No Eye DisorderECAFOSSNCT07697131
A Comparative Study of Fusional Vergence According to Ocular Dominance in Healthy Subjects
An observational study of No Eye Disorder, run by Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris at 1 site in France.
Trial summary
In orthoptics, fusional vergence (FV) measurement is one of the key tests used to assess fusion ability. These amplitudes are generally reduced in individuals with convergence insufficiency. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 35 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- No Eye Disorder
- What is being tested?
- Fusional Vergence assessment, Ocular dominance evaluation and Complete Orthoptic
- How many people
- 60 participants
- Where
- 1 siteFrance
- Study dates
- 20 Aug 2026to Jun 2027
- Phase
- Observational
- 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 35 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Study population: Any individual between the ages of 18 and 35, inclusive, with no organic ophthalmological disorders or oculomotor disorders.
Who may be able to join
- Adults between the ages of 18 and 35 with no known eye conditions, with or without ametropia. If ametropia is present: it must be corrected
- Subjects with no history of eye surgery, including refractive surgery
- Subjects who have been informed about the study and have freely and knowingly consented to participate in the study and to the collection of data
Who cannot join
- Subjects with strabismus
- Subjects with visual acuity of less than 20/20; or anisometropia
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
France1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades
Paris, 75015
Maxence Rateaux, PhD, 01 44 49 53 62 ext. +33, maxence.rateaux@aphp.fr
About this study
In orthoptics, fusional vergence (FV) measurement is one of the key tests used to assess fusion ability. These amplitudes are generally reduced in individuals with convergence insufficiency. Fusional vergence are quantified by placing a prism bar randomly in front of one eye-first for distance vision and then for near vision. Rehabilitation exercises using the prism bar are also performed in the same manner.
Depending on orthoptic practice, the prism bar is placed in front of the left eye or the right eye, in a dogmatic manner, or in front of the right eye, in a conventional manner, without any study providing any justification. However, some practitioners report interocular differences when measuring fusion amplitudes depending on which eye is prismed, while others do not.
Read more
The hypothesis put forward is that, in individuals with an interocular difference in fusional vergence, ocular dominance (sensory and motor) could be the cause of this measurement discrepancy.
The objective is therefore to compare the difference in fusional vergence depending on whether the dominant or non-dominant eye is tested, using a randomized order of eyes and tests.
If this hypothesis is confirmed (greater fusional vergence when tested on the dominant eye), this would: (1) enhance our understanding of fusion mechanisms, (2) provide more targeted insights for the assessment, quantification, and rehabilitation of fusional vergence to improve the effectiveness of orthoptic intervention.
Read the detailed description
In orthoptics, fusional vergence (FV) measurement is one of the key tests used to assess fusion ability. These amplitudes are generally reduced in individuals with convergence insufficiency. Fusional vergence are quantified by placing a prism bar randomly in front of one eye-first for distance vision and then for near vision. Rehabilitation exercises using the prism bar are also performed in the same manner.
Depending on orthoptic practice, the prism bar is placed in front of the left eye or the right eye, in a dogmatic manner, or in front of the right eye, in a conventional manner, without any study providing any justification. However, some practitioners report interocular differences when measuring fusion amplitudes depending on which eye is prismed, while others do not.
The hypothesis put forward is that, in individuals with an interocular difference in fusional vergence, ocular dominance (sensory and motor) could be the cause of this measurement discrepancy.
The objective is therefore to compare the difference in fusional vergence depending on whether the dominant or non-dominant eye is tested, using a randomized order of eyes and tests.
If this hypothesis is confirmed (greater fusional vergence when tested on the dominant eye), this would: (1) enhance our understanding of fusion mechanisms, (2) provide more targeted insights for the assessment, quantification, and rehabilitation of fusional vergence to improve the effectiveness of orthoptic intervention.
The study consists of one-hour eye examinations of healthy individuals with no visual or oculomotor disorders.
- Conditions
- No Eye Disorder
- Being tested
- Fusional Vergence assessment, Ocular dominance evaluation, Complete Orthoptic
- Keywords
- Fusional vergence, Ocular dominance, Orthoptic practice
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Fusional Vergence assessmentOther
Also called Measurements of sensorimotor fusion
Measurement of sensorimotor fusional vergence in the right and left eyes, in divergence and convergence, first for distance vision and then for near vision. A random draw will determine which eye is tested first for distance vision, followed by a second draw for near vision, in order to minimize training bias. Prior to this, a stereoscopic acuity test will be performed to confirm the presence of binocular vision.
Ocular dominance evaluationOther
Also called Assessment of ocular dominance
Assessment of ocular dominance for:
- The dominant eye using the monocular blurriness test and the red-glass test
- The leading eye using the Mawas plate Punctum Proximum convergence test and the bilateral prismatic test for oculomotor dominance
- The preferred eye using the spontaneous ocular method
- The target eye using the Hole-in-Card method: hole-in-card test
Complete OrthopticOther
Also called Orthoptic evaluation
Conducting an orthoptic evaluation to verify that patients meet the study's inclusion criteria:
- assessment of visual acuity and refraction
- assessment of stereoscopic vision
- cover-test to screen potential abnormal phorias
- measurement of interpupillary distance
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Healthy individual | Individuals with no visual or oculomotor disorders. Receives: Other: Fusional Vergence assessment; Other: Ocular dominance evaluation; Other: Complete Orthoptic |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Amplitude of fusional vergence
Values of horizontal fusional vergence measured using a horizontal Berens prism bar in divergence and convergence, for distance and near vision, in the right eye and the left eye and reported in prism diopters.
Measured: Day 0
Laterality ocular dominance
Assessment of ocular dominance for:
- The dominant eye using the monocular blur test and the red-glass test
- The leading eye using the Punctum Proximum of Convergence (PPC) test with the Mawas plate and bilateral prism test for oculomotor dominance
- The preferred eye using the spontaneous ocular method
- The target eye using the Hole-in-Card method: hole-in-card test All tests classify the ocular dominance into 3 categories : Left, Right, None.
Measured: Day 0
Lateralization quotient value (LQ)
Determination of the lateralization quotient value by the mean of previous responses of the ocular dominance tests.
Measured: Day 0
Secondary outcomes (4)
Assessment of the degree of agreement among the various tests for ocular dominance
Compilation of responses to ocular dominance tests (sensorial and motor dominant eye, target eye and preferred eye) and lateralization quotient.
Measured: Day 0
Agreeement between the bilateral prismatic test (new test for oculomotor dominance laterality determination and standard ocular dominance tests
Evaluation of a new test (bilateral prismatic test for oculomotor dominance) and comparison to usually ocular dominance test. All tests classify the ocular dominance into 3 categories : Left, Right, None. This part tends to evaluation the efficacity and the utility of a new test for ocular dominance.
Measured: Day 0
Assessment of the difference in fusional vergence measurements between the right and left eyes and the laterality quotient
Assessment of the difference in fusional vergence measurements between the right and left eyes and the laterality quotient.
Measured: Day 0
Correlation between inter-pupillary distance measurements and differences in fusion amplitude measurements between the right and left eyes
Measurements of interpupillary distance and overall fusion ability, for distance vision and near vision.
Measured: Day 0
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted13 Jul 2026
- Study start20 Aug 2026
- Primary completionJun 2027 (estimated)
- Study completionJun 2027 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (10)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for No Eye DisorderStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de ParisThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- 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
- Observational
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 60 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- URC-CIC Paris Descartes Necker Cochin
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Maxence Rateaux, PhD, Principal investigator, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de ParisDominique MD, PhD BREMOND-GIGNAC, Study director, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07697131
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- APHP251987
- Other IDs
- 2025-A02953-46
- Acronym
- ECAFOSS
- Status last verified
- Aug 2026
- First submitted
- 22 Jun 2026
- Last updated
- 26 Aug 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Rovira-Gay C, Mestre C, Argiles M, Vinuela-Navarro V, Pujol J. Feasibility of measuring fusional vergence amplitudes objectively. PLoS One. 2023 May 4;18(5):e0284552. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0284552. eCollection 2023.
PubMed 37141181Rowe FJ. Fusional vergence measures and their significance in clinical assessment. Strabismus. 2010 Jun;18(2):48-57. doi: 10.3109/09273971003758412.
PubMed 20521879Bossi M, Hamm LM, Dahlmann-Noor A, Dakin SC. A comparison of tests for quantifying sensory eye dominance. Vision Res. 2018 Dec;153:60-69. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2018.09.006. Epub 2018 Oct 22.
PubMed 30292725Lanca CC, Rowe FJ. Measurement of fusional vergence: a systematic review. Strabismus. 2019 Jun;27(2):88-113. doi: 10.1080/09273972.2019.1583675. Epub 2019 Mar 1.
PubMed 30821611Fray KJ. Fusional amplitudes: exploring where fusion falters. Am Orthopt J. 2013;63:41-54. doi: 10.3368/aoj.63.1.41.
PubMed 24141750Fray KJ. Fusional Amplitudes: Developing Testing Standards. Strabismus. 2017 Sep;25(3):145-155. doi: 10.1080/09273972.2017.1349814. Epub 2017 Jul 31.
PubMed 28759298Lopes-Ferreira D, Neves H, Queiros A, Faria-Ribeiro M, Peixoto-de-Matos SC, Gonzalez-Meijome JM. Ocular dominance and visual function testing. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:238943. doi: 10.1155/2013/238943. Epub 2013 Nov 11.
PubMed 24319677Ho R, Thompson B, Babu RJ, Dalton K. Sighting ocular dominance magnitude varies with test distance. Clin Exp Optom. 2018 Mar;101(2):276-280. doi: 10.1111/cxo.12627. Epub 2017 Oct 31.
PubMed 29090482Kommerell G, Schmitt C, Kromeier M, Bach M. Ocular prevalence versus ocular dominance. Vision Res. 2003 Jun;43(12):1397-403. doi: 10.1016/s0042-6989(03)00121-4.
PubMed 12742109Garcia-Perez MA, Peli E. Psychophysical Tests Do Not Identify Ocular Dominance Consistently. Iperception. 2019 Apr 29;10(2):2041669519841397. doi: 10.1177/2041669519841397. eCollection 2019 Mar-Apr.
PubMed 31069044
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 26 Aug 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Comparative Study of Fusional Vergence According to Ocular Dominance in Healthy Subjects
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07697131
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- ECAFOSS / APHP251987
- Conditions
- No Eye Disorder
- Keywords
- Fusional vergence, Ocular dominance, Orthoptic practice
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 60 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de ParisUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- URC-CIC Paris Descartes Necker Cochin
- Study start
- 20 Aug 2026 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Jun 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Jun 2027 (estimated)
- First posted
- 13 Jul 2026 (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.
In orthoptics, fusional vergence (FV) measurement is one of the key tests used to assess fusion ability. These amplitudes are generally reduced in individuals with convergence insufficiency. Fusional vergence are quantified by placing a prism bar randomly in front of one eye-first for distance vision and then for near vision. Rehabilitation exercises using the prism bar are also performed in the same manner.
Depending on orthoptic practice, the prism bar is placed in front of the left eye or the right eye, in a dogmatic manner, or in front of the right eye, in a conventional manner, without any study providing any justification. However, some practitioners report interocular differences when measuring fusion amplitudes depending on which eye is prismed, while others do not.
The hypothesis put forward is that, in individuals with an interocular difference in fusional vergence, ocular dominance (sensory and motor) could be the cause of this measurement discrepancy.
The objective is therefore to compare the difference in fusional vergence depending on whether the dominant or non-dominant eye is tested, using a randomized order of eyes and tests.
If this hypothesis is confirmed (greater fusional vergence when tested on the dominant eye), this would: (1) enhance our understanding of fusion mechanisms, (2) provide more targeted insights for the assessment, quantification, and rehabilitation of fusional vergence to improve the effectiveness of orthoptic intervention.
Detailed description
In orthoptics, fusional vergence (FV) measurement is one of the key tests used to assess fusion ability. These amplitudes are generally reduced in individuals with convergence insufficiency. Fusional vergence are quantified by placing a prism bar randomly in front of one eye-first for distance vision and then for near vision. Rehabilitation exercises using the prism bar are also performed in the same manner.
Depending on orthoptic practice, the prism bar is placed in front of the left eye or the right eye, in a dogmatic manner, or in front of the right eye, in a conventional manner, without any study providing any justification. However, some practitioners report interocular differences when measuring fusion amplitudes depending on which eye is prismed, while others do not.
The hypothesis put forward is that, in individuals with an interocular difference in fusional vergence, ocular dominance (sensory and motor) could be the cause of this measurement discrepancy.
The objective is therefore to compare the difference in fusional vergence depending on whether the dominant or non-dominant eye is tested, using a randomized order of eyes and tests.
If this hypothesis is confirmed (greater fusional vergence when tested on the dominant eye), this would: (1) enhance our understanding of fusion mechanisms, (2) provide more targeted insights for the assessment, quantification, and rehabilitation of fusional vergence to improve the effectiveness of orthoptic intervention.
The study consists of one-hour eye examinations of healthy individuals with no visual or oculomotor disorders.
Study design
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Healthy individual | – | Other: Fusional Vergence assessment, Other: Ocular dominance evaluation, Other: Complete OrthopticIndividuals with no visual or oculomotor disorders. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 35 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
- Study population
- Any individual between the ages of 18 and 35, inclusive, with no organic ophthalmological disorders or oculomotor disorders.
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Adults between the ages of 18 and 35 with no known eye conditions, with or without ametropia. If ametropia is present: it must be corrected
- Subjects with no history of eye surgery, including refractive surgery
- Subjects who have been informed about the study and have freely and knowingly consented to participate in the study and to the collection of data
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Subjects with strabismus
- Subjects with visual acuity of less than 20/20; or anisometropia
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Fusional Vergence assessmentAlso: Measurements of sensorimotor fusionMeasurement of sensorimotor fusional vergence in the right and left eyes, in divergence and convergence, first for distance vision and then for near vision. A random draw will determine which eye is tested first for distance vision, followed by a second draw for near vision, in order to minimize training bias. Prior to this, a stereoscopic acuity test will be performed to confirm the presence of binocular vision. | Other | Healthy individual |
| Ocular dominance evaluationAlso: Assessment of ocular dominanceAssessment of ocular dominance for: * The dominant eye using the monocular blurriness test and the red-glass test * The leading eye using the Mawas plate Punctum Proximum convergence test and the bilateral prismatic test for oculomotor dominance * The preferred eye using the spontaneous ocular method * The target eye using the Hole-in-Card method: hole-in-card test | Other | Healthy individual |
| Complete OrthopticAlso: Orthoptic evaluationConducting an orthoptic evaluation to verify that patients meet the study's inclusion criteria: * assessment of visual acuity and refraction * assessment of stereoscopic vision * cover-test to screen potential abnormal phorias * measurement of interpupillary distance | Other | Healthy individual |
Primary outcome
Amplitude of fusional vergence
Time frame: Day 0
Values of horizontal fusional vergence measured using a horizontal Berens prism bar in divergence and convergence, for distance and near vision, in the right eye and the left eye and reported in prism diopters.
Laterality ocular dominance
Time frame: Day 0
Assessment of ocular dominance for: * The dominant eye using the monocular blur test and the red-glass test * The leading eye using the Punctum Proximum of Convergence (PPC) test with the Mawas plate and bilateral prism test for oculomotor dominance * The preferred eye using the spontaneous ocular method * The target eye using the Hole-in-Card method: hole-in-card test All tests classify the ocular dominance into 3 categories : Left, Right, None.
Lateralization quotient value (LQ)
Time frame: Day 0
Determination of the lateralization quotient value by the mean of previous responses of the ocular dominance tests.
4 secondary outcomes
Assessment of the degree of agreement among the various tests for ocular dominance
Time frame: Day 0
Agreeement between the bilateral prismatic test (new test for oculomotor dominance laterality determination and standard ocular dominance tests
Time frame: Day 0
Assessment of the difference in fusional vergence measurements between the right and left eyes and the laterality quotient
Time frame: Day 0
Correlation between inter-pupillary distance measurements and differences in fusion amplitude measurements between the right and left eyes
Time frame: Day 0
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 26 Aug 2026.
- Background: PubMed 37141181Rovira-Gay C, Mestre C, Argiles M, Vinuela-Navarro V, Pujol J. Feasibility of measuring fusional vergence amplitudes objectively. PLoS One. 2023 May 4;18(5):e0284552. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0284552. eCollection 2023.
- Background: PubMed 20521879Rowe FJ. Fusional vergence measures and their significance in clinical assessment. Strabismus. 2010 Jun;18(2):48-57. doi: 10.3109/09273971003758412.
- Background: PubMed 30292725Bossi M, Hamm LM, Dahlmann-Noor A, Dakin SC. A comparison of tests for quantifying sensory eye dominance. Vision Res. 2018 Dec;153:60-69. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2018.09.006. Epub 2018 Oct 22.
- Background: PubMed 30821611Lanca CC, Rowe FJ. Measurement of fusional vergence: a systematic review. Strabismus. 2019 Jun;27(2):88-113. doi: 10.1080/09273972.2019.1583675. Epub 2019 Mar 1.
- Background: PubMed 24141750Fray KJ. Fusional amplitudes: exploring where fusion falters. Am Orthopt J. 2013;63:41-54. doi: 10.3368/aoj.63.1.41.
- Background: PubMed 28759298Fray KJ. Fusional Amplitudes: Developing Testing Standards. Strabismus. 2017 Sep;25(3):145-155. doi: 10.1080/09273972.2017.1349814. Epub 2017 Jul 31.
- Background: PubMed 24319677Lopes-Ferreira D, Neves H, Queiros A, Faria-Ribeiro M, Peixoto-de-Matos SC, Gonzalez-Meijome JM. Ocular dominance and visual function testing. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:238943. doi: 10.1155/2013/238943. Epub 2013 Nov 11.
- Background: PubMed 29090482Ho R, Thompson B, Babu RJ, Dalton K. Sighting ocular dominance magnitude varies with test distance. Clin Exp Optom. 2018 Mar;101(2):276-280. doi: 10.1111/cxo.12627. Epub 2017 Oct 31.
- Background: PubMed 12742109Kommerell G, Schmitt C, Kromeier M, Bach M. Ocular prevalence versus ocular dominance. Vision Res. 2003 Jun;43(12):1397-403. doi: 10.1016/s0042-6989(03)00121-4.
- Background: PubMed 31069044Garcia-Perez MA, Peli E. Psychophysical Tests Do Not Identify Ocular Dominance Consistently. Iperception. 2019 Apr 29;10(2):2041669519841397. doi: 10.1177/2041669519841397. eCollection 2019 Mar-Apr.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for No Eye Disorder
RecruitingObservational study
PRESERFLO™ MicroShunt XI Observational PMCF Study With no Control Group
Primary Open Angle Glaucoma
RecruitingPhase 4
Comparing Intravitreal Injection Pain Scores Using Iheezo (Chloroprocaine Hcl Ophthalmic Gel 3%) Versus Subconjunctival Lidocaine (2%): A Randomized, Controlled Trial
No Condition
RecruitingPhase 2
A Phase II Study of Intravitreal KIO-301 in Patients With Late-stage Retinitis Pigmentosa
Retinitis Pigmentosa
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Retinal Clinical Assessment With AI-derived Quantitative Information
no Obvious Abnormalities, Diabetic Retinopathy (DR)
RecruitingPhase 2
Assessment of the Efficacy and Safety of a DYnaMic Peripheral DegradatiON Myopia Disorder Control in Myopic Children ״DYMOND Study״
Myopia
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.
Maxence Rateaux, PhD principal investigator
Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris
Dominique MD, PhD BREMOND-GIGNAC study director
Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of No Eye Disorder, run by Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris at 1 site in France.
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 3 inclusion and 2 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 26 Aug 2026. 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 France. 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?
Contact Maxence Rateaux, PhD (01 44 49 53 62 ext. +33, maxence.rateaux@aphp.fr), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Amplitude of fusional vergence (time frame: Day 0). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. 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 NCT07697131, which also lists 10 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 26 Aug 2026.