Table 3.

Prespecified Primary and Secondary Outcomes

Modela	Result (95% CI)b	P Value
Primaryanalysis: Coxproportional hazards regression indicating hazard of perforation or need for TPK (n = 237)
Voriconazole vs placebo	0.82 (0.57 to 1.18)	.29
Enrollment infiltrate and/or scar	1.29 (1.15 to 1.45)	<.001
Primary analysis: interaction between treatment and organism subgroup (n = 234)
Fusarium species: voriconazole vs placebo	0.49 (0.26 to 0.92)	.03
Aspergillus species: voriconazole vs placebo	0.78 (0.38 to 1.61)	.50
Other species: voriconazole vs placebo	1.23 (0.69 to 2.19)	.47
Interaction between organism subgroup and treatment		.15c
Mixed linear regression indicating 3-mo BSCVA (n = 181)d
Voriconazole vs placebo	−0.02 (−0.18 to 0.14)	.77
Mixed linear regression indicating 3-mo infiltrate or scar (n = 195)d
Voriconazole vs placebo	−0.16 (−0.49 to 0.17)	.35
Cox proportional hazards regression indicating time to re-epithelialization (n = 238)d
Voriconazole vs placebo	0.87 (0.49 to 1.57)	.65

Abbreviations: BSCVA, best spectacle-corrected visual acuity; TPK, therapeutic penetrating keratoplasty.

^aAll models corrected for site using random effects.

^bCox proportional hazards regression yields a hazard ratio and the mixed linear regressions yield an effect coefficient.

^cWald test for interaction.

^dControlled for baseline values.