Bullous KeratopathyPhase 2AMBUKNCT01926535
Amniotic Membrane Graft In Syntomathic Bullous Keratopathy
A Phase 2 study testing Implant of amniotic membrane grafts and Therapeutic contact lenses in people with Bullous Keratopathy, run by Universidad de Valparaiso at 1 site in Chile.
Trial summary
The amniotic membrane (AM) is an avascular structure derived from fetus, which is a good choice for regenerative medicine and effective treatment in eye surface pathologies such as bullous keratopathy (BK). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any age
- Conditions the study is for
- Bullous Keratopathy
- What is being tested?
- Implant of amniotic membrane grafts and Therapeutic contact lenses
- Type of treatment
- Medical device, Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 20 participants
- Where
- 1 siteChile
- Study dates
- Nov 2011to Jun 2012
- Phase
- Phase 2
- 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 Any age
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- All patients with clinical diagnosis of symptomatic bullous keratopathy (corneal bullae, recurrent eye pain, foreign body sensation and photophobia), diagnosed at the Department of Ophthalmology Hospital Carlos Van Buren, Valparaiso, Chile, who were on the waiting list for corneal transplant from January 2008 to October 2011
Who cannot join
- Excluded patients were those with medical contraindication to undergo surgery with topical anesthesia, patients with severe systemic conditions and patients with corneal infections.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Comparative Analysis of Human Amniotic Membrane Graft Versus Contact Lenses in Syntomathic Bullous Keratopathy
The amniotic membrane (AM) is an avascular structure derived from fetus, which is a good choice for regenerative medicine and effective treatment in eye surface pathologies such as bullous keratopathy (BK). This disease generates a chronic corneal edema evolving to the production of vesicles and bullae, chronic eye pain and visual acuity decrease.
Definitive treatment for those patients is corneal transplant; however, donation is not always available and thus requires long waiting times. The currently available palliative treatment consists in the use of contact lenses to prevent the corneal epithelium from falling. However, this may be associated with corneal neovascularization, lens displacement or loss, infections, and discomfort for the patient.
Read more
The objective of this work was to compare the use of amniotic membrane grafts versus contact lenses in patients suffering from BK awaiting a corneal transplant.
A randomized clinical trial assay was performed with patients with a clinical diagnosis of BK. Twenty patients were randomized into 2 groups: amniotic membrane and therapeutic contact lenses. Eye pain intensity (Analog visual scale), visual acuity (Snellen questioner), bullae and corneal epithelial defects presence, as well as corneal neovascularization and complications (biomicroscopy) were compared during 6 months.
Read the detailed description
INTRODUCTION Handling of patients with severe eye surface injuries has always been challenging in the field of ophthalmology. One of the most significant pathologies causing severe injuries is Bullous Keratopathy (BK). This disorder is caused by a failure in corneal endothelial pump (Na+/K+/ATPase) characterized by chronic stromal edema, and it tends to evolve to the production of corneal vesicles and bullae due to the drainage of fluid to the anterior corneal layers as a consequence of intraocular pressure(1). Most common causes of BK are intraocular surgical procedures including those related to cataract surgery(2). This entity conforms the first cause for corneal transplant in the USA (from 26 to 50%) and the second in Europe(3,4,5).
Clinically, BK is characterized by chronic ocular pain, which is secondary to recurrent epithelial defects, ocular surface inflammation and visual sharpness decrease(1). Definitive treatment for patients with BK with remaining visual potential is corneal transplant. However, donor grafts are not always available and they often require long waiting times. For those reasons, medical and surgical palliative measures should be temporarily used to relief ocular pain. Among others, the use of therapeutic contact lenses stands out as one of the best alternatives due to its contribution to the prevention of epithelial falling and ulceration, acting as a mechanical bandage(6,7,8). These contact lenses do not improve visual sharpness neither contribute to the resolution of the problem that originated corneal edema. Besides, prolonged use of contact lenses may be associated to potential complications such as ocular disturbance, superficial neovascularization, inflammation and corneal infections, together with the economical expenses that patients have to deal with(6).
In 1940, De Roth described for the first time the use of human amniotic membrane (AM) in ophthalmology, and since that date, multiple studies guaranteed its application as an efficient treatment for ocular surface diseases(9,10, 11), including BK(12,13,14,15,16,17,18). AM is a thin membrane covering the foetal side of the placenta, and it consists of the external chorion (maternal origin) and the internal amnion (foetal origin). Histologically, it is composed of three layers: epithelium, basal membrane and stroma(19).
The therapeutic effect of the AM involves three basic synergistic actions on the ocular surface: 1) induction of growth and proliferation of new epithelia on the tissues (cornea and/or conjunctiva), 2) control of the inflammation of the tissues under the implant and 3) inhibition of fibrosis and neovascularization of the corneal stroma(19). For all these reasons AM might be an effective treatment to ameliorate disturbances generated by BK. In addition, human amniotic epithelial cells do not express HLA surface antigens, which justifies the absence of graft rejection in this type of transplants(20,21) and makes it a highly safe procedure.
In the present work, we describe the results of a randomized clinical trial in which the AM grafting technique was compared with the use of therapeutic contact lenses for the management of symptomatic bullous keratopathy in patients waiting for a corneal transplant at Carlos Van Buren Hospital from Valparaiso, Chile.
PATIENTS AND METHODS Study design Randomized clinical trial. Patients The universe of this clinical trial are all patients with clinical diagnosis of symptomatic bullous keratopathy (corneal bullae, recurrent eye pain, foreign body sensation and photophobia), diagnosed at the Department of Ophthalmology Hospital Carlos Van Buren, Valparaiso, Chile, who were on the waiting list for corneal transplant from January 2008 to October 2011. Excluded patients were those with medical contraindication to undergo surgery with topical anesthesia, patients with severe systemic conditions and patients with corneal infections.
Twenty patients, corresponding to universe of patients during this period, accepted to participate in this study and were included in this clinical trial. All patients provided written consent to participate in this study, and the trial was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Universidad de Valparaiso (Nº 10/2011). Patients were randomized on a simple random basis from a prefabricated list and divided into two groups: study group (N=10), with the implant of the AM, and control group (N=10), in which contact lenses were used.
Clinical data and variables considered for the study were: demography, etiology of BK, ocular pain (evaluated by using a visual analogue scale ranging from 0 to 10) and visual acuity (Snellen scale). By using a bio-microscope we evaluated the presence of bullae and epithelial defects per quadrant (with fluorescein test) and neovascularization. After treatment, the same equipment was used to check for presence of traces of AM and complications (infection, wound dehiscence, etc) through serial controls performed over a period of 6 months.
Interventions Human AM was prepared and preserved in the Biomedical Research Centre using a method previously described by Lee and Tseng (1995). In the study group, amniotic membrane (AM) grafts were implanted in the affected eyes using topical anesthesia. Each graft was sutured to the bulbar conjunctive tissue using 10-0 nylon sutures and a reinforcement stitch was applied at the cornea (Figure 1).
Therapeutic contact lenses were applied in all patients included in the control group and the lenses were replaced every two months according to the pre-established gold standard for this procedure.
Clinical follow-up examination was performed on days 1, 7, 30, and then monthly until 6 months for both groups. Both groups were managed with topical gentamicin each 4 hours during the first week after surgery.
Statistical analysis. Data were analysed with Stata SE 12.0 software. Results corresponding to continuous variables were described by medians and interquartile range (IQR) and categorical medians were described by percentages and frequencies. Mann-Whitney statistical test was used to detect statistical differences between two continuous variables, and Fisher exact test was used for categorical variables. Association between quantitative variables was established by Kendal's tau correlation test. For all analysis, a value of p<0.05 was considered statistically significant and all analyses were carried out double tailed.
- Conditions
- Bullous Keratopathy
- Being tested
- Implant of amniotic membrane grafts, Therapeutic contact lenses
- Keywords
- amniotic membrane, contact lens, bullous keratopathy
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Implant of amniotic membrane graftsProcedure or surgery
Amniotic membrane grafts were implanted in the affected eyes using topical anesthesia. Each graft was sutured to the bulbar conjunctive tissue using 10-0 nylon sutures and a reinforcement stitch was applied at the cornea
Therapeutic contact lensesDevice
Therapeutic contact lenses were applied in all patients included in the control group and the lenses were replaced every two months according to the pre-established gold standard for this procedure.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Implant of amniotic membrane grafts | Experimental | Amniotic membrane grafts were implanted in the affected eyes using topical anesthesia. Each graft was sutured to the bulbar conjunctive tissue using 10-0 nylon sutures and a reinforcement stitch was applied at the cornea Receives: Procedure: Implant of amniotic membrane grafts |
| Therapeutic contact lenses | Active comparator | Therapeutic contact lenses were applied in all patients and the lenses were replaced every two months according to the pre-established gold standard for this procedure. Receives: Device: Therapeutic contact lenses |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Ocular pain
Evaluated by using a visual analogue scale ranging from 0 to 10
Measured: 6 months
Secondary outcomes (4)
Visual acuity
Snellen scale
Measured: 6 months
Corneal Neovascularization
Evaluation using a bio-microscope
Measured: 6 months
Corneal epithelial defects
Evaluation using a bio-microscope per quadrant with fluorescein test
Measured: 6 months
Complications
Evaluation using a bio-microscope
Measured: 6 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted21 Aug 2013 (estimated)
- Study startNov 2011
- Primary completionMay 2012
- Study completionJun 2012
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (21)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Bullous KeratopathyStudies 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 2
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Universidad de Valparaiso
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Instituto para el Desarrollo Biotecnológico y la Innovación S.A., Universidad de Granada
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, RICARDO ARIS, Universidad de Valparaiso
- Investigators
- L. Venegas, Principal investigator, Ophthalmology Unit, Van Buren Hospital, Valparaiso, Chile.M. Hettich, Principal investigator, Ophthalmology Unit, Van Buren Hospital, Valparaiso, Chile.J. Villena, Principal investigator, Biomedical Research Centre, School of Medicine, Universidad de Valparaiso, Chile.R. Aris, Principal investigator, Biomedical Research Centre, School of Medicine, Universidad de Valparaiso, Chile.M. Párraga, Principal investigator, Biomedical Research Centre, School of Medicine, Universidad de Valparaiso, Chile.O. Parolini, Principal investigator, Centro di Ricerca E. Menni, Fondazione Poliambulanza-Istituto Ospedaliero, Brescia, Italy.M. Alaminos, Principal investigator, Department of Histology, University of Granada, SpainA. Campos, Principal investigator, Biomedical Research Centre, School of Medicine, Universidad de Valparaiso, Chile.
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01926535
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- RARIS-001
- Acronym
- AMBUK
- Status last verified
- Aug 2013
- First submitted
- 15 Aug 2013
- Last updated
- 26 Aug 2013
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Publications
Nishida T. Cornea: Fundamentals of cornea and external disease. St. Louis, Mosby. 1997; p. 3-27.
Courtright P, Lewallen S, Holland SP, Wendt TM. Corneal decompensation after cataract surgery. An outbreak investigation in Asia. Ophthalmology. 1995 Oct;102(10):1461-5. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(95)30845-7.
PubMed 9097792Canner JK, Javitt JC, McBean AM. National outcomes of cataract extraction. III. Corneal edema and transplant following inpatient surgery. Arch Ophthalmol. 1992 Aug;110(8):1137-42. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1992.01080200117038.
PubMed 1497529Cosar CB, Sridhar MS, Cohen EJ, Held EL, Alvim Pde T, Rapuano CJ, Raber IM, Laibson PR. Indications for penetrating keratoplasty and associated procedures, 1996-2000. Cornea. 2002 Mar;21(2):148-51. doi: 10.1097/00003226-200203000-00003.
PubMed 11862083Maeno A, Naor J, Lee HM, Hunter WS, Rootman DS. Three decades of corneal transplantation: indications and patient characteristics. Cornea. 2000 Jan;19(1):7-11. doi: 10.1097/00003226-200001000-00002.
PubMed 10632000Jablonski J, Szafran B, Cichowska M. [Treatment of corneal complications after cataract surgery with soft contact lenses]. Klin Oczna. 1998;100(3):151-3. Polish.
PubMed 9813997Smiddy WE, Hamburg TR, Kracher GP, Gottsch JD, Stark WJ. Therapeutic contact lenses. Ophthalmology. 1990 Mar;97(3):291-5. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(90)32589-7.
PubMed 2336266Leibowitz HM, Rosenthal P. Hydrophilic contact lenses in corneal disease. II. Bullous keratopathy. Arch Ophthalmol. 1971 Mar;85(3):283-5. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1971.00990050285006. No abstract available.
PubMed 5542864Kim JC, Tseng SC. Transplantation of preserved human amniotic membrane for surface reconstruction in severely damaged rabbit corneas. Cornea. 1995 Sep;14(5):473-84.
PubMed 8536460Kim JC, Tseng SC. The effects on inhibition of corneal neovascularization after human amniotic membrane transplantation in severely damaged rabbit corneas. Korean J Ophthalmol. 1995 Jun;9(1):32-46. doi: 10.3341/kjo.1995.9.1.32.
PubMed 7674551Sangwan VS, Burman S, Tejwani S, Mahesh SP, Murthy R. Amniotic membrane transplantation: a review of current indications in the management of ophthalmic disorders. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2007 Jul-Aug;55(4):251-60. doi: 10.4103/0301-4738.33036.
PubMed 17595472Georgiadis NS, Ziakas NG, Boboridis KG, Terzidou C, Mikropoulos DG. Cryopreserved amniotic membrane transplantation for the management of symptomatic bullous keratopathy. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2008 Mar;36(2):130-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2008.01696.x.
PubMed 18352868Lee HI, Ha SW, Kim JC. A novel application of amniotic membrane in patients with bullous keratopathy. J Korean Med Sci. 2006 Apr;21(2):324-8. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2006.21.2.324.
PubMed 16614522Lopez Ferrando N, Celis Sanchez J, Gonzalez Del Valle F, Lopez Mondejar E. [Monolayered amniotic membrane transplantation as a palliative treatment for bullous keratopathy]. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol. 2004 Jan;79(1):27-31. doi: 10.4321/s0365-66912004000100007. Spanish.
PubMed 14752699Espana EM, Grueterich M, Sandoval H, Solomon A, Alfonso E, Karp CL, Fantes F, Tseng SC. Amniotic membrane transplantation for bullous keratopathy in eyes with poor visual potential. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003 Feb;29(2):279-84. doi: 10.1016/s0886-3350(02)01525-0.
PubMed 12648638
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 26 Aug 2013. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Comparative Analysis of Human Amniotic Membrane Graft Versus Contact Lenses in Syntomathic Bullous Keratopathy
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01926535
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- AMBUK / RARIS-001
- Conditions
- Bullous Keratopathy
- Keywords
- amniotic membrane, contact lens, bullous keratopathy
- Phase
- Phase 2
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Universidad de ValparaisoUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Instituto para el Desarrollo Biotecnológico y la Innovación S.A., Universidad de Granada
- Study start
- Nov 2011
- Primary completion
- May 2012 (actual)
- Study completion
- Jun 2012 (actual)
- First posted
- 21 Aug 2013 (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.
The amniotic membrane (AM) is an avascular structure derived from fetus, which is a good choice for regenerative medicine and effective treatment in eye surface pathologies such as bullous keratopathy (BK). This disease generates a chronic corneal edema evolving to the production of vesicles and bullae, chronic eye pain and visual acuity decrease.
Definitive treatment for those patients is corneal transplant; however, donation is not always available and thus requires long waiting times. The currently available palliative treatment consists in the use of contact lenses to prevent the corneal epithelium from falling. However, this may be associated with corneal neovascularization, lens displacement or loss, infections, and discomfort for the patient.
The objective of this work was to compare the use of amniotic membrane grafts versus contact lenses in patients suffering from BK awaiting a corneal transplant.
A randomized clinical trial assay was performed with patients with a clinical diagnosis of BK. Twenty patients were randomized into 2 groups: amniotic membrane and therapeutic contact lenses. Eye pain intensity (Analog visual scale), visual acuity (Snellen questioner), bullae and corneal epithelial defects presence, as well as corneal neovascularization and complications (biomicroscopy) were compared during 6 months.
Detailed description
INTRODUCTION Handling of patients with severe eye surface injuries has always been challenging in the field of ophthalmology. One of the most significant pathologies causing severe injuries is Bullous Keratopathy (BK). This disorder is caused by a failure in corneal endothelial pump (Na+/K+/ATPase) characterized by chronic stromal edema, and it tends to evolve to the production of corneal vesicles and bullae due to the drainage of fluid to the anterior corneal layers as a consequence of intraocular pressure(1). Most common causes of BK are intraocular surgical procedures including those related to cataract surgery(2). This entity conforms the first cause for corneal transplant in the USA (from 26 to 50%) and the second in Europe(3,4,5).
Clinically, BK is characterized by chronic ocular pain, which is secondary to recurrent epithelial defects, ocular surface inflammation and visual sharpness decrease(1). Definitive treatment for patients with BK with remaining visual potential is corneal transplant. However, donor grafts are not always available and they often require long waiting times. For those reasons, medical and surgical palliative measures should be temporarily used to relief ocular pain. Among others, the use of therapeutic contact lenses stands out as one of the best alternatives due to its contribution to the prevention of epithelial falling and ulceration, acting as a mechanical bandage(6,7,8). These contact lenses do not improve visual sharpness neither contribute to the resolution of the problem that originated corneal edema. Besides, prolonged use of contact lenses may be associated to potential complications such as ocular disturbance, superficial neovascularization, inflammation and corneal infections, together with the economical expenses that patients have to deal with(6).
In 1940, De Roth described for the first time the use of human amniotic membrane (AM) in ophthalmology, and since that date, multiple studies guaranteed its application as an efficient treatment for ocular surface diseases(9,10, 11), including BK(12,13,14,15,16,17,18). AM is a thin membrane covering the foetal side of the placenta, and it consists of the external chorion (maternal origin) and the internal amnion (foetal origin). Histologically, it is composed of three layers: epithelium, basal membrane and stroma(19).
The therapeutic effect of the AM involves three basic synergistic actions on the ocular surface: 1) induction of growth and proliferation of new epithelia on the tissues (cornea and/or conjunctiva), 2) control of the inflammation of the tissues under the implant and 3) inhibition of fibrosis and neovascularization of the corneal stroma(19). For all these reasons AM might be an effective treatment to ameliorate disturbances generated by BK. In addition, human amniotic epithelial cells do not express HLA surface antigens, which justifies the absence of graft rejection in this type of transplants(20,21) and makes it a highly safe procedure.
In the present work, we describe the results of a randomized clinical trial in which the AM grafting technique was compared with the use of therapeutic contact lenses for the management of symptomatic bullous keratopathy in patients waiting for a corneal transplant at Carlos Van Buren Hospital from Valparaiso, Chile.
PATIENTS AND METHODS Study design Randomized clinical trial. Patients The universe of this clinical trial are all patients with clinical diagnosis of symptomatic bullous keratopathy (corneal bullae, recurrent eye pain, foreign body sensation and photophobia), diagnosed at the Department of Ophthalmology Hospital Carlos Van Buren, Valparaiso, Chile, who were on the waiting list for corneal transplant from January 2008 to October 2011. Excluded patients were those with medical contraindication to undergo surgery with topical anesthesia, patients with severe systemic conditions and patients with corneal infections.
Twenty patients, corresponding to universe of patients during this period, accepted to participate in this study and were included in this clinical trial. All patients provided written consent to participate in this study, and the trial was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Universidad de Valparaiso (Nº 10/2011). Patients were randomized on a simple random basis from a prefabricated list and divided into two groups: study group (N=10), with the implant of the AM, and control group (N=10), in which contact lenses were used.
Clinical data and variables considered for the study were: demography, etiology of BK, ocular pain (evaluated by using a visual analogue scale ranging from 0 to 10) and visual acuity (Snellen scale). By using a bio-microscope we evaluated the presence of bullae and epithelial defects per quadrant (with fluorescein test) and neovascularization. After treatment, the same equipment was used to check for presence of traces of AM and complications (infection, wound dehiscence, etc) through serial controls performed over a period of 6 months.
Interventions Human AM was prepared and preserved in the Biomedical Research Centre using a method previously described by Lee and Tseng (1995). In the study group, amniotic membrane (AM) grafts were implanted in the affected eyes using topical anesthesia. Each graft was sutured to the bulbar conjunctive tissue using 10-0 nylon sutures and a reinforcement stitch was applied at the cornea (Figure 1).
Therapeutic contact lenses were applied in all patients included in the control group and the lenses were replaced every two months according to the pre-established gold standard for this procedure.
Clinical follow-up examination was performed on days 1, 7, 30, and then monthly until 6 months for both groups. Both groups were managed with topical gentamicin each 4 hours during the first week after surgery.
Statistical analysis. Data were analysed with Stata SE 12.0 software. Results corresponding to continuous variables were described by medians and interquartile range (IQR) and categorical medians were described by percentages and frequencies. Mann-Whitney statistical test was used to detect statistical differences between two continuous variables, and Fisher exact test was used for categorical variables. Association between quantitative variables was established by Kendal's tau correlation test. For all analysis, a value of p<0.05 was considered statistically significant and all analyses were carried out double tailed.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Implant of amniotic membrane grafts | Experimental | Procedure: Implant of amniotic membrane graftsAmniotic membrane grafts were implanted in the affected eyes using topical anesthesia. Each graft was sutured to the bulbar conjunctive tissue using 10-0 nylon sutures and a reinforcement stitch was applied at the cornea |
| Therapeutic contact lenses | Active comparator | Device: Therapeutic contact lensesTherapeutic contact lenses were applied in all patients and the lenses were replaced every two months according to the pre-established gold standard for this procedure. |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- All patients with clinical diagnosis of symptomatic bullous keratopathy (corneal bullae, recurrent eye pain, foreign body sensation and photophobia), diagnosed at the Department of Ophthalmology Hospital Carlos Van Buren, Valparaiso, Chile, who were on the waiting list for corneal transplant from January 2008 to October 2011
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Excluded patients were those with medical contraindication to undergo surgery with topical anesthesia, patients with severe systemic conditions and patients with corneal infections.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Implant of amniotic membrane graftsAmniotic membrane grafts were implanted in the affected eyes using topical anesthesia. Each graft was sutured to the bulbar conjunctive tissue using 10-0 nylon sutures and a reinforcement stitch was applied at the cornea | Procedure or surgery | Implant of amniotic membrane grafts |
| Therapeutic contact lensesTherapeutic contact lenses were applied in all patients included in the control group and the lenses were replaced every two months according to the pre-established gold standard for this procedure. | Device | Therapeutic contact lenses |
Primary outcome
Ocular pain
Time frame: 6 months
Evaluated by using a visual analogue scale ranging from 0 to 10
4 secondary outcomes
Visual acuity
Time frame: 6 months
Corneal Neovascularization
Time frame: 6 months
Corneal epithelial defects
Time frame: 6 months
Complications
Time frame: 6 months
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 26 Aug 2013.
- BackgroundNishida T. Cornea: Fundamentals of cornea and external disease. St. Louis, Mosby. 1997; p. 3-27.
- Background: PubMed 9097792Courtright P, Lewallen S, Holland SP, Wendt TM. Corneal decompensation after cataract surgery. An outbreak investigation in Asia. Ophthalmology. 1995 Oct;102(10):1461-5. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(95)30845-7.
- Background: PubMed 1497529Canner JK, Javitt JC, McBean AM. National outcomes of cataract extraction. III. Corneal edema and transplant following inpatient surgery. Arch Ophthalmol. 1992 Aug;110(8):1137-42. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1992.01080200117038.
- Background: PubMed 11862083Cosar CB, Sridhar MS, Cohen EJ, Held EL, Alvim Pde T, Rapuano CJ, Raber IM, Laibson PR. Indications for penetrating keratoplasty and associated procedures, 1996-2000. Cornea. 2002 Mar;21(2):148-51. doi: 10.1097/00003226-200203000-00003.
- Background: PubMed 10632000Maeno A, Naor J, Lee HM, Hunter WS, Rootman DS. Three decades of corneal transplantation: indications and patient characteristics. Cornea. 2000 Jan;19(1):7-11. doi: 10.1097/00003226-200001000-00002.
- Background: PubMed 9813997Jablonski J, Szafran B, Cichowska M. [Treatment of corneal complications after cataract surgery with soft contact lenses]. Klin Oczna. 1998;100(3):151-3. Polish.
- Background: PubMed 2336266Smiddy WE, Hamburg TR, Kracher GP, Gottsch JD, Stark WJ. Therapeutic contact lenses. Ophthalmology. 1990 Mar;97(3):291-5. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(90)32589-7.
- Background: PubMed 5542864Leibowitz HM, Rosenthal P. Hydrophilic contact lenses in corneal disease. II. Bullous keratopathy. Arch Ophthalmol. 1971 Mar;85(3):283-5. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1971.00990050285006. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 8536460Kim JC, Tseng SC. Transplantation of preserved human amniotic membrane for surface reconstruction in severely damaged rabbit corneas. Cornea. 1995 Sep;14(5):473-84.
- Background: PubMed 7674551Kim JC, Tseng SC. The effects on inhibition of corneal neovascularization after human amniotic membrane transplantation in severely damaged rabbit corneas. Korean J Ophthalmol. 1995 Jun;9(1):32-46. doi: 10.3341/kjo.1995.9.1.32.
- Background: PubMed 17595472Sangwan VS, Burman S, Tejwani S, Mahesh SP, Murthy R. Amniotic membrane transplantation: a review of current indications in the management of ophthalmic disorders. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2007 Jul-Aug;55(4):251-60. doi: 10.4103/0301-4738.33036.
- Background: PubMed 18352868Georgiadis NS, Ziakas NG, Boboridis KG, Terzidou C, Mikropoulos DG. Cryopreserved amniotic membrane transplantation for the management of symptomatic bullous keratopathy. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2008 Mar;36(2):130-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2008.01696.x.
- Link to the appropriate approved drug page at FDA's Drugs@FDA web site.Link provided by the sponsor.
Related trials for Bullous Keratopathy
RecruitingPhase 2
Study of EO2002 in Subjects With Corneal Edema Secondary to Corneal Endothelial Dysfunction
Corneal Edema, Fuchs
Not yet recruiting
Utilization of Residual Donor Tissue for Regrafting in Bullous Keratopathy After Corneal Transplantation
Bullous Keratopathy
Active, not recruitingPhase 3
AURN001 Efficacy in Participants With Corneal Edema Secondary to Corneal Endothelial Dysfunction
Corneal Edema, Corneal Endothelial Dysfunction
Active, not recruiting
The Belgian Endothelial Surgical Transplant of the Cornea
Corneal Edema, Corneal Endothelial Disorder
RecruitingPhase 1
Simple Non-cultured Endothelial Cell Therapy for Corneal Endothelial Dysfunction
Bullous Keratopathy, Corneal Endothelial Dystrophy
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.
L. Venegas principal investigator
Ophthalmology Unit, Van Buren Hospital, Valparaiso, Chile.
M. Hettich principal investigator
Ophthalmology Unit, Van Buren Hospital, Valparaiso, Chile.
J. Villena principal investigator
Biomedical Research Centre, School of Medicine, Universidad de Valparaiso, Chile.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 2 study testing Implant of amniotic membrane grafts and Therapeutic contact lenses in people with Bullous Keratopathy, run by Universidad de Valparaiso at 1 site in Chile.
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 26 Aug 2013. 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 Chile. 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.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 2 studies give the treatment to a larger group to see whether it has the intended effect and to keep checking safety.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
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?
Ocular pain (time frame: 6 months). 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 NCT01926535, which also lists 21 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 2013.