Age Related Macular DegenerationNCT01243645
MP-1 Biofeedback: Pattern Stimulus Versus Audio-feedback in AMD
A study testing biofeedback training in people with Age Related Macular Degeneration, run by University of Roma La Sapienza at 2 sites in Italy.
Trial summary
Background: Biofeedback techniques have demonstrated their uselfulness in the treatment of maculopathies. We wanted to evaluate the efficacy of visual rehabilitation by means of two different types of biofeedback techniques in patients with age related macular degeneration (AMD). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 56 to 89 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Age Related Macular Degeneration
- What is being tested?
- biofeedback training
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- How many people
- Not given
- Where
- 2 sitesItaly
- Study dates
- Start not givento not given
- 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 56 to 89 years
- All sexes
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- We enrolled 30 patients (18 women and 12 men), ranging in age from 56-89 with a mean of 76.38 ±8.77, bilaterally affected by neovascular AMD from the Medical Retina Unit of the Department of Ophthalmology, University La Sapienza of Rome, Polo Pontino, A. Fiorini Hospital from August 2009 to July 2010.
- Diagnosis of neovascular AMD was based on a complete ophthalmological examination including anterior and posterior segment biomicroscopy, Fluorescein Angiography (Heidelberg HRA2 FA module Heidelberg Germany), spectral domain OCT (Heidelberg HRA-2 OCT module Heidelberg Germany), microperimetry with MP-1 (NIDEK Technologies Padua Italy).
Who cannot join
- Patients with other eye diseases (i.e. glaucoma, myopia, retinal detachment, etc), uncooperative patients and patients with media opacities were excluded.
Trial locations and contacts
2 sites in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: MP-1 Biofeedback: Pattern Stimulus Versus Audio-feedback in Age Related Macular Degeneration (AMD)
Background:
Biofeedback techniques have demonstrated their uselfulness in the treatment of maculopathies. We wanted to evaluate the efficacy of visual rehabilitation by means of two different types of biofeedback techniques in patients with age related macular degeneration (AMD).
Read more
Methods:
30 patients bilaterally affected by AMD were enrolled with a mean age of 76,38±8,77 yrs. Patients were randomly divided in two groups: Group A was treated with an acoustic biofeedback, Group B with luminous biofeedback of a black and white checkerboard flickering during the examination. All patients underwent a complete ophthalmological examination. Rehabilitation consisted in 12 training sessions of 10 minutes for each eye performed once a week for both groups. Statistical analysis was performed using t- test. P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
Results:
Group A: visual acuity at the end of rehabilitation had improved, but this result was not statistically significant (p=0.054), reading speed showed a significant statistical improvement (p=0.031), as well as the fixation stability (p=0.0023) and single point mean retinal sensitivity value (p=0.044).
Group B: visual acuity improvement at the end of rehabilitation was statistically significant (p=0.048), reading speed showed a statistically significant improvement (p=0.024), as well as fixation stability (p=0.0012) and mean single point retinal sensitivity value (p=0.027). Final results for both groups were compared and patients in group B showed results which were statistically more significant.
Conclusion:
A contrast rich flickering biofeedback stimulus showed a statistically significant improvement in training the patients to modify their preferred retinal locus (PRL) in comparison to acoustic biofeedback. It is possible that increased involvement of the various retinal cell populations with visual stimuli create more efficient ganglion cell response that better utilize the residual retinal function.
- Conditions
- Age Related Macular Degeneration
- Being tested
- biofeedback training
- Medical subject headings
- Macular Degeneration
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
biofeedback trainingBehavioural
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
improvement of visual acuity
Secondary outcomes (1)
improvement of retinal sensitivity
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted18 Nov 2010 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Age Related Macular DegenerationStudies 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
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Roma La Sapienza
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01243645
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- BIO0110
- Status last verified
- Sep 2010
- First submitted
- 17 Nov 2010
- Last updated
- 18 Nov 2010
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Vingolo EM, Salvatore S, Limoli PG. MP-1 biofeedback: luminous pattern stimulus versus acoustic biofeedback in age related macular degeneration (AMD). Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback. 2013 Mar;38(1):11-6. doi: 10.1007/s10484-012-9203-4.
PubMed 22903517
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 18 Nov 2010. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- MP-1 Biofeedback: Pattern Stimulus Versus Audio-feedback in Age Related Macular Degeneration (AMD)
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01243645
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- BIO0110
- Conditions
- Age Related Macular Degeneration
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Lead sponsor
- University of Roma La SapienzaUniversity, hospital or other
- First posted
- 18 Nov 2010 (estimated)
- 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.
Background:
Biofeedback techniques have demonstrated their uselfulness in the treatment of maculopathies. We wanted to evaluate the efficacy of visual rehabilitation by means of two different types of biofeedback techniques in patients with age related macular degeneration (AMD).
Methods:
30 patients bilaterally affected by AMD were enrolled with a mean age of 76,38±8,77 yrs. Patients were randomly divided in two groups: Group A was treated with an acoustic biofeedback, Group B with luminous biofeedback of a black and white checkerboard flickering during the examination. All patients underwent a complete ophthalmological examination. Rehabilitation consisted in 12 training sessions of 10 minutes for each eye performed once a week for both groups. Statistical analysis was performed using t- test. P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
Results:
Group A: visual acuity at the end of rehabilitation had improved, but this result was not statistically significant (p=0.054), reading speed showed a significant statistical improvement (p=0.031), as well as the fixation stability (p=0.0023) and single point mean retinal sensitivity value (p=0.044).
Group B: visual acuity improvement at the end of rehabilitation was statistically significant (p=0.048), reading speed showed a statistically significant improvement (p=0.024), as well as fixation stability (p=0.0012) and mean single point retinal sensitivity value (p=0.027). Final results for both groups were compared and patients in group B showed results which were statistically more significant.
Conclusion:
A contrast rich flickering biofeedback stimulus showed a statistically significant improvement in training the patients to modify their preferred retinal locus (PRL) in comparison to acoustic biofeedback. It is possible that increased involvement of the various retinal cell populations with visual stimuli create more efficient ganglion cell response that better utilize the residual retinal function.
Study design
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 56 to 89 years
- Sex
- All
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- We enrolled 30 patients (18 women and 12 men), ranging in age from 56-89 with a mean of 76.38 ±8.77, bilaterally affected by neovascular AMD from the Medical Retina Unit of the Department of Ophthalmology, University La Sapienza of Rome, Polo Pontino, A. Fiorini Hospital from August 2009 to July 2010.
- Diagnosis of neovascular AMD was based on a complete ophthalmological examination including anterior and posterior segment biomicroscopy, Fluorescein Angiography (Heidelberg HRA2 FA module Heidelberg Germany), spectral domain OCT (Heidelberg HRA-2 OCT module Heidelberg Germany), microperimetry with MP-1 (NIDEK Technologies Padua Italy).
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Patients with other eye diseases (i.e. glaucoma, myopia, retinal detachment, etc), uncooperative patients and patients with media opacities were excluded.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| biofeedback training | Behavioural | – |
Primary outcome
improvement of visual acuity
1 secondary outcome
improvement of retinal sensitivity
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 18 Nov 2010.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 22903517Vingolo EM, Salvatore S, Limoli PG. MP-1 biofeedback: luminous pattern stimulus versus acoustic biofeedback in age related macular degeneration (AMD). Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback. 2013 Mar;38(1):11-6. doi: 10.1007/s10484-012-9203-4.
Related trials for Age Related Macular Degeneration
Active, not recruitingPhase 4
A Study About the Safety of ASP3021 Eye Injections and if They Help People in Japan With Vision Loss From Age-related Macular Degeneration
Geographic Atrophy, Age-Related Macular Degeneration
RecruitingObservational study
Age-Related Macular Degeneration Benchmark Imaging Dataset (ABID)
Age-Related Macular Degeneration
Active, not recruitingPhase 1/2
Study to Assess the Safety and Efficacy of OCU410 for Geographic Atrophy
Geographic Atrophy
RecruitingPhase 1/2
Autologous Transplantation of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell-Derived Retinal Pigment Epithelium for Geographic Atrophy Associated With Age-Related Macular Degeneration
Dry Age-Related Macular Degeneration, Geographic Atrophy
Not yet recruiting
Remapping Text in Sentence and Word Tasks to Aid Reading With Central Vision Loss
Macular Degeneration, Central Visual Impairment
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.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
2 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing biofeedback training in people with Age Related Macular Degeneration, run by University of Roma La Sapienza at 2 sites in Italy.
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 2 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 18 Nov 2010. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 2 sites in Italy. 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?
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?
improvement of visual acuity. 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 NCT01243645, which also lists 1 linked publication.
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 18 Nov 2010.