Corneal Ulcer (Diagnosis)NCT04230811
Diagnosing Corneal Infection
An observational study of Corneal Ulcer (Diagnosis), run by University of Edinburgh at 1 site in United Kingdom.
Trial summary
Microbial keratitis is a common and serious eye disease in Edinburgh. Prompt treatment with antibiotics can prevent sight loss, and identification of the micro-organism and its antibiotic sensitivities are key to appropriate management. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Corneal Ulcer (Diagnosis)
- What is being tested?
- Corneal impression membrane (Millicell Cell Culture Insert, 12mm, hydrophilic PTFE 0.4µm (PICM01250))
- How many people
- 0 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited Kingdom
- Study dates
- 1 Feb 2025to 31 Oct 2025
- Phase
- Observational
- 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 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: Patients attending the Princess Alexandra Eye Pavilion in Edinburgh, who are given a clinical diagnosis of microbial keratitis in one or both eyes
Who may be able to join
- Adult patients 18 years old or older
- Appearances typical of a new bacterial, fungal or acanthamoeba infection of the cornea, in one or both eyes
- Able to give informed consent
Who cannot join
- Patients who don't give consent
- Patients who would not normally have a corneal scrape as part of routine care. This includes patients with viral rather than bacterial corneal infection, such as herpetic keratitis.
- Patients with corneal perforation or descemetocele
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Diagnosis of Microbial Keratitis Using Corneal Impression Membrane
Microbial keratitis is a common and serious eye disease in Edinburgh. Prompt treatment with antibiotics can prevent sight loss, and identification of the micro-organism and its antibiotic sensitivities are key to appropriate management. Standard practice of collecting infected material from the cornea using a blade can be distressing and time-consuming. Corneal impression membranes (CIM) have recently been introduced to another National Health Service (NHS) eye unit (St Paul's Eye Unit, Liverpool) as they detect more micro-organisms and are more patient-friendly than corneal scrape. The aim of this study is to compare CIM with reference to current standard practice of corneal scrape. If CIM have greater sensitivity and fewer adverse events than scrape then the investigators will consider using CIM instead of scrape in routine clinical care. The investigators will also collect additional CIM to help develop new microbiological tests being developed at the University of Edinburgh, which if successful could be applied to CIM at the bedside to further improve the speed of diagnosis in the future. Development of the new microbiological tests is facilitated by having samples of germs from eye infections.
Study design: cross-sectional study comparing diagnostic techniques Participants: recruited from the Acute referral clinic at the Princess Alexandra Eye Pavilion, or emergency on-call ophthalmology service What is involved: subjects with microbial keratitis will have standard investigations to identify the germ causing the infection. In addition the investigators will capture germs using CIM, and will compare CIM with the standard test to see which is better.
Funding: departmental funding
Read the detailed description
Microbial keratitis is a common serious eye disease in Edinburgh. Prompt treatment with antibiotics can prevent sight loss, and identification of the micro-organism and its sensitivities are key to appropriate management. It is standard practice to collect multiple samples from the cornea using a needle or blade and plate material from an ulcer onto culture media. However this can be distressing to the patient, and the procedure can be especially difficult in those who are not co-operative or where there is a risk of corneal perforation. Corneal scrapes are also time consuming to prepare and perform. Corneal impression membranes (CIM) have recently been introduced to clinical practice in St Paul's Eye Unit in Liverpool, after a study found significantly higher isolation of micro-organisms from CIM compared to corneal scrape (40.8% vs 26.9% in n=130 eyes). However, CIM are not currently used in clinical practice in Scotland, and the results from Liverpool have not yet been replicated in a second study.
What questions does the study aim to answer?
- Is CIM better at capturing the germ causing corneal infection than corneal scrape in Edinburgh?
- Is CIM acceptable in terms of side effects, compared to corneal scrape?
- Can new diagnostic techniques be used on CIM to detect micro-organisms?
What new information will the research provide? Whether or not CIM are clinically useful in Edinburgh. It is possible that this study will find a higher frequency of contaminants with CIM, and the investigators will record the specific organism as well as the frequency for analysis. The project will also determine if new diagnostic techniques being developed in the University of Edinburgh can be used on CIM from patients.
This is a cross-sectional study aiming to compare the diagnostic accuracy of corneal impression membrane (CIM) against a clinical reference standard of corneal scrape.
The hypothesis is that the CIM is better at picking up germs from the eye than the traditional corneal scrape. A second hypothesis is that CIM is more acceptable for the patient.
The study follows the methods of a previous study in Liverpool, and will recruit a consecutive series of patients with bacterial, fungal, or acanthamoeba microbial keratitis. Patients seen in the Princess Alexandra Eye Pavilion Acute Referral Clinic, or in evenings or weekends on-call, will be invited to take part. The study aims to recruit 120 eyes (to detect a difference of 0.15 between the discordant proportions (80% power, 2-sided significance 5%; McNemar's test; based on the results of the Liverpool study).
Following informed consent a doctor will anaesthetise the cornea and collect corneal material from the ulcer using surgical blades. Corneal scrape will be done once for each plate of culture media, once for a Gram stain smear, and once for acanthamoeba (if indicated), per eye. This is standard clinical care.
After this, a series of four CIM will be applied to the ulcer, while the eye is still anaesthetised. The CIM is a circle of filter paper on a plastic applicator. It is touched to the ulcer for 3-5 seconds, and then placed in a sterile container with broth.
Samples from the cornea will be sent to microbiology for processing, according to standard clinical practice, along with one CIM for comparison. Three further CIM will be sent to the University of Edinburgh for analysis using new microbiological tests. Patients will be treated empirically according to current local standard practice while awaiting microbiology results.
How is keratitis diagnosed? A doctor can tell if there is an infection of the cornea (i.e. diagnose microbial keratitis) simply by examining the eye. However, in order to find out which germ is causing the infection samples of the ulcer must be sent to the microbiology lab. Traditionally this is done by scraping the cornea with a blade or needle, but this is unpleasant and doesn't always pick up germs from the eye. The investigators think that the CIM will pick up more germs and be less unpleasant for the patient.
What will the new microbiological tests at the University involve? CIM sent to the University will be tested in a lab using new methods currently under development. These use special probes to detect bacteria. The investigators will determine whether optical Smart Probes, which are able to detect Gram positive or Gram negative bacteria or fungi in real-time (developed within the Proteus group (proteus.ac.uk) at the University of Edinburgh) are able to identify the infective pathogen on the CIM.
How and where will patients be recruited? Patients presenting to the Princess Alexandra Eye Pavilion will be invited to take part if they have symptoms and signs that are typical of microbial keratitis. These patients will be recruited from the Acute Referral Clinic, or the on-call service out of hours.
How long will visits take? A normal visit to the Acute Referral Clinic or on-call eye doctor for microbial keratitis can take up to an hour. The extra work of consenting the patient and applying CIM is unlikely to add a significant amount of time to the visit. The investigators estimate an addition of less than 30min in most cases. Although patients can take longer to decide to take part, the process of applying the CIM is itself very quick (approximately 5min overall, the CIM are only on the eye for 3-5 seconds each).
Are there any follow up visits? Patients will be followed up as part of standard care, but this project does not involve any follow up for research purposes.
How are participants treated? Standard care for microbial keratitis is broad spectrum antibiotic eye drops. These are given straight away after the corneal scrape. Antibiotic treatment is changed later if the lab test results show this is necessary. The investigators will treat according to standard practice.
Do ophthalmologists require special training to apply the CIM? The investigators will give the doctors one training session on correct procedures for scrape and CIM. In addition there will be instructions for how to apply the CIM in a bag with the CIM to be used for each participant.
If there is an ulcer in both eyes will you sample both? Yes
Will the participant have had any treatment before recruitment? Possibly. Sometimes patients with microbial keratitis have been treated by their optician or General Practitioner (GP) before being sent to the Eye Pavilion. This will not affect eligibility for the study, but the investigators will record which antibiotics have been used before recruitment.
How are CIM prepared? CIM are supplied from Merck in sterile packaging. They are ready to use. There is no further processing.
- Conditions
- Corneal Ulcer (Diagnosis)
- Being tested
- Corneal impression membrane (Millicell Cell Culture Insert, 12mm, hydrophilic PTFE 0.4µm (PICM01250))
- Medical subject headings
- Corneal Ulcer, Disease
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Corneal impression membrane (Millicell Cell Culture Insert, 12mm, hydrophilic PTFE 0.4µm (PICM01250))Diagnostic test
Application of corneal membrane to the cornea for 3-5 seconds, after anaesthesia
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Sensitivity
Sensitivity of corneal membrane to detect microbes, compared to corneal scrape
Measured: through study completion, an average of 1 year
Secondary outcomes (1)
Adverse events
Rate of adverse events related to use of corneal membrane
Measured: through study completion, an average of 1 year
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted18 Jan 2020
- Study start1 Feb 2025
- Primary completion31 Oct 2025
- Study completion31 Oct 2025
Why it stopped: Study did not start due to COVID and long term staff sickness
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (3)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Corneal Ulcer (Diagnosis)Studies 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
- Observational
- Observational model
- Case only
- Time perspective
- Cross-sectional
- Enrolment
- 0 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Edinburgh
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Ian MacCormick, MBChB PhD, Principal investigator, University of Edinburgh
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04230811
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- AC19051
- Status last verified
- Feb 2026
- First submitted
- 9 Jan 2020
- Last updated
- 27 Feb 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Kaye S, Sueke H, Romano V, Chen JY, Carnt N, Tuft S, Neal T. Impression membrane for the diagnosis of microbial keratitis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016 May;100(5):607-10. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2015-307091. Epub 2015 Sep 16.
PubMed 26377412Akram AR, Avlonitis N, Lilienkampf A, Perez-Lopez AM, McDonald N, Chankeshwara SV, Scholefield E, Haslett C, Bradley M, Dhaliwal K. A labelled-ubiquicidin antimicrobial peptide for immediate in situ optical detection of live bacteria in human alveolar lung tissue. Chem Sci. 2015 Dec 1;6(12):6971-6979. doi: 10.1039/c5sc00960j. Epub 2015 Jun 29.
PubMed 29861935Akram AR, Chankeshwara SV, Scholefield E, Aslam T, McDonald N, Megia-Fernandez A, Marshall A, Mills B, Avlonitis N, Craven TH, Smyth AM, Collie DS, Gray C, Hirani N, Hill AT, Govan JR, Walsh T, Haslett C, Bradley M, Dhaliwal K. In situ identification of Gram-negative bacteria in human lungs using a topical fluorescent peptide targeting lipid A. Sci Transl Med. 2018 Oct 24;10(464):eaal0033. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aal0033.
PubMed 30355797
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 27 Feb 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Diagnosis of Microbial Keratitis Using Corneal Impression Membrane
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04230811
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- AC19051
- Conditions
- Corneal Ulcer (Diagnosis)
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- WithdrawnReason stopped: Study did not start due to COVID and long term staff sickness
- Enrolment
- 0 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of EdinburghUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Feb 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Oct 2025 (actual)
- Study completion
- 31 Oct 2025 (actual)
- First posted
- 18 Jan 2020 (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.
Microbial keratitis is a common and serious eye disease in Edinburgh. Prompt treatment with antibiotics can prevent sight loss, and identification of the micro-organism and its antibiotic sensitivities are key to appropriate management. Standard practice of collecting infected material from the cornea using a blade can be distressing and time-consuming. Corneal impression membranes (CIM) have recently been introduced to another National Health Service (NHS) eye unit (St Paul's Eye Unit, Liverpool) as they detect more micro-organisms and are more patient-friendly than corneal scrape. The aim of this study is to compare CIM with reference to current standard practice of corneal scrape. If CIM have greater sensitivity and fewer adverse events than scrape then the investigators will consider using CIM instead of scrape in routine clinical care. The investigators will also collect additional CIM to help develop new microbiological tests being developed at the University of Edinburgh, which if successful could be applied to CIM at the bedside to further improve the speed of diagnosis in the future. Development of the new microbiological tests is facilitated by having samples of germs from eye infections.
Study design: cross-sectional study comparing diagnostic techniques Participants: recruited from the Acute referral clinic at the Princess Alexandra Eye Pavilion, or emergency on-call ophthalmology service What is involved: subjects with microbial keratitis will have standard investigations to identify the germ causing the infection. In addition the investigators will capture germs using CIM, and will compare CIM with the standard test to see which is better.
Funding: departmental funding
Detailed description
Microbial keratitis is a common serious eye disease in Edinburgh. Prompt treatment with antibiotics can prevent sight loss, and identification of the micro-organism and its sensitivities are key to appropriate management. It is standard practice to collect multiple samples from the cornea using a needle or blade and plate material from an ulcer onto culture media. However this can be distressing to the patient, and the procedure can be especially difficult in those who are not co-operative or where there is a risk of corneal perforation. Corneal scrapes are also time consuming to prepare and perform. Corneal impression membranes (CIM) have recently been introduced to clinical practice in St Paul's Eye Unit in Liverpool, after a study found significantly higher isolation of micro-organisms from CIM compared to corneal scrape (40.8% vs 26.9% in n=130 eyes). However, CIM are not currently used in clinical practice in Scotland, and the results from Liverpool have not yet been replicated in a second study.
What questions does the study aim to answer?
- Is CIM better at capturing the germ causing corneal infection than corneal scrape in Edinburgh?
- Is CIM acceptable in terms of side effects, compared to corneal scrape?
- Can new diagnostic techniques be used on CIM to detect micro-organisms?
What new information will the research provide? Whether or not CIM are clinically useful in Edinburgh. It is possible that this study will find a higher frequency of contaminants with CIM, and the investigators will record the specific organism as well as the frequency for analysis. The project will also determine if new diagnostic techniques being developed in the University of Edinburgh can be used on CIM from patients.
This is a cross-sectional study aiming to compare the diagnostic accuracy of corneal impression membrane (CIM) against a clinical reference standard of corneal scrape.
The hypothesis is that the CIM is better at picking up germs from the eye than the traditional corneal scrape. A second hypothesis is that CIM is more acceptable for the patient.
The study follows the methods of a previous study in Liverpool, and will recruit a consecutive series of patients with bacterial, fungal, or acanthamoeba microbial keratitis. Patients seen in the Princess Alexandra Eye Pavilion Acute Referral Clinic, or in evenings or weekends on-call, will be invited to take part. The study aims to recruit 120 eyes (to detect a difference of 0.15 between the discordant proportions (80% power, 2-sided significance 5%; McNemar's test; based on the results of the Liverpool study).
Following informed consent a doctor will anaesthetise the cornea and collect corneal material from the ulcer using surgical blades. Corneal scrape will be done once for each plate of culture media, once for a Gram stain smear, and once for acanthamoeba (if indicated), per eye. This is standard clinical care.
After this, a series of four CIM will be applied to the ulcer, while the eye is still anaesthetised. The CIM is a circle of filter paper on a plastic applicator. It is touched to the ulcer for 3-5 seconds, and then placed in a sterile container with broth.
Samples from the cornea will be sent to microbiology for processing, according to standard clinical practice, along with one CIM for comparison. Three further CIM will be sent to the University of Edinburgh for analysis using new microbiological tests. Patients will be treated empirically according to current local standard practice while awaiting microbiology results.
How is keratitis diagnosed? A doctor can tell if there is an infection of the cornea (i.e. diagnose microbial keratitis) simply by examining the eye. However, in order to find out which germ is causing the infection samples of the ulcer must be sent to the microbiology lab. Traditionally this is done by scraping the cornea with a blade or needle, but this is unpleasant and doesn't always pick up germs from the eye. The investigators think that the CIM will pick up more germs and be less unpleasant for the patient.
What will the new microbiological tests at the University involve? CIM sent to the University will be tested in a lab using new methods currently under development. These use special probes to detect bacteria. The investigators will determine whether optical Smart Probes, which are able to detect Gram positive or Gram negative bacteria or fungi in real-time (developed within the Proteus group (proteus.ac.uk) at the University of Edinburgh) are able to identify the infective pathogen on the CIM.
How and where will patients be recruited? Patients presenting to the Princess Alexandra Eye Pavilion will be invited to take part if they have symptoms and signs that are typical of microbial keratitis. These patients will be recruited from the Acute Referral Clinic, or the on-call service out of hours.
How long will visits take? A normal visit to the Acute Referral Clinic or on-call eye doctor for microbial keratitis can take up to an hour. The extra work of consenting the patient and applying CIM is unlikely to add a significant amount of time to the visit. The investigators estimate an addition of less than 30min in most cases. Although patients can take longer to decide to take part, the process of applying the CIM is itself very quick (approximately 5min overall, the CIM are only on the eye for 3-5 seconds each).
Are there any follow up visits? Patients will be followed up as part of standard care, but this project does not involve any follow up for research purposes.
How are participants treated? Standard care for microbial keratitis is broad spectrum antibiotic eye drops. These are given straight away after the corneal scrape. Antibiotic treatment is changed later if the lab test results show this is necessary. The investigators will treat according to standard practice.
Do ophthalmologists require special training to apply the CIM? The investigators will give the doctors one training session on correct procedures for scrape and CIM. In addition there will be instructions for how to apply the CIM in a bag with the CIM to be used for each participant.
If there is an ulcer in both eyes will you sample both? Yes
Will the participant have had any treatment before recruitment? Possibly. Sometimes patients with microbial keratitis have been treated by their optician or General Practitioner (GP) before being sent to the Eye Pavilion. This will not affect eligibility for the study, but the investigators will record which antibiotics have been used before recruitment.
How are CIM prepared? CIM are supplied from Merck in sterile packaging. They are ready to use. There is no further processing.
Study design
- Observational model
- Case only
- Time perspective
- Cross-sectional
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Patients attending the Princess Alexandra Eye Pavilion in Edinburgh, who are given a clinical diagnosis of microbial keratitis in one or both eyes
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Adult patients 18 years old or older
- Appearances typical of a new bacterial, fungal or acanthamoeba infection of the cornea, in one or both eyes
- Able to give informed consent
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Patients who don't give consent
- Patients who would not normally have a corneal scrape as part of routine care. This includes patients with viral rather than bacterial corneal infection, such as herpetic keratitis.
- Patients with corneal perforation or descemetocele
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Corneal impression membrane (Millicell Cell Culture Insert, 12mm, hydrophilic PTFE 0.4µm (PICM01250))Application of corneal membrane to the cornea for 3-5 seconds, after anaesthesia | Diagnostic test | – |
Primary outcome
Sensitivity
Time frame: through study completion, an average of 1 year
Sensitivity of corneal membrane to detect microbes, compared to corneal scrape
1 secondary outcome
Adverse events
Time frame: through study completion, an average of 1 year
Results and safety
The study was withdrawn before enrolling participants, so there are no results.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 27 Feb 2026.
- Background: PubMed 26377412Kaye S, Sueke H, Romano V, Chen JY, Carnt N, Tuft S, Neal T. Impression membrane for the diagnosis of microbial keratitis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016 May;100(5):607-10. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2015-307091. Epub 2015 Sep 16.
- Background: PubMed 29861935Akram AR, Avlonitis N, Lilienkampf A, Perez-Lopez AM, McDonald N, Chankeshwara SV, Scholefield E, Haslett C, Bradley M, Dhaliwal K. A labelled-ubiquicidin antimicrobial peptide for immediate in situ optical detection of live bacteria in human alveolar lung tissue. Chem Sci. 2015 Dec 1;6(12):6971-6979. doi: 10.1039/c5sc00960j. Epub 2015 Jun 29.
- Background: PubMed 30355797Akram AR, Chankeshwara SV, Scholefield E, Aslam T, McDonald N, Megia-Fernandez A, Marshall A, Mills B, Avlonitis N, Craven TH, Smyth AM, Collie DS, Gray C, Hirani N, Hill AT, Govan JR, Walsh T, Haslett C, Bradley M, Dhaliwal K. In situ identification of Gram-negative bacteria in human lungs using a topical fluorescent peptide targeting lipid A. Sci Transl Med. 2018 Oct 24;10(464):eaal0033. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aal0033.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Corneal Ulcer (Diagnosis)
RecruitingPhase 3
Parasitic Ulcer Treatment Trial
Acanthamoeba Keratitis
Recruiting
Intrastromal Moxifloxacin as an Adjunctive Therapy in Recalcitrant Bacterial Keratitis
Bacterial Keratitis, Recalcitrant Infectious Keratitis
Not yet recruiting
A Single-Center Clinical Study Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Allogeneic Natural Killer (NK) Cell Transplantation for Mooren's Ulcer
Cornea Disease
Not yet recruitingPhase 2
Fluorometholone Study
Keratitis Bacterial, Corneal Ulcer (Diagnosis)
RecruitingPhase 3
Fungal Ulcer Treatment Augmented With Natamycin and Cyclosporine A
Fungal Keratitis, Corneal Ulcer
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.
Ian MacCormick, MBChB PhD principal investigator
University of Edinburgh
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 Corneal Ulcer (Diagnosis), run by University of Edinburgh at 1 site in United Kingdom.
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 3 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: withdrawn, as of the sponsor's last update on 27 Feb 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 United Kingdom. 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 was withdrawn before enrolling participants, so there are no results.
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?
Sensitivity (time frame: through study completion, an average of 1 year). 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 NCT04230811, which also lists 3 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 27 Feb 2026.