AzTrials
AzTrials

KeratoconusKCXL-1YNCT07194538

One-Year Outcomes After Conventional vs Accelerated Epi-Off Corneal Cross-Linking in Progressive Keratoconus (Observational Cohort)

An observational study of Keratoconus, run by Clinical Hospital Centre Zagreb at 1 site in Croatia.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

Prospective, observational (consecutive eligible eyes) continuation of a previously published 6-month cohort from the same center, extending follow-up to 12 months. Patients with progressive keratoconus received either conventional (CXL30: 3 mW/cm² × 30 min) or accelerated (CXL10: 9 mW/cm² × 10 min) epi-off CXL as… Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Any age
Conditions the study is for
Keratoconus
How many people
20 participants
Where
1 siteCroatia
Study dates
9 May 2021to 12 Jan 2023
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 Any age
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Child, Adult, Older adult

Study population: Patients with progressive keratoconus treated at University Hospital Centre Zagreb (Croatia).

Who may be able to join

  • Progressive keratoconus documented on serial Scheimpflug tomography within the prior 12 months (ABCD/K-metrics and/or pachymetry).
  • Clear corneal axis (no visually significant scarring).
  • Corneal thickness 370 μm or more

Who cannot join

  • No central corneal scars, prior chemical burns, severe corneal infection, or ocular surface disease.
  • No pregnancy and lactation during treatment.

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Croatia1 site
  • University Hospital Centre Zagreb

    Zagreb, 10 000

Other trials in Croatia

About this study

Official title: One-Year Follow-Up of Clinical and Tomographic Parameters After Conventional (3 mW/cm² × 30 Min) Versus Accelerated (9-10 mW/cm² × 10 Min) Epi-Off Corneal Collagen Cross-Linking

Prospective, observational (consecutive eligible eyes) continuation of a previously published 6-month cohort from the same center, extending follow-up to 12 months. Patients with progressive keratoconus received either conventional (CXL30: 3 mW/cm² × 30 min) or accelerated (CXL10: 9 mW/cm² × 10 min) epi-off CXL as part of routine clinical care. Assignment to CXL30 or CXL10 was at the discretion of the treating surgeon; no prospective allocation or randomization was performed. Outcomes included ABCD grading metrics (ABCD-A/B), Kmax, anterior/posterior radii of curvature (ARC/PRC), thinnest pachymetry, and visual acuity at 12 months. The primary objective was to evaluate one-year stabilization/remodeling and compare anterior/posterior responses between protocols.

Read the detailed description

This prospective, single-center observational cohort extends the follow-up of a previously reported 6-month series from the same center to a 12-month horizon. The study population comprises consecutive patients with progressive keratoconus managed with standard-of-care, epi-off corneal collagen cross-linking (CXL) at the University Hospital Centre Zagreb. Patients were treated according to routine clinical decision-making by the attending surgeon; no prospective allocation or randomization to a protocol was performed. In routine care, some eyes underwent conventional CXL30 (Dresden-type; UVA 370 nm, 3 mW/cm² for 30 min) and others underwent CXL10 (accelerated; UVA 370 nm, 9 mW/cm² for 10 min). Riboflavin 0.1% solution was used per institutional practice. All procedures were epi-off.

Rationale. While both conventional and accelerated CXL are widely used in daily practice, comparative one-year data that integrate tomographic metrics from the ABCD grading system with traditional surrogates (e.g., Kmax) help clarify the balance between anterior corneal flattening, posterior remodeling, and pachymetric behavior under real-world conditions. This observational design captures effectiveness and safety without altering clinical decision pathways.

Design and cohorts. Consecutive eligible eyes were enrolled at the time of surgery and followed prospectively at baseline (day of surgery) and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Two observational cohorts are defined post hoc by the protocol actually received in standard care:

CXL30 (Conventional): continuous UVA 3 mW/cm² × 30 min (Dresden-type).

CXL10 (Accelerated): continuous UVA 9 mW/cm² × 10 min.

Assignment to CXL30 vs CXL10 was at the surgeon's discretion based on routine clinical considerations; the study did not prospectively assign interventions.

Eligibility. Inclusion required progressive keratoconus documented on serial Scheimpflug tomography within the prior 12 months; a clear corneal axis (no visually significant scarring); and corneal thickness 370 µm or more per institutional safety protocol. Exclusions comprised no central corneal scars, prior chemical burns, severe corneal infection, or ocular surface disease. Pregnancy and lactation during treatment were also contraindications.

Examinations and outcomes. Outcomes were assessed using Scheimpflug tomography (e.g., Pentacam or equivalent) and standard visual testing. The primary outcome was change in ABCD-A (anterior corneal curvature metric) from baseline to 12 months. Secondary outcomes included Kmax, anterior and posterior radii of curvature (ARC/PRC), thinnest pachymetry, and UDVA/BCVA at 12 months. Safety endpoints encompassed delayed epithelial healing (>7 days), infectious keratitis, clinically significant corneal haze, endothelial decompensation, and need for re-treatment.

Follow-up timeline. Enrollment/treatment occurred May 2021-December 2021; 12-month follow-up was completed by January 2023. Of the 28 eyes in the previously reported 6-month cohort, 22 completed the 12-month visit and were included in this analysis.

Data handling and oversight. Data were collected prospectively in a standardized fashion and analyzed as observational (no masking, no allocation). The protocol was reviewed and approved by the institutional Ethics Committee; all analyses used de-identified data. No data monitoring committee was required given the non-interventional, standard-of-care nature of the study.

Statistical approach (summary). Effectiveness outcomes are summarized descriptively; within-cohort change from baseline to 12 months is evaluated with paired tests on continuous variables as appropriate to distributional assumptions. Between-cohort comparisons (CXL30 vs CXL10) at 12 months and for change scores are explored with two-sample tests or generalized linear models with adjustment for prespecified covariates (e.g., baseline severity indices) where applicable. Statistical significance is assessed at a two-sided α = 0.05, with corresponding confidence intervals to aid interpretation.

Conditions
Keratoconus
Keywords
keratoconus, corneal crosslinking, conventional CXL, accelerated CXL, ABCD grading system, one-year outcome, Scheimpflug tomography
Medical subject headings
Keratoconus

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

Study groups in NCT07194538
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Cohort 1 - CXL30 (Conventional)Conventional Dresden protocol; irradiance 3 mW/cm² for 30 minutes; epi-off; riboflavin 0.1%. Assignment was per treating surgeon's standard-of-care decision (no prospective allocation).
Cohort 2 - CXL10 (Accelerated)Accelerated protocol; irradiance 9 mW/cm² for 10 minutes; epi-off; riboflavin 0.1%. Assignment was per treating surgeon's standard-of-care decision (no prospective allocation).

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Change in ABCD-A from baseline to 12 months

    Belin ABCD parameter A = A stage (ordinal severity stage); Belin ABCD keratoconus grading system (A = anterior corneal radius of curvature at the thinnest point; B = posterior corneal radius of curvature at the thinnest point; C = thinnest corneal pachymetry; D = distance best-corrected visual acuity).

    minimum value 0, maximum value 4 (ordinal scale 0-4) higher score means worse outcome

    Measured: 12 months

Secondary outcomes (5)
  1. Change in ARC from baseline to 12 months

    ABCD A = ARC; mm ARC - anterior radius curvature calculated from a 3.0 mm optical zone centered on the thinnest point of the cornea higher = flatter (better); mm

    Measured: 12 months

  2. Change in PRC from baseline to 12 months

    PRC; mm PRC - posterior radius curvature calculated from a 3.0 mm optical zone centered on the thinnest point of the cornea higher = flatter (better); mm Time Frame: 12 months

    Measured: 12 months

  3. Change in Kmax from baseline to 12 months

    Measured: 12 months

  4. Change in UDVA and BCVA from baseline to 12 months

    UDVA = uncorrected visual acuity ; BVCA = best corrected visual acuity

    Measured: 12 months

  5. Change in thinnest pachymetry from baseline to 12 months

    Measured: 12 months

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted26 Sep 2025
  2. Study start9 May 2021
  3. Primary completion12 Jan 2023
  4. Study completion12 Jan 2023

Resources

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
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrolment
20 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT07194538
Sponsor's protocol ID
8.1-25/223-2 02/013 AG
Acronym
KCXL-1Y
Status last verified
Sep 2025
First submitted
18 Sep 2025
Last updated
1 Oct 2025
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
No: Individual participant datasets will not be shared. The informed consent and IRB approval did not include permission for public sharing of participant-level data, and the small, single-center cohort with imaging-derived variables carries a residual re-identification risk. De-identified aggregate results and summary tables will be available in the published article and can be provided upon reasonable request to the corresponding author, subject to institutional approvals.

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

An observational study of Keratoconus, run by Clinical Hospital Centre Zagreb at 1 site in Croatia.

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: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 1 Oct 2025. 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 Croatia. 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?

Change in ABCD-A from baseline to 12 months (time frame: 12 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?
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 1 Oct 2025.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in