GlaucomaNCT03166566
Laminar Drainage Implant: Safety of a Novel Surgical Treatment for Refractory Glaucoma.
A study testing Laminar drainage implant surgery. in people with Glaucoma and Blindness, Acquired, run by Federal University of Minas Gerais.
Trial summary
Purpose: To assess the feasibility of a surgical technique and present the preliminary safety results of a new glaucoma device devoid of a tube in painful blind eyes. Methods: Fifteen end-stage glaucomatous eyes without light perception vision were treated with a novel laminar drainage implant. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Glaucoma, Blindness, Acquired, End-Stage Glaucoma
- What is being tested?
- Laminar drainage implant surgery.
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 15 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- 1 Mar 2011to 2 Sep 2016
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
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
- patients aged 18 years or older with a painful blind eye refractory to clinical treatment and an intraocular pressure (IOP) ≥ 30 mmHg.
Who cannot join
- eyes with extensive conjunctival scarring, a disorganized anterior segment, or retinal detachment identified by ophthalmoscopy or B-scan ultrasonography.
About this study
Purpose: To assess the feasibility of a surgical technique and present the preliminary safety results of a new glaucoma device devoid of a tube in painful blind eyes.
Methods: Fifteen end-stage glaucomatous eyes without light perception vision were treated with a novel laminar drainage implant. Intraocular pressure was measured preoperatively and up to 24 months after surgery using a Goldmann applanation tonometer. A scale ranging from 0 to 10 was used to evaluate ocular pain. Conjunctival hyperemia, discharge, erosion or retraction, aqueous humor leakage, corneal edema, hyphema, anterior chamber cells and depth, dislocation of the implant, and filtering bleb height were assessed by slit-lamp biomicroscopy. Anterior segment optical coherence tomography was also assessed.
Read the detailed description
Methods: Light perception was tested in the preoperative assessment. The following parameters were evaluated at the pre- and postoperative visits: morning Goldmann applanation tonometry; anterior segment biomicroscopy, gonioscopy, and eye pain intensity. Postoperative visits occurred on days 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30, once a month up to 6 months, and every 6 months from 6 months to 2 years. The criteria for IOP reduction success were 15 mmHg and a 20% reduction compared to the baseline preoperative IOP. Biomicroscopy variables included the presence or absence of hyperemia, discharge, conjunctival erosion and retraction, aqueous humor leakage (Seidel test), corneal edema, hyphema, AC reaction and depth, and device dislocation. A shallow AC was considered a Spaeth classification grade of I or II and a flat AC was considered grade III. A filtering bleb height above the LDI profile was considered elevated; otherwise, it was classified as flat. Gonioscopy was performed preoperatively and postoperatively. Ocular pain intensity was assessed before and after surgery using a verbal Numerical Rating Scale ranging from zero to 10, with zero representing the absence of pain and 10 representing the worst eye pain ever felt before surgery.
Anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) (Visante®, Carl Zeiss Meditec®, Inc., Dublin, CA, USA) was performed postoperatively at the highest resolution (enhanced high-resolution corneal mode).
Reoperations to unblock the internal ostium were not considered failures; thereafter, the day of the second surgery was considered postoperative day 0.
LDI A human LDI was designed by one of the authors (S.J.) after a preclinical trial in rabbits with a similar device. It is a 150-µm-thick foil made of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), composed of three functional areas (Fig. 1): 1) the tip, which has a triangular shape and is inserted into the AC angle; 2) the intermediate portion, which has a rectangular shape (4.5 mm long × 4.0 mm wide) and is positioned inside a scleral tunnel; and 3) the posterior plate, which has a round shape (diameter = 12.5 mm) and is positioned between the sclera and conjunctiva. The LDI plate is positioned only 4.5 mm from the corneoscleral limbus and no allograft coverage is necessary. Its hypothetical mechanism of action is similar to those of popular GDIs and shunts the aqueous humor from the AC to the subconjunctival plate. The difference between their designs is the absence of a tube in the LDI. Thus, aqueous humor drainage is supposed to occur in the space between the inner walls of the scleral tunnel and LDI and/or thought is cleft.
LDI Surgery All surgeries were performed under local peribulbar anesthesia by the same surgeon (S.J.).
Statistical Analysis The sample size was calculated based on IOP standard deviation values from the first seven patients who were operated on (an internal pilot study) while considering 15 mmHg as the minimal clinically relevant difference to be detected.
Histogram inspection and Shapiro-Wilk tests were used to assess the assumption of the normality of variables. Wilcoxon's rank-sum test was used to compare the median pain intensity at each postoperative visit to that at the preoperative visit. Conjunctival hyperemia, AC cells, corneal edema, and hyphema variables were analyzed using McNemar's test. The comparison between the pre- and postoperative mean IOP was performed using Student's two-tailed paired t-test. Results were analyzed using SPSS® (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) for Windows version 18.0 (IBM, Chicago, IL, USA) and the alpha level (type I error) was set at 0.05.
- Conditions
- Glaucoma, Blindness, Acquired, End-Stage Glaucoma, Glaucoma Traumatic
- Being tested
- Laminar drainage implant surgery.
- Keywords
- glaucoma, glaucoma surgery, glaucoma drainage device, glaucoma implant, blindness
- Medical subject headings
- Glaucoma, Blindness
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Laminar drainage implant surgery.Device
A clear corneal traction suture was placed to achieve superior-temporal quadrant exposure, where a 90° conjunctival fornix-based flap was made, associated with two radial relaxing incisions. A half-thickness scleral tunnel (4.5 mm from the limbus and 4.0 mm wide) was made using a crescent blade and a superior-temporal iridectomy was performed through . Then, the tunnel end was shunted to the AC using a 1.5-mm-wide blade with a sharp tip. The LDI was inserted into the scleral tunnel so that its tip was positioned in the AC periphery and the implant was anchored to the sclera using 7-0 polypropylene thread with two separate sutures. Next, fistula function was assessed by the aqueous humor leakage test at the scleral tunnel entry site. Then, the conjunctiva was repositioned and running sutures were performed with 7-0 polyglactin for the relaxing incisions and mattress sutures were performed in the limbus using 10-0 nylon.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| laminar drainage implant surgery | Other | patients included and operated Receives: Device: Laminar drainage implant surgery. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Change for baseline of intra-ocular pressure (Goldmann applanation tonometry)
The criteria for IOP reduction success were 15 mmHg and a 20% reduction compared to the baseline preoperative IOP.
Measured: on days 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30, once a month up to 6 months, and every 6 months from 6 months to 2 years.
Secondary outcomes (8)
Ocular pain intensity ratting change from baseline
Ocular pain intensity was assessed before and after surgery using a verbal Numerical scale.
Measured: on days 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30, once a month up to 6 months, and every 6 months from 6 months to 2 years.
Conjunctival discharge presence/absence change from baseline
conjunctival discharge was assessed by slit-lamp examination
Measured: on days 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30, once a month up to 6 months, and every 6 months from 6 months to 2 years.
Conjunctival erosion or retraction appearence after surgery
Presence or abscence of conjunctival tissue erosion or retraction, caused by the tested
Measured: on days 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30, once a month up to 6 months, and every 6 months from 6 months to 2 years.
Corneal edema presence change from baseline
assessed by slit-lamp biomicroscopy was classified as "present" or "abscent"
Measured: on days 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30, once a month up to 6 months, and every 6 months from 6 months to 2 years.
Anterior chamber depth (gonioscopy) change from baseline
A shallow AC was considered a Spaeth classification grade of I or II and a flat AC was considered grade III. A filtering bleb height above the LDI profile was considered elevated; otherwise, it was classified as flat
Measured: on days 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30, once a month up to 6 months, and every 6 months from 6 months to 2 years.
Optic coherence tomography (OCT) assessment qualitative study after surgery
OCT image were obtained in 8 patients after surgery in order to imaging study the implant and its relation with the eye structures.
Measured: from 6 months to two years after surgery.
Filtering bleg height variation from baseline
bleb heigh(if not above implant profile)t was slit-lamp assessed. classified as "elevated" (above implant profile) or "flat"
Measured: on days 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30, once a month up to 6 months, and every 6 months from 6 months to 2 years.
Conjunctival hyperemia change comparing to baseline
conjunctival inflamation graduation assessed by slit-lamp examination ("present or abscent")
Measured: on days 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30, once a month up to 6 months, and every 6 months from 6 months to 2 years.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted25 May 2017
- Study start1 Mar 2011
- Primary completion2 Dec 2015
- Study completion2 Sep 2016
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (5)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for GlaucomaStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Device feasibility
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 15 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Federal University of Minas Gerais
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, SÉRGIO JACOBOVITZ, Federal University of Minas Gerais
- Investigators
- Sebastião C. Sobrinho, Md, Ph.D, Principal investigator, Hospital São Geraldo-Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03166566
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- CAAE 0194.0.203.203.09
- Status last verified
- May 2017
- First submitted
- 22 May 2017
- Last updated
- 25 May 2017
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided
Publications
Wolf A, Hod Y, Buckman G, Stein N, Geyer O. Use of Autologous Scleral Graft in Ahmed Glaucoma Valve Surgery. J Glaucoma. 2016 Apr;25(4):365-70. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000232.
PubMed 25719229Hjermstad MJ, Fayers PM, Haugen DF, Caraceni A, Hanks GW, Loge JH, Fainsinger R, Aass N, Kaasa S; European Palliative Care Research Collaborative (EPCRC). Studies comparing Numerical Rating Scales, Verbal Rating Scales, and Visual Analogue Scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2011 Jun;41(6):1073-93. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2010.08.016.
PubMed 21621130Christakis PG, Zhang D, Budenz DL, Barton K, Tsai JC, Ahmed IIK; ABC-AVB Study Groups. Five-Year Pooled Data Analysis of the Ahmed Baerveldt Comparison Study and the Ahmed Versus Baerveldt Study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017 Apr;176:118-126. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2017.01.003. Epub 2017 Jan 17.
PubMed 28104418Thieme H, Choritz L, Schuart C, Wecke T. [Tube versus trabeculectomy study]. Ophthalmologe. 2013 Aug;110(8):728-32. doi: 10.1007/s00347-013-2840-z. German.
PubMed 23873397Aref AA, Gedde SJ, Budenz DL. Glaucoma Drainage Implant Surgery. Dev Ophthalmol. 2017;59:43-52. doi: 10.1159/000458485. Epub 2017 Apr 25.
PubMed 28442686
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 25 May 2017. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Laminar Drainage Implant: Safety of a Novel Surgical Treatment for Refractory Glaucoma.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03166566
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- CAAE 0194.0.203.203.09
- Conditions
- Glaucoma, Blindness, Acquired, End-Stage Glaucoma, Glaucoma Traumatic
- Keywords
- glaucoma, glaucoma surgery, glaucoma drainage device, glaucoma implant, blindness
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 15 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Federal University of Minas GeraisUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Mar 2011 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 2 Dec 2015 (actual)
- Study completion
- 2 Sep 2016 (actual)
- First posted
- 25 May 2017 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Purpose: To assess the feasibility of a surgical technique and present the preliminary safety results of a new glaucoma device devoid of a tube in painful blind eyes.
Methods: Fifteen end-stage glaucomatous eyes without light perception vision were treated with a novel laminar drainage implant. Intraocular pressure was measured preoperatively and up to 24 months after surgery using a Goldmann applanation tonometer. A scale ranging from 0 to 10 was used to evaluate ocular pain. Conjunctival hyperemia, discharge, erosion or retraction, aqueous humor leakage, corneal edema, hyphema, anterior chamber cells and depth, dislocation of the implant, and filtering bleb height were assessed by slit-lamp biomicroscopy. Anterior segment optical coherence tomography was also assessed.
Detailed description
Methods: Light perception was tested in the preoperative assessment. The following parameters were evaluated at the pre- and postoperative visits: morning Goldmann applanation tonometry; anterior segment biomicroscopy, gonioscopy, and eye pain intensity. Postoperative visits occurred on days 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30, once a month up to 6 months, and every 6 months from 6 months to 2 years. The criteria for IOP reduction success were 15 mmHg and a 20% reduction compared to the baseline preoperative IOP. Biomicroscopy variables included the presence or absence of hyperemia, discharge, conjunctival erosion and retraction, aqueous humor leakage (Seidel test), corneal edema, hyphema, AC reaction and depth, and device dislocation. A shallow AC was considered a Spaeth classification grade of I or II and a flat AC was considered grade III. A filtering bleb height above the LDI profile was considered elevated; otherwise, it was classified as flat. Gonioscopy was performed preoperatively and postoperatively. Ocular pain intensity was assessed before and after surgery using a verbal Numerical Rating Scale ranging from zero to 10, with zero representing the absence of pain and 10 representing the worst eye pain ever felt before surgery.
Anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) (Visante®, Carl Zeiss Meditec®, Inc., Dublin, CA, USA) was performed postoperatively at the highest resolution (enhanced high-resolution corneal mode).
Reoperations to unblock the internal ostium were not considered failures; thereafter, the day of the second surgery was considered postoperative day 0.
LDI A human LDI was designed by one of the authors (S.J.) after a preclinical trial in rabbits with a similar device. It is a 150-µm-thick foil made of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), composed of three functional areas (Fig. 1): 1) the tip, which has a triangular shape and is inserted into the AC angle; 2) the intermediate portion, which has a rectangular shape (4.5 mm long × 4.0 mm wide) and is positioned inside a scleral tunnel; and 3) the posterior plate, which has a round shape (diameter = 12.5 mm) and is positioned between the sclera and conjunctiva. The LDI plate is positioned only 4.5 mm from the corneoscleral limbus and no allograft coverage is necessary. Its hypothetical mechanism of action is similar to those of popular GDIs and shunts the aqueous humor from the AC to the subconjunctival plate. The difference between their designs is the absence of a tube in the LDI. Thus, aqueous humor drainage is supposed to occur in the space between the inner walls of the scleral tunnel and LDI and/or thought is cleft.
LDI Surgery All surgeries were performed under local peribulbar anesthesia by the same surgeon (S.J.).
Statistical Analysis The sample size was calculated based on IOP standard deviation values from the first seven patients who were operated on (an internal pilot study) while considering 15 mmHg as the minimal clinically relevant difference to be detected.
Histogram inspection and Shapiro-Wilk tests were used to assess the assumption of the normality of variables. Wilcoxon's rank-sum test was used to compare the median pain intensity at each postoperative visit to that at the preoperative visit. Conjunctival hyperemia, AC cells, corneal edema, and hyphema variables were analyzed using McNemar's test. The comparison between the pre- and postoperative mean IOP was performed using Student's two-tailed paired t-test. Results were analyzed using SPSS® (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) for Windows version 18.0 (IBM, Chicago, IL, USA) and the alpha level (type I error) was set at 0.05.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Device feasibility
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| laminar drainage implant surgery | Other | Device: Laminar drainage implant surgery.patients included and operated |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- patients aged 18 years or older with a painful blind eye refractory to clinical treatment and an intraocular pressure (IOP) ≥ 30 mmHg.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- eyes with extensive conjunctival scarring, a disorganized anterior segment, or retinal detachment identified by ophthalmoscopy or B-scan ultrasonography.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Laminar drainage implant surgery.A clear corneal traction suture was placed to achieve superior-temporal quadrant exposure, where a 90° conjunctival fornix-based flap was made, associated with two radial relaxing incisions. A half-thickness scleral tunnel (4.5 mm from the limbus and 4.0 mm wide) was made using a crescent blade and a superior-temporal iridectomy was performed through . Then, the tunnel end was shunted to the AC using a 1.5-mm-wide blade with a sharp tip. The LDI was inserted into the scleral tunnel so that its tip was positioned in the AC periphery and the implant was anchored to the sclera using 7-0 polypropylene thread with two separate sutures. Next, fistula function was assessed by the aqueous humor leakage test at the scleral tunnel entry site. Then, the conjunctiva was repositioned and running sutures were performed with 7-0 polyglactin for the relaxing incisions and mattress sutures were performed in the limbus using 10-0 nylon. | Device | laminar drainage implant surgery |
Primary outcome
Change for baseline of intra-ocular pressure (Goldmann applanation tonometry)
Time frame: on days 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30, once a month up to 6 months, and every 6 months from 6 months to 2 years.
The criteria for IOP reduction success were 15 mmHg and a 20% reduction compared to the baseline preoperative IOP.
8 secondary outcomes
Ocular pain intensity ratting change from baseline
Time frame: on days 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30, once a month up to 6 months, and every 6 months from 6 months to 2 years.
Conjunctival discharge presence/absence change from baseline
Time frame: on days 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30, once a month up to 6 months, and every 6 months from 6 months to 2 years.
Conjunctival erosion or retraction appearence after surgery
Time frame: on days 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30, once a month up to 6 months, and every 6 months from 6 months to 2 years.
Corneal edema presence change from baseline
Time frame: on days 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30, once a month up to 6 months, and every 6 months from 6 months to 2 years.
Anterior chamber depth (gonioscopy) change from baseline
Time frame: on days 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30, once a month up to 6 months, and every 6 months from 6 months to 2 years.
Optic coherence tomography (OCT) assessment qualitative study after surgery
Time frame: from 6 months to two years after surgery.
Filtering bleg height variation from baseline
Time frame: on days 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30, once a month up to 6 months, and every 6 months from 6 months to 2 years.
Conjunctival hyperemia change comparing to baseline
Time frame: on days 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30, once a month up to 6 months, and every 6 months from 6 months to 2 years.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 25 May 2017.
- Background: PubMed 25719229Wolf A, Hod Y, Buckman G, Stein N, Geyer O. Use of Autologous Scleral Graft in Ahmed Glaucoma Valve Surgery. J Glaucoma. 2016 Apr;25(4):365-70. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000232.
- Background: PubMed 21621130Hjermstad MJ, Fayers PM, Haugen DF, Caraceni A, Hanks GW, Loge JH, Fainsinger R, Aass N, Kaasa S; European Palliative Care Research Collaborative (EPCRC). Studies comparing Numerical Rating Scales, Verbal Rating Scales, and Visual Analogue Scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2011 Jun;41(6):1073-93. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2010.08.016.
- Results publication: PubMed 28104418Christakis PG, Zhang D, Budenz DL, Barton K, Tsai JC, Ahmed IIK; ABC-AVB Study Groups. Five-Year Pooled Data Analysis of the Ahmed Baerveldt Comparison Study and the Ahmed Versus Baerveldt Study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017 Apr;176:118-126. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2017.01.003. Epub 2017 Jan 17.
- Results publication: PubMed 23873397Thieme H, Choritz L, Schuart C, Wecke T. [Tube versus trabeculectomy study]. Ophthalmologe. 2013 Aug;110(8):728-32. doi: 10.1007/s00347-013-2840-z. German.
- Results publication: PubMed 28442686Aref AA, Gedde SJ, Budenz DL. Glaucoma Drainage Implant Surgery. Dev Ophthalmol. 2017;59:43-52. doi: 10.1159/000458485. Epub 2017 Apr 25.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided
Related trials for Glaucoma
Recruiting
Implementing AI-based Glaucoma Screening Within Federally Qualified Health Centers
Glaucoma, Ocular Hypertension
Not yet recruiting
AI-Assisted vs Conventional Teleglaucoma Referral
Glaucoma
Recruiting
Brain Stimulation Effects on Orientation and Mobility Skills in Adults With Vision Impairment
Retinitis Pigmentosa (RP), Rod Cone Dystrophy
Recruiting
Automated Applanation Tonometry - Updated
Glaucoma, Glaucoma, Suspect
RecruitingPhase 2
A Phase 2a Study Comparing the Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of Pregabalin Eye Drops Comparing With Timolol Eye Drops in Adults With Glaucoma or High Eye Pressure.
Primary Open - Angle Glaucoma (POAG), Ocular Hypertension (OHT)
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Sebastião C. Sobrinho, Md, Ph.D principal investigator
Hospital São Geraldo-Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Laminar drainage implant surgery. in people with Glaucoma and Blindness, Acquired, run by Federal University of Minas Gerais.
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 1 inclusion and 1 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 25 May 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
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.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
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 for baseline of intra-ocular pressure (Goldmann applanation tonometry) (time frame: on days 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30, once a month up to 6 months, and every 6 months from 6 months to 2 years.). 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 NCT03166566, which also lists 5 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 25 May 2017.