Filter results

Clinical Studies


Contact Us for the Latest Status

Closed for Enrollment

  • A Phase 4 Safety Study of IOP Signals in Patients Treated with ILUVIEN® (Fluocinolone Acetonide Intravitreal Implant) 0.19 mg (PALADIN) Rochester, Minn.

    The purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety of using iluvien to treat patients with diabetic macular edema, by assessing intraocular pressure.

  • Intravitreous Anti-VEGF vs. Prompt Vitrectomy for Vitreous Hemorrhage From Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy (AB) Rochester, Minn.

    Although vitreous hemorrhage (VH) from proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) can cause acute and dramatic vision loss for patients with diabetes, there is no current, evidence-based clinical guidance as to what treatment method is most likely to provide the best visual outcomes once intervention is desired. Intravitreous anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy alone or vitrectomy combined with intraoperative PRP each provide the opportunity to stabilize or regress retinal neovascularization. However, clinical trials are lacking to elucidate the relative time frame of visual recovery or final visual outcome in prompt vitrectomy compared with initial anti-VEGF treatment. The Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network Protocol N demonstrated short-term trends consistent with a possible beneficial effect of anti-VEGF treatment in eyes with VH from PDR, including greater visual acuity improvement and reduced rates of recurrent VH as compared with saline injection. It is possible that a study with a longer duration of follow-up with structured anti-VEGF retreatment would demonstrate even greater effectiveness of anti-VEGF for VH to avoid vitrectomy and its attendant adverse events while also improving visual acuity. On the other hand, advances in surgical techniques leading to faster operative times, quicker patient recovery, and reduced complication rates may make prompt vitrectomy a more attractive alternative since it results in the immediate ability to clear hemorrhage and to perform PRP if desired, often as part of one procedure. This proposed study will evaluate the safety and efficacy of two treatment approaches for eyes with VH from PDR: prompt vitrectomy + PRP and intravitreous aflibercept injections.

  • Treatment for Central-Involved Diabetic Macular Edema in Eyes With Very Good Visual Acuity (Protocol V) Rochester, Minn.

    Although multiple studies have clearly demonstrated that ranibizumab therapy is more effective than laser alone for vision gain and avoiding vision loss in patients with central-involved Diabetic Macular Edema (DME), only eyes with poor visual acuity, such as a visual acuity letter score of 78 or worse (approximate Snellen equivalent of 20/32 or worse) were eligible. Eyes that have central-involved DME with "good" visual acuity (20/25 or better) have not been addressed systematically by recent studies for treatment of DME. Baseline cohort characteristics from the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) suggest that a substantial percentage of eyes with central-involved DME may retain good vision. The investigators do not know definitively whether eyes with central-involved DME and good vision do better with anti-VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor) (e.g. aflibercept) therapy initially, or focal/grid laser treatment or observation initially followed by anti-VEGF only if vision worsens.

    The primary objective of the protocol is to compare the % of eyes that have lost at least 5 letters of visual acuity at 2 years compared with baseline mean visual acuity in eyes with central-involved DME and good visual acuity defined as a Snellen equivalent of 20/25 or better (electronic-ETDRS letter score of 79 or better) that receive (1) prompt focal/grid photocoagulation + deferred anti-VEGF, (2) observation + deferred anti-VEGF, or (3) prompt anti-VEGF.

    Secondary objectives include:

    • Comparing other visual acuity outcomes between treatment groups, such as the percent of eyes with at least 5, 10 and 15 letter losses in visual acuity from baseline mean visual acuity, percent of eyes with at least 5 letter gain in visual acuity from baseline, mean visual acuity, mean change in visual acuity, adjusted for baseline mean visual acuity
    • For eyes randomized to deferred anti-VEGF, the percentage of eyes needing anti-VEGF treatment
    • Comparing optical coherence tomography (OCT) outcomes, such as the mean change in OCT central subfield (CSF) thickness, adjusted for baseline mean thickness
    • Comparing the number of eyes with PDR at randomization, proportion of eyes avoiding vitreous hemorrhage or panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) or vitrectomy for PDR between treatment groups
    • Comparing safety outcomes between treatment groups
    • Comparing associated treatment and follow-up exam costs between treatment groups