AzTrials
AzTrials

KeratoconusNCT06921967

Effect of Corneal and Scleral RGP Lenses on Ocular Health and Visual Quality in Keratoconus

A study testing Rose K2 and Onefit MED in people with Keratoconus and Irregular Astigmatism, run by University of Aarhus at 1 site in Denmark.

Recruiting

Looking for participants now. Contact the study team or a site below to ask about taking part.

Sites and contacts
Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

This study aims to compare the ocular health and visual quality of corneal rigid gas permeable lenses (CRGPL) and scleral rigid gas permeable lenses (SRGPL) for patients with keratoconus in a crossover clinical trial. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 to 40 years
Conditions the study is for
Keratoconus, Irregular Astigmatism
What is being tested?
Rose K2 and Onefit MED
Type of treatment
Medical device
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
50 participants
Where
1 siteDenmark
Study dates
15 Aug 2025to 29 Feb 2028
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
Not yet: the study is under way

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 to 40 years
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult

Who may be able to join

  • Keratoconus, best spectacle corrected visual acuity >0.00 log of minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) and age between 18 to 40

Who cannot join

  • K-max >60D, RGP lens wear at baseline and ocular surface disease, verified through examination of the ocular surface and patient history

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.

Denmark1 site, 1 recruiting
  • Aarhus University Hospital

    Aarhus, 8200

    Benjamin Sukusu Nielsen, Cand.san opto, +45 29460340, bensen@clin.au.dk

    Recruiting

Other trials in Denmark

About this study

Official title: A Comparison of Ocular Health and Visual Quality With Corneal and Scleral Rigid Gas Permeable Lenses in Keratoconus Patients

This study aims to compare the ocular health and visual quality of corneal rigid gas permeable lenses (CRGPL) and scleral rigid gas permeable lenses (SRGPL) for patients with keratoconus in a crossover clinical trial. The study will analyze subjective and objective outcomes, including best corrected visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, higher-order aberrations and subjective perception of visual function and comfort. It will also investigate the impact of both lens types on the health of the ocular surface, including evaluation of corneal, conjunctival, and scleral tissues, and tear film. Only one randomized controlled trial has compared the effect of CRGPL and SRGPL wear for patients with an ectatic corneal disorder. With the increasing popularity of SRGPL, examining the differences in efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes between the two types of lenses is increasingly relevant.

Read the detailed description

A comparison of ocular health and visual quality with corneal and scleral rigid gas permeable lenses in keratoconus patients

  1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose: Keratoconus is an ocular disease, causing progressive thinning and steepening of the cornea, which results in irregular astigmatism and reduced visual quality. Irregular astigmatism induced by an irregular anterior cornea can effectively be corrected with rigid gas permeable (RGP) lenses. The purpose of this study is to compare subjective and objective outcomes from corneal rigid gas permeable lens (CRGPL) and scleral rigid gas permeable lens (SRGPL) wear in patients with keratoconus.

The following three aims will be pursued during a randomized clinical trial (RCT)

  1. To compare the subjective perception of visual function (SPVF), subjective perception of comfort (SPC) and objective measures for visual quality, including best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and contrast sensitivity (CS), between CRGPL and SRGPL wear, for patients diagnosed with keratoconus.
  2. To analyze the effect of CRGPL and SRGPL on higher order aberrations (HOA) for patients with keratoconus.
  3. To investigate the impact of CRGPL and SRGPL wear on the ocular surface, including analysis of the corneal, conjunctival, and scleral tissue, as well as tear film analysis, for patients with keratoconus.

1.2 Hypothesis

  1. SPVF and SPC will be significantly better for SRGPL wear compared to CRGPL wear, but the difference in clinical findings for visual quality will be insignificant.
  2. The difference in reduction of HOA between CRGPL and SRGPL wear will be insignificant, but the overall HOA for both interventions will decrease significantly compared to baseline.
  3. Significant variation in health of the anterior eye will be observed for CRGPL and SRGPL wear. SRGPL wear will more frequently exhibit adverse effects at the conjunctival and scleral tissue, whereas the corneal tissue will show more complications with CRGPL wear. Symptoms and clinical findings related to dry eye disease (DED) will be significantly superior with SRGPL wear.
  4. Background

2.1 RGP lenses Fitting RGP lenses for patients with an irregular cornea, such as keratoconus, is a common optical rehabilitating treatment. Due to elevated HOA in patients with keratoconus, RGP lenses have the distinct advantage of significantly improving the visual quality through a reduction in aberrations from the anterior cornea with the tear lens between the cornea and the lens. Both CRGPL and SRGPL wear have been shown to potentially delay the need for corneal transplants in patients with keratoconus.

A CRGPL is designed to fit within the corneal diameter whereas the SRGPL is produced in a larger diameter, and designed with a bearing that rests solely on the conjunctival tissue. CRGPL fitting for keratoconus has traditionally followed one of three different design objectives. Apical clearance, apical touch, or three-point touch. The three-point touch method has shown better fitting success compared to the apical touch, which has the added risk of potentially inducing corneal scarring. The SRGPL has the unique advantage of being fitted without having any contact with the irregular cornea of patients with keratoconus and is increasingly useful in more advanced cases.

The effect on visual quality from CRGPL and SRGPL wear on patients with an ectatic corneal disorder has been compared in only one RCT with a study population consisting of 34 patients successfully fitted with CRGPL. Patients were fitted with both CRGPL and SRGPL designs in a crossover study. The difference in BCVA and CS between the two lens types was not statistically significant. This study differs by analyzing a larger variety of parameters related to ocular health, the tear film and higher order aberrations. The study population is also expected to be more homogeneous, since it will consist solely of patients with keratoconus and with no prior history of RGP lens wear, to minimize the risk of bias.

2.2 Higher order aberrations The ocular structures responsible for the refractive properties of the eye are the cornea and the crystalline lens. The shape and regularity of these structures influence how much the wavefront will deviate from an ideal wavefront. This deviation is also known as wavefront aberration. Wavefront aberrations are commonly categorized as lower-order aberrations (LOA) or higher-order aberrations (HOA) and can be described using the Zernike polynomials. Some HOA explained through Zernike polynomials, such as coma and trefoil, are most often seen in irregular corneas, and are usually managed with RGP lenses. Wavefront aberrations are quantifiable using an aberrometer, making it possible to compare the effect of different lens designs on the amount of residual HOA.

2.3 Complications from RGP lens wear Contact lens wear, regardless of modality, will potentially cause complications. For CRGPL most complications are located at the cornea, palpebrae, and tear film. Complications from CRGPL wear include 3 and 9 o'clock corneal staining, mechanical corneal staining, and vascularized limbal keratitis. Studies have also shown a potential risk of developing ptosis from CRGPL wear.

SRGPL wear potentially induces corneal oedema and conjunctival prolapse. From multiple smaller studies patients with keratoconus, wearing a modern SRGPL, exhibited an average corneal oedema of ~2%. Blurred vision from tear reservoir debris has also been observed in patients wearing a SRGPL. This phenomenon is known as midday fogging and has been estimated to occur in about 26-46% of SRGPL wearers.

  1. Materials and methods The study population will consist of patients with keratoconus referred to the Department of Ophthalmology at Aarhus University Hospital.

Suitable subjects will be invited to participate in the study, and randomized to start with one of two interventions, CRGPL or SRGPL wear in a crossover clinical trial. Study subjects must comply with the following inclusion criteria: Keratoconus, best spectacle corrected visual acuity >0.00 log of minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) and age between 18 to 40. The exclusion criteria for this study are: K-max >60D, RGP lens wear at baseline and ocular surface disease, verified through examination of the ocular surface and patient history.

The study involves analysis of multiple different outcomes but to determine an appropriate sample size, BCVA using logMAR has been chosen as the primary outcome and therefore the sample size is calculated per findings related to that.

The mean logMAR for patients with keratoconus wearing a CRGPL from the studies used is 0.08 (0.10), and 0.18 (0.17) for SRGPL wear. Sample size calculations with α = 0.05 and β = 0.90 yield a required study population of 35 subjects, to detect a difference of 0.10 logMAR. To account for potential drop-out this study will aim to include 50 subjects.

Aim 1: To investigate the visual quality of patients with keratoconus during both CRGPL and SRGPL wear, BCVA using ETDRS standard charts, translated to logMAR units, and CS measured with the Pelli Robson chart, will be obtained. Furthermore, the SPVF will be analyzed using the validated Visual Function Questionnaire (VEQ-25), translated to a Danish validated version. The SPC will be quantified with a questionnaire developed specifically for this study. For fitting of contact lenses, corneal shape will be measured with the Pentacam HR tomography (Oculus, Switzerland) device and the Heidelberg SPECTRALIS OCT device (Heidelberg Engineering, UK).

Aim 2: The effect of CRGPL and SRGPL on the amount of HOA during lens wear will be measured using Hartmann Shack aberrometry with the Visual Adaptive Optics simulator (VAO) (Voptica, Spain).

Aim 3: During this part of the study the ocular health will be monitored before, during, and after CRGPL and SRGPL wear. The ocular health examination will include standardized grading of conjunctival and limbal hyperaemia, corneal neovascularization, corneal oedema, and staining of the ocular surface. The examination will be quantified using the Efron Grading scale, and documented with slit lamp photography. Corneal epithelial thickness and corneal tomography will also be examined before and after each intervention. Symptoms and clinical findings related to dry eye disease (DED) will be evaluated using the validated symptom survey "Ocular Surface Disease Index" (OSDI), translated to Danish and measured with break-up time (BUT).

  1. Ethical considerations Since contact lenses are classified as medical devices, approval has been obtained from the Danish Medical Research Ethics Committees. When patients are invited to participate in the study, they will receive written information on the purpose of the study including an explanation of risks and benefits of the interventions. To participate an informed consent form must be obtained. The study will be conducted in agreement with the declaration of Helsinki, and patient data will be stored in agreement with the relevant Danish law. Since the intervention is to be administered and cared for by the patients at their residence, proper instruction of use will be delivered both in writing and verbally in the clinic.
  2. Perspectives The prevalence of keratoconus shows substantial variation globally, with epidemiological studies estimating it between 0.2 and 4,790 per 100,000 persons. In Denmark the prevalence was estimated, by Bak-Nielsen et al (2019), to 40 per 100,000 persons. Research indicate that the incidence of patients with keratoconus has increased significantly in Denmark over the last 30 years. Nielsen et al (2007) estimated the incidence to 1.3 per 100,000 person-year based on data from 1995 to 2005. Bak-Nielsen et al (2019) estimated the same incidence to 3.8 per 100,000 person-year based on data from 2011 to 2015. The authors attribute a large portion of the increase in incidence to the introduction of CXL, which has changed the referral pattern. Treatment with CXL reduce the need for corneal transplantation, improves visual quality and reduces cone progression. Patients with keratoconus post CXL, generally still require RGP lenses as they remain the best option for improving visual quality.

The "International Contact Lens Prescribing"-reports investigate global contact lens prescribing trends. In 2013 scleral lens fits accounted for ~6% of all RGP lens fits reported, that increased to 22% in 2023. In Denmark there is a reported increase in RGP lens fits of total lens fits. In 2013 RGP lens fits accounted for 8% of all lens fits reported, this increased to 18% in 2023. With the increasing popularity of scleral lenses and the growing number of RGP lens fits reported in Denmark, research examining the differences in efficacy, safety and patient reported outcomes between the two types of lenses are increasingly relevant.

Being tested
Rose K2, Onefit MED
Keywords
Contact Lenses, Scleral Lenses, Corneal Lenses, Rigid gas permeable lenses, Rigid lenses, GP lenses, RGP lenses, Visual Acuity, Contrast Sensitivity, Higher Order Aberrations, Dry Eye Disease, Irregular Astimatism, Keratoconus
Medical subject headings
Keratoconus, Dry Eye Syndromes

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Rose K2Device

    Corneal RGP lens with flexible parameters.

  • Onefit MEDDevice

    Scleral RGP lens with flexible parameters.

Study groups in NCT06921967
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Corneal Rigid Gas Permeable Contact LensActive comparatorSmall diameter RGP lens (TD < HVID).
Receives: Device: Rose K2
Scleral Rigid Gas Permeable Contact LensActive comparatorLarge diameter RGP lens (TD>HVID).
Receives: Device: Onefit MED

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Visual Acuity

    Comparison of Best Corrected Visual Acuity, with the two interventions, at the end of 6 weeks of lens wear. Measured with ETDRS charts, converted to logMAR units.

    Measured: 6 weeks with each intervention. 13 weeks total, incl. 1 week washout.

Secondary outcomes (9)
  1. Contrast Sensitivity

    Comparision of contrast sensitivity with the two interventions, measured with a Pelli Robson Chart.

    Measured: 6 weeks with each intervention. 13 weeks total, incl. 1 week washout.

  2. Higher Order Aberrations (HOA)

    Comparison of HOA with the two interventions at the end of 6 weeks of lens wear. Measured with the Visual Adaptive Optics Simulator by Voptica. Root Mean Square value in microns.

    Measured: 6 weeks with each intervention. 13 weeks total, incl. 1 week washout.

  3. Tear break-up time (TBUT)

    Comparison of Tear break-up time with the two interventions at the end of 6 weeks of lens wear. Using fluorescein and slit lamp to capture the break-up time in seconds.

    Measured: 6 weeks with each intervention. 13 weeks total, incl. 1 week washout.

  4. Anterior ocular health markers

    Comparison of anterior ocular health with the two interventions at the end of 6 weeks of lens wear. Using fluorescein and slit lamp to grade with the Efron Grading Scale. Scored on a scale from 0 to 4 with higher values representing worse outcomes.

    Measured: 6 weeks with each intervention. 13 weeks total, incl. 1 week washout.

  5. Corneal Epithelial Thickness

    Comparison of the corneal epithelial thickness with the two interventions at the end of 6 weeks of lens wear. Using Pentacam HR from Oculus.

    Measured: 6 weeks with each intervention. 13 weeks total, incl. 1 week washout.

  6. Corneal Tomography

    Comparison of the corneal tomography with the two interventions at the end of 6 weeks of lens wear. Using Pentacam HR from Oculus.

    Measured: 6 weeks with each intervention. 13 weeks total, incl. 1 week washout.

  7. Subjective Perception of Comfort (SPC)

    Comparison of the SPC with the two interventions at the end of 6 weeks of lens wear. Quantified with a survey developed for this study. Minimum score 8 maximum 40, higher values indicate better comfort.

    Measured: 6 weeks with each intervention. 13 weeks total, incl. 1 week washout.

  8. Subjective Percepton of Visual Function (SPVF)

    Comparison of the SPVF with the two interventions at the end of 6 weeks of lens wear. Quantified with the validated Danish translation of the VEQ-25 survey. Scored on a scale from 0 to 100, higher values indicate better functioning.

    Measured: 6 weeks with each intervention. 13 weeks total, incl. 1 week washout.

  9. Dry Eye Symptoms

    Comparison of Dry Eye Symptoms with the two interventions at the end of 6 weeks of lens wear. Quantified with a Danish translation of the validated symptom survey Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI). Scored on a scale of 0 to 100, with higher values representing greater disability.

    Measured: 6 weeks with each intervention. 13 weeks total, incl. 1 week washout.

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted10 Apr 2025
  2. Study start15 Aug 2025
  3. Primary completionSep 2027 (estimated)
  4. Study completion29 Feb 2028 (estimated)

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 N/A
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Crossover
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
50 participants (estimated)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT06921967
Sponsor's protocol ID
2500206
Status last verified
Mar 2025
First submitted
3 Apr 2025
Last updated
24 Aug 2025
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
No

Publications

  • Morgan P, Woods C, Tranoudis I, Efron N, Jones L, Faccia P, et al. International Contact Lens Prescribing in 2023. CONTACT LENS SPECTRUM. 2024;39:20-2,4,6-8

  • Morgan P, Woods C, Tranoudis I, Helland M, N E, M T, et al. International Contact Lens Prescribing in 2013. Contact Lens Spectrum. 2014;29:30-5

  • Mandathara PS, Kalaiselvan P, Rathi VM, Murthy SI, Taneja M, Sangwan VS. Contact lens fitting after corneal collagen cross-linking. Oman J Ophthalmol. 2019 Oct 11;12(3):177-180. doi: 10.4103/ojo.OJO_43_2018. eCollection 2019 Sep-Dec.

    PubMed 31902993
  • Nielsen K, Hjortdal J, Aagaard Nohr E, Ehlers N. Incidence and prevalence of keratoconus in Denmark. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2007 Dec;85(8):890-2. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0420.2007.00981.x. Epub 2007 Jul 23.

    PubMed 17645421
  • Bak-Nielsen S, Ramlau-Hansen CH, Ivarsen A, Plana-Ripoll O, Hjortdal J. Incidence and prevalence of keratoconus in Denmark - an update. Acta Ophthalmol. 2019 Dec;97(8):752-755. doi: 10.1111/aos.14082. Epub 2019 Apr 9.

    PubMed 30964230
  • Ozcura F, Aydin S, Helvaci MR. Ocular surface disease index for the diagnosis of dry eye syndrome. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2007 Sep-Oct;15(5):389-93. doi: 10.1080/09273940701486803.

    PubMed 17972223
  • Efron N, Morgan PB, Katsara SS. Validation of grading scales for contact lens complications. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2001 Jan;21(1):17-29.

    PubMed 11220037
  • Sorensen MS, Andersen S, Henningsen GO, Larsen CT, Sorensen TL. Danish version of Visual Function Questionnaire-25 and its use in age-related macular degeneration. Dan Med Bull. 2011 Jun;58(6):A4290.

    PubMed 21651879
  • Barnett M, Courey C, Fadel D, Lee K, Michaud L, Montani G, van der Worp E, Vincent SJ, Walker M, Bilkhu P, Morgan PB. CLEAR - Scleral lenses. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2021 Apr;44(2):270-288. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2021.02.001. Epub 2021 Mar 25.

    PubMed 33775380
  • Hwang K, Kim JH. The Risk of Blepharoptosis in Contact Lens Wearers. J Craniofac Surg. 2015 Jul;26(5):e373-4. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000001876.

    PubMed 26102541
  • Efron N. Contact Lens Practice. 4th ed. New Dehli: Elsevier; 2023

  • Rosenfield M, Logan N. Optometry : science, techniques and clinical management. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Butterworth Heinemann Elsevier; 2009

  • Levit A, Benwell M, Evans BJW. Randomised controlled trial of corneal vs. scleral rigid gas permeable contact lenses for keratoconus and other ectatic corneal disorders. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2020 Dec;43(6):543-552. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2019.12.007. Epub 2020 Jan 8.

    PubMed 31924530
  • Romero-Jimenez M, Santodomingo-Rubido J, Gonzalez-Meijome JM. An assessment of the optimal lens fit rate in keratoconus subjects using three-point-touch and apical touch fitting approaches with the rose K2 lens. Eye Contact Lens. 2013 Jul;39(4):269-72. doi: 10.1097/ICL.0b013e318295b4f4.

    PubMed 23771007
  • Michaud L, Lipson M, Kramer E, Walker M. The official guide to scleral lens terminology. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2020 Dec;43(6):529-534. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2019.09.006. Epub 2019 Sep 25.

    PubMed 31561849

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Rose K2 and Onefit MED in people with Keratoconus and Irregular Astigmatism, run by University of Aarhus at 1 site in Denmark.

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: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 24 Aug 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in Denmark. 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.

Are results available for this study?

This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

Each site lists its own contact: choose the nearest one under Trial locations. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Visual Acuity (time frame: 6 weeks with each intervention. 13 weeks total, incl. 1 week washout.). 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 NCT06921967, which also lists 18 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 24 Aug 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