. 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 primary analysis used a Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measurements (MMRM). Missing data were implicitly imputed by the MMRM, assuming a missing-at-random mechanism.

Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at a starting test distance of 4 meters was measured using a set of three Precision VisionTM or Lighthouse distance acuity charts (modified ETDRS Charts 1, 2, and R) prior to dilating eyes by a trained and certified visual acuity examiner masked to study drug arm assignment. The BCVA examiner was masked to study eye and treatment assignment and only performed the refraction and BCVA assessment, but was not allowed to perform any other tasks involving direct care. The BCVA examiner was also masked to the BCVA letter scores of a participant's previous visits and could only know the refraction data from previous visits. 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 primary analysis used a Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measurements (MMRM). Missing data were implicitly imputed by the MMRM, assuming a missing-at-random mechanism.