Acute Ocular Hypertension GlaucomaNCT07495449
Effect of Infusion Warming on Mannitol Infusion Pain in Patients With Acute Ocular Hypertension
A study testing Infusion Warming Device and Routine Non-Warmed Mannitol Infusion in people with Acute Ocular Hypertension Glaucoma and Intraocular Hypertension, run by Joint Shantou International Eye Center of Shantou University and the Chinese University of Hong Kong at 1 site in China.
Trial summary
Acute ocular hypertension is a common ophthalmic emergency that often requires rapid reduction of intraocular pressure. Intravenous mannitol is widely used for this purpose, but infusion-related pain and local venous irritation may reduce patient comfort, interfere with infusion speed, and affect treatment experience. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Acute Ocular Hypertension Glaucoma, Intraocular Hypertension, Primary Angle-Closure Glaucoma
- What is being tested?
- Infusion Warming Device and Routine Non-Warmed Mannitol Infusion
- Type of treatment
- Injection or infusion, Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 142 participants
- Where
- 1 siteChina
- Study dates
- 9 Jan 2025to 27 Jul 2025
- 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 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Patients with acute ocular hypertension requiring intravenous mannitol treatment in the ophthalmology setting
- Age 18 years or older
- Conscious and able to communicate pain and comfort during infusion
- Able to provide informed consent personally or via a legally authorized representative when appropriate
- Able to complete study-related assessments during and shortly after mannitol infusion
Who cannot join
- Patients who did not require intravenous mannitol treatment
- Known contraindication to intravenous mannitol treatment according to routine clinical practice
- Patients receiving infusion of heat-sensitive fluids or medications for which infusion warming was not appropriate
- Severe cognitive impairment, communication difficulty, or other conditions preventing reliable assessment of pain or comfort
- Failure to complete key study outcome assessments
- Refusal to participate in the study
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
China1 site
Joint Shantou International Eye Center of Shantou University and The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Shantou, Guangdong, 515041
About this study
Official title: Effect of Intravenous Infusion Warming on Pain, Comfort, Phlebitis, and Intraocular Pressure Outcomes During Mannitol Infusion in Patients With Acute Ocular Hypertension: A Randomized Controlled Study
Acute ocular hypertension is a common ophthalmic emergency that often requires rapid reduction of intraocular pressure. Intravenous mannitol is widely used for this purpose, but infusion-related pain and local venous irritation may reduce patient comfort, interfere with infusion speed, and affect treatment experience. This randomized controlled study aims to evaluate whether use of an infusion warming device during intravenous mannitol administration can reduce infusion-related pain, improve patient comfort, decrease local infusion-related complications, and improve infusion efficiency and short-term intraocular pressure outcomes in patients with acute ocular hypertension.
Participants with acute ocular hypertension who required intravenous mannitol treatment were randomly assigned to either a warming group or a non-warming group. In the warming group, mannitol was administered using an infusion warming device; in the non-warming group, mannitol was administered according to routine practice without warming. Outcomes included peak pain score during infusion, comfort score, infusion rate, infusion duration, local infusion-related adverse reactions, and intraocular pressure change after treatment.
Read the detailed description
Acute ocular hypertension requires timely reduction of intraocular pressure to relieve symptoms and reduce the risk of optic nerve damage. Intravenous mannitol is commonly used in ophthalmic emergency care because of its rapid osmotic effect. However, mannitol infusion may cause infusion-related pain, discomfort, slowing or interruption of infusion, and local venous complications such as irritation and phlebitis. These problems may affect both patient experience and treatment efficiency.
Warming of intravenous fluids has been used in clinical practice to reduce discomfort associated with infusion of hyperosmotic or irritating solutions. In this study, an infusion warming device was applied during intravenous mannitol administration to examine whether warming could improve the tolerability and clinical performance of mannitol infusion in patients with acute ocular hypertension.
Eligible patients requiring intravenous mannitol treatment were assigned to either a warming group or a non-warming group. In the warming group, mannitol was administered through an infusion warming device according to the study protocol. In the non-warming group, mannitol was infused without warming according to routine clinical practice. Patient-reported outcomes and clinical outcomes were assessed during and shortly after infusion.
The main objective of the study was to compare infusion-related pain between the two groups. Additional objectives were to compare comfort, infusion efficiency, local infusion-related complications, and short-term intraocular pressure response after treatment. The study was conducted at a tertiary ophthalmic center in China.
- Conditions
- Acute Ocular Hypertension Glaucoma, Intraocular Hypertension, Primary Angle-Closure Glaucoma
- Being tested
- Infusion Warming Device, Routine Non-Warmed Mannitol Infusion
- Keywords
- Mannitol Infusion Warming, Intravenous Infusion, Infusion Pain, Intraocular Pressure, Ocular Hypertension, Ophthalmic Nursing
- Medical subject headings
- Glaucoma, Angle-Closure, Ocular Hypertension
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Infusion Warming DeviceDevice
An infusion warming device was used during intravenous mannitol administration to warm the infused fluid according to the study protocol.
Routine Non-Warmed Mannitol InfusionOther
Intravenous mannitol was administered according to routine clinical practice without infusion warming.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Warming Group | Experimental | Participants received intravenous mannitol infusion using an infusion warming device during treatment for acute ocular hypertension. Receives: Device: Infusion Warming Device |
| Non-Warming Group | Active comparator | Participants received routine intravenous mannitol infusion without use of an infusion warming device during treatment for acute ocular hypertension. Receives: Other: Routine Non-Warmed Mannitol Infusion |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Peak pain score during infusion measured by the 11-point Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)
Peak infusion-related pain during intravenous mannitol administration, assessed using the 11-point Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Scores range from 0 to 10, where 0 indicates no pain and 10 indicates the worst imaginable pain. Higher scores indicate worse pain.
Measured: During infusion, up to approximately 45 minutes
Secondary outcomes (9)
Comfort during infusion measured by a 10-point Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)
Patient-reported comfort during intravenous mannitol administration, assessed using a 10-point Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Scores range from 0 to 10, where 0 indicates the lowest comfort and 10 indicates the highest comfort. Higher scores indicate better comfort.
Measured: During infusion, up to approximately 45 minutes
Maximum infusion rate (drops/minute)
Maximum achievable intravenous infusion rate during mannitol administration, recorded in drops per minute. Higher values indicate faster infusion delivery.
Measured: During infusion, up to approximately 45 minutes
Total infusion duration (minutes)
Total duration of intravenous mannitol infusion, measured in minutes from the start to the completion of the full 250 mL infusion. Lower values indicate shorter infusion duration.
Measured: From infusion start to completion of the full 250 mL infusion, up to approximately 45 minutes
Intraocular pressure measured by iCare rebound tonometry at 30 minutes after infusion
Intraocular pressure measured using an iCare rebound tonometer. Results are reported in mmHg. Lower values indicate lower intraocular pressure.
Measured: 30 minutes after completion of the full 250 mL infusion
Change in intraocular pressure measured by iCare rebound tonometry
Change in intraocular pressure from pre-infusion measurement to the measurement obtained 30 minutes after completion of the full 250 mL infusion, assessed using an iCare rebound tonometer and reported in mmHg. Higher positive values indicate greater reduction in intraocular pressure.
Measured: From pre-infusion baseline to 30 minutes after completion of the full 250 mL infusion
Request for slowing or temporary interruption of infusion due to infusion-related discomfort/pain
Whether the participant requested slowing or temporary interruption of the infusion because of infusion-related discomfort or pain. Reported as yes/no.
Measured: During infusion, up to approximately 45 minutes
Pain affecting mood or rest
Whether infusion-related pain affected participant mood or rest during treatment. Reported as yes/no.
Measured: During infusion, up to approximately 45 minutes
Grade I phlebitis assessed by clinical observation
Occurrence of infusion-related phlebitis assessed clinically by the nursing team according to local routine practice. Reported as yes/no.
Measured: During infusion and immediately after completion of infusion, up to approximately 1 hour
Local redness, swelling, or induration assessed by clinical observation
Occurrence of local infusion-site redness, swelling, or induration assessed clinically by the nursing team. Reported as yes/no.
Measured: During infusion and immediately after completion of infusion, up to approximately 1 hour
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted27 Mar 2026
- Study start9 Jan 2025
- Primary completion27 Jul 2025
- Study completion27 Jul 2025
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (6)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Acute Ocular Hypertension GlaucomaStudies 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
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Participants were randomly assigned in a parallel manner to receive intravenous mannitol infusion either with an infusion warming device or without warming. Each participant was assigned to one study arm only.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 142 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Joint Shantou International Eye Center of Shantou University and the Chinese University of Hong Kong
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Laiwen Lv, Joint Shantou International Eye Center of Shantou University and the Chinese University of Hong Kong
- Investigators
- Laiwen Lv, Master, Principal investigator, Joint Shantou International Eye Center of Shantou University and the Chinese University of Hong Kong
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07495449
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- EC 20240924(7)-P07
- Status last verified
- Mar 2026
- First submitted
- 17 Mar 2026
- Last updated
- 27 Mar 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: No individual participant data are planned to be shared. The study investigators do not plan to make de-identified individual-level data publicly available.
Publications
Lam DS, Chua JK, Tham CC, Lai JS. Efficacy and safety of immediate anterior chamber paracentesis in the treatment of acute primary angle-closure glaucoma: a pilot study. Ophthalmology. 2002 Jan;109(1):64-70. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(01)00857-0.
PubMed 11772581Lam DS, Lai JS, Tham CC, Chua JK, Poon AS. Argon laser peripheral iridoplasty versus conventional systemic medical therapy in treatment of acute primary angle-closure glaucoma : a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Ophthalmology. 2002 Sep;109(9):1591-6. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(02)01158-2.
PubMed 12208703Marsh N, Larsen EN, Ullman AJ, Mihala G, Cooke M, Chopra V, Ray-Barruel G, Rickard CM. Peripheral intravenous catheter infection and failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2024 Mar;151:104673. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2023.104673. Epub 2023 Dec 9.
PubMed 38142634Wang W. Tolerability of hypertonic injectables. Int J Pharm. 2015 Jul 25;490(1-2):308-15. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2015.05.069. Epub 2015 May 29.
PubMed 26027488Guanche-Sicilia A, Sanchez-Gomez MB, Castro-Peraza ME, Rodriguez-Gomez JA, Gomez-Salgado J, Duarte-Climents G. Prevention and Treatment of Phlebitis Secondary to the Insertion of a Peripheral Venous Catheter: A Scoping Review from a Nursing Perspective. Healthcare (Basel). 2021 May 19;9(5):611. doi: 10.3390/healthcare9050611.
PubMed 34069674Liang Z, Li H, Hou X, Yang K, Lv K, Ma Y, Lu Y, Wu K, Wu H. Prospective study on the role of preoperative mannitol in capsulorhexis and reducing intraoperative complications in primary angle-closure disease surgery. J Int Med Res. 2025 Jan;53(1):3000605241310106. doi: 10.1177/03000605241310106.
PubMed 39817367
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 27 Mar 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Effect of Intravenous Infusion Warming on Pain, Comfort, Phlebitis, and Intraocular Pressure Outcomes During Mannitol Infusion in Patients With Acute Ocular Hypertension: A Randomized Controlled Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07495449
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- EC 20240924(7)-P07
- Conditions
- Acute Ocular Hypertension Glaucoma, Intraocular Hypertension, Primary Angle-Closure Glaucoma
- Keywords
- Mannitol Infusion Warming, Intravenous Infusion, Infusion Pain, Intraocular Pressure, Ocular Hypertension, Ophthalmic Nursing
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 142 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Joint Shantou International Eye Center of Shantou University and the Chinese University of Hong KongUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 9 Jan 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 27 Jul 2025 (actual)
- Study completion
- 27 Jul 2025 (actual)
- First posted
- 27 Mar 2026 (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.
Acute ocular hypertension is a common ophthalmic emergency that often requires rapid reduction of intraocular pressure. Intravenous mannitol is widely used for this purpose, but infusion-related pain and local venous irritation may reduce patient comfort, interfere with infusion speed, and affect treatment experience. This randomized controlled study aims to evaluate whether use of an infusion warming device during intravenous mannitol administration can reduce infusion-related pain, improve patient comfort, decrease local infusion-related complications, and improve infusion efficiency and short-term intraocular pressure outcomes in patients with acute ocular hypertension.
Participants with acute ocular hypertension who required intravenous mannitol treatment were randomly assigned to either a warming group or a non-warming group. In the warming group, mannitol was administered using an infusion warming device; in the non-warming group, mannitol was administered according to routine practice without warming. Outcomes included peak pain score during infusion, comfort score, infusion rate, infusion duration, local infusion-related adverse reactions, and intraocular pressure change after treatment.
Detailed description
Acute ocular hypertension requires timely reduction of intraocular pressure to relieve symptoms and reduce the risk of optic nerve damage. Intravenous mannitol is commonly used in ophthalmic emergency care because of its rapid osmotic effect. However, mannitol infusion may cause infusion-related pain, discomfort, slowing or interruption of infusion, and local venous complications such as irritation and phlebitis. These problems may affect both patient experience and treatment efficiency.
Warming of intravenous fluids has been used in clinical practice to reduce discomfort associated with infusion of hyperosmotic or irritating solutions. In this study, an infusion warming device was applied during intravenous mannitol administration to examine whether warming could improve the tolerability and clinical performance of mannitol infusion in patients with acute ocular hypertension.
Eligible patients requiring intravenous mannitol treatment were assigned to either a warming group or a non-warming group. In the warming group, mannitol was administered through an infusion warming device according to the study protocol. In the non-warming group, mannitol was infused without warming according to routine clinical practice. Patient-reported outcomes and clinical outcomes were assessed during and shortly after infusion.
The main objective of the study was to compare infusion-related pain between the two groups. Additional objectives were to compare comfort, infusion efficiency, local infusion-related complications, and short-term intraocular pressure response after treatment. The study was conducted at a tertiary ophthalmic center in China.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Participants were randomly assigned in a parallel manner to receive intravenous mannitol infusion either with an infusion warming device or without warming. Each participant was assigned to one study arm only.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Warming Group | Experimental | Device: Infusion Warming DeviceParticipants received intravenous mannitol infusion using an infusion warming device during treatment for acute ocular hypertension. |
| Non-Warming Group | Active comparator | Other: Routine Non-Warmed Mannitol InfusionParticipants received routine intravenous mannitol infusion without use of an infusion warming device during treatment for acute ocular hypertension. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Patients with acute ocular hypertension requiring intravenous mannitol treatment in the ophthalmology setting
- Age 18 years or older
- Conscious and able to communicate pain and comfort during infusion
- Able to provide informed consent personally or via a legally authorized representative when appropriate
- Able to complete study-related assessments during and shortly after mannitol infusion
Key exclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Patients who did not require intravenous mannitol treatment
- Known contraindication to intravenous mannitol treatment according to routine clinical practice
- Patients receiving infusion of heat-sensitive fluids or medications for which infusion warming was not appropriate
- Severe cognitive impairment, communication difficulty, or other conditions preventing reliable assessment of pain or comfort
- Failure to complete key study outcome assessments
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Infusion Warming DeviceAn infusion warming device was used during intravenous mannitol administration to warm the infused fluid according to the study protocol. | Device | Warming Group |
| Routine Non-Warmed Mannitol InfusionIntravenous mannitol was administered according to routine clinical practice without infusion warming. | Other | Non-Warming Group |
Primary outcome
Peak pain score during infusion measured by the 11-point Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)
Time frame: During infusion, up to approximately 45 minutes
Peak infusion-related pain during intravenous mannitol administration, assessed using the 11-point Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Scores range from 0 to 10, where 0 indicates no pain and 10 indicates the worst imaginable pain. Higher scores indicate worse pain.
9 secondary outcomes
Comfort during infusion measured by a 10-point Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)
Time frame: During infusion, up to approximately 45 minutes
Maximum infusion rate (drops/minute)
Time frame: During infusion, up to approximately 45 minutes
Total infusion duration (minutes)
Time frame: From infusion start to completion of the full 250 mL infusion, up to approximately 45 minutes
Intraocular pressure measured by iCare rebound tonometry at 30 minutes after infusion
Time frame: 30 minutes after completion of the full 250 mL infusion
Change in intraocular pressure measured by iCare rebound tonometry
Time frame: From pre-infusion baseline to 30 minutes after completion of the full 250 mL infusion
Request for slowing or temporary interruption of infusion due to infusion-related discomfort/pain
Time frame: During infusion, up to approximately 45 minutes
Pain affecting mood or rest
Time frame: During infusion, up to approximately 45 minutes
Grade I phlebitis assessed by clinical observation
Time frame: During infusion and immediately after completion of infusion, up to approximately 1 hour
Local redness, swelling, or induration assessed by clinical observation
Time frame: During infusion and immediately after completion of infusion, up to approximately 1 hour
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 27 Mar 2026.
- Results publication: PubMed 11772581Lam DS, Chua JK, Tham CC, Lai JS. Efficacy and safety of immediate anterior chamber paracentesis in the treatment of acute primary angle-closure glaucoma: a pilot study. Ophthalmology. 2002 Jan;109(1):64-70. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(01)00857-0.
- Results publication: PubMed 12208703Lam DS, Lai JS, Tham CC, Chua JK, Poon AS. Argon laser peripheral iridoplasty versus conventional systemic medical therapy in treatment of acute primary angle-closure glaucoma : a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Ophthalmology. 2002 Sep;109(9):1591-6. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(02)01158-2.
- Results publication: PubMed 38142634Marsh N, Larsen EN, Ullman AJ, Mihala G, Cooke M, Chopra V, Ray-Barruel G, Rickard CM. Peripheral intravenous catheter infection and failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2024 Mar;151:104673. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2023.104673. Epub 2023 Dec 9.
- Results publication: PubMed 26027488Wang W. Tolerability of hypertonic injectables. Int J Pharm. 2015 Jul 25;490(1-2):308-15. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2015.05.069. Epub 2015 May 29.
- Results publication: PubMed 34069674Guanche-Sicilia A, Sanchez-Gomez MB, Castro-Peraza ME, Rodriguez-Gomez JA, Gomez-Salgado J, Duarte-Climents G. Prevention and Treatment of Phlebitis Secondary to the Insertion of a Peripheral Venous Catheter: A Scoping Review from a Nursing Perspective. Healthcare (Basel). 2021 May 19;9(5):611. doi: 10.3390/healthcare9050611.
- Results publication: PubMed 39817367Liang Z, Li H, Hou X, Yang K, Lv K, Ma Y, Lu Y, Wu K, Wu H. Prospective study on the role of preoperative mannitol in capsulorhexis and reducing intraoperative complications in primary angle-closure disease surgery. J Int Med Res. 2025 Jan;53(1):3000605241310106. doi: 10.1177/03000605241310106.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. No individual participant data are planned to be shared. The study investigators do not plan to make de-identified individual-level data publicly available.
Related trials for Acute Ocular Hypertension Glaucoma
Recruiting
The Acute Effect of Exercise Type And Timing on Ambulatory Blood Pressure and Intra-Ocular Pressure in Individuals With Glaucoma (The ACHIEVE-project).
Glaucoma Open-Angle Primary, Hypertension
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.
Laiwen Lv, Master principal investigator
Joint Shantou International Eye Center of Shantou University and the Chinese University of Hong Kong
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Infusion Warming Device and Routine Non-Warmed Mannitol Infusion in people with Acute Ocular Hypertension Glaucoma and Intraocular Hypertension, run by Joint Shantou International Eye Center of Shantou University and the Chinese University of Hong Kong at 1 site in China.
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 5 inclusion and 6 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 27 Mar 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 China. 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?
Peak pain score during infusion measured by the 11-point Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) (time frame: During infusion, up to approximately 45 minutes). 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 NCT07495449, which also lists 6 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 Mar 2026.