Open-Angle GlaucomaNCT07756411
Selective, Micropulse and Pattern Laser Trabeculoplasty in Medically Treated Open-angle Glaucoma.
A study testing Selective laser trabeculoplasty, Micropulse laser trabeculoplasty and Pattern laser trabeculoplasty in people with Open-Angle Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension, run by University of Udine at 1 site in Italy.
Trial summary
This randomized, single-centre, three-arm trial compared three subvisible laser trabeculoplasty delivery protocols in eyes with open-angle glaucoma already receiving intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering medication: selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT, 3-nanosecond pulses), micropulse laser trabeculoplasty (MLT, 577 nm… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Open-Angle Glaucoma, Ocular Hypertension
- What is being tested?
- Selective laser trabeculoplasty, Micropulse laser trabeculoplasty and Pattern laser trabeculoplasty
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 90 participants
- Where
- 1 siteItaly
- Study dates
- 1 Feb 2025to 1 May 2026
- 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
- adults with primary or secondary open-angle glaucoma.
- gonioscopically open angle confirmed by gonioscopy in the study eye.
- receiving intraocular pressure-lowering medication at entry, with an indication for subvisible laser trabeculoplasty according to standard practice at the unit (IOP inadequately controlled on medical therapy, intolerance of medical therapy, or both).
- written informed consent.
Who cannot join
- previous laser trabeculoplasty, iridotomy or iridoplasty.
- corneal disease precluding visualization of the trabecular meshwork or reliable applanation tonometry.
- previous intraocular surgery other than uncomplicated cataract extraction.
- systemic medication known to affect intraocular pressure.
- pregnancy.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Italy1 site
Glaucoma Unit, Department of Medicine - Ophthalmology, University of Udine
Udine, UD, 33100
About this study
Official title: Subvisible Laser Trabeculoplasty in Medically Treated Open-angle Glaucoma: a Randomized Three-arm Comparison of Selective, Micropulse and Pattern Delivery Protocols.
This randomized, single-centre, three-arm trial compared three subvisible laser trabeculoplasty delivery protocols in eyes with open-angle glaucoma already receiving intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering medication: selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT, 3-nanosecond pulses), micropulse laser trabeculoplasty (MLT, 577 nm with 15% duty cycle), and pattern laser trabeculoplasty (PLT, 5-ms pattern delivery). Ninety eyes of 90 patients were allocated 1:1:1 to a single 360-degree session and followed for 6 months. The primary outcome was IOP at 6 months, with an equivalence margin of +/-2.0 mmHg prespecified for pairwise comparisons. Secondary outcomes were percentage IOP change, number of IOP-lowering medications, cumulative treatment success (IOP reduction of at least 20% from baseline without an increase in medications), and adverse events. Outcome assessment was performed by a second ophthalmologist masked to allocation and to clinical history.
Read the detailed description
Background and rationale
Laser trabeculoplasty is an established first-line and adjunctive treatment in open-angle glaucoma. Three subvisible delivery protocols are in clinical use and differ substantially in the physics of energy delivery: selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) uses 3-nanosecond pulses titrated to microbubble formation; micropulse laser trabeculoplasty (MLT) uses a 577-nm envelope chopped at a low duty cycle; pattern laser trabeculoplasty (PLT) uses short-exposure, high-density automated patterns. Evidence comparing them is indirect: SLT has been compared with medication in randomized and registry studies, SLT and MLT have been compared in retrospective series and in meta-analyses concluding non-inferiority, and each modality has been compared separately against medical therapy. No trial had compared all three protocols head to head in the same cohort under a single protocol.
Objectives
The trial was designed to determine whether the three subvisible delivery protocols differ in IOP reduction and in treatment success at 6 months in eyes with open-angle glaucoma already receiving medical therapy.
Design and setting
Prospective, randomized, parallel-group, three-arm trial conducted at the Glaucoma Unit of the Department of Medicine - Ophthalmology, University of Udine, Italy. The protocol adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki, was approved by the local institutional review board, and all participants gave written informed consent. The trial was not registered before enrolment of the first participant and is registered retrospectively.
Participants
Adults with primary or secondary open-angle glaucoma were eligible. Gonioscopy was performed in every eye and only gonioscopically open angles were included. Eyes were selected for subvisible laser trabeculoplasty according to standard practice at the unit (IOP inadequately controlled on medical therapy, intolerance of medical therapy, or both), so that all participants were receiving IOP-lowering medication at entry.
Randomization and masking
One eye per patient was enrolled; when both eyes were eligible, the study eye was the eye with the higher baseline IOP. Eyes were allocated 1:1:1 by a computer-generated random number sequence. Participants and the treating surgeon were not masked to allocation, which is not feasible when the three lasers differ in console and audible signature. All IOP measurements and anterior segment examinations were performed by a second ophthalmologist masked to allocation and to clinical history; outcome assessment was therefore single-masked. Medication changes were decided by the unmasked treating physician against a pre-set individual target, so masking did not extend to the co-intervention.
Interventions
Every eye received a single 360-degree session, performed by the same surgeon, after two drops of pilocarpine 2% and topical anaesthetic.
SLT was delivered with a Tango laser (Ellex Medical Lasers, Adelaide, Australia) over 360 degrees using approximately 100 non-overlapping 400-micrometre spots and 3-nanosecond pulses. Pulse energy was titrated to produce visible microbubble formation in approximately 50% of applications, up to a maximum of 1.4 mJ per pulse.
MLT was delivered with an IQ 577 laser (Iridex, Mountain View, California, USA): 577 nm, 1000 mW, 300-ms envelope, 300-micrometre spot, 15% duty cycle.
PLT was delivered with a Pascal Streamline 577 (Topcon, Tokyo, Japan): power was titrated with 10-ms pulses until light blanching of the meshwork was seen, then exposure was shortened to 5 ms, rendering the treatment subvisible, with 100-micrometre spots delivered in 32 automatically rotating arc-shaped patterns of three rows of 13 spots, zero spacing, for approximately 1250 spots over 360 degrees.
Follow-up and co-intervention
Eyes were examined at baseline and at 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months. Each visit included anterior segment examination, best-corrected visual acuity, and Goldmann applanation tonometry performed at the same time of day (+/- 1 hour) by the masked assessor. At every visit three consecutive IOP readings were taken and their arithmetic mean was used in all analyses. IOP was additionally measured 1 hour after treatment to detect pressure spikes. An individual target IOP was set before treatment for every eye as the lower of a 25% reduction from presenting IOP (Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial criterion) or 18 mmHg (Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study criterion). From month 1 onward medications were titrated against this target; the week-1 visit therefore precedes any protocol-driven medication change, and week-1 medication counts were used as the baseline medication burden.
Sample size
The sample-size calculation was based on the global treatment effect in an analysis of covariance model comparing three treatment groups. Assuming an omnibus effect size f = 0.35, a two-sided alpha of 0.05, and 80% power, 82 eyes were required; this was rounded to 84 eyes to allow equal allocation of 28 eyes per group. Ninety eyes were enrolled, providing approximately 84% power under the original assumptions.
Statistical analysis
All randomized eyes were analysed according to their assigned treatment group in the intention-to-treat population. The primary outcome was analysed using analysis of covariance with 6-month IOP as the dependent variable, treatment group as a fixed factor, and baseline IOP as a covariate; adjusted means and all three pairwise adjusted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were derived from this model, with the Holm correction applied to the pairwise comparisons. Equivalence was assessed by two one-sided tests against the prespecified +/-2.0 mmHg margin. A linear mixed-effects model was used for the longitudinal IOP data. Cumulative treatment success was analysed by Kaplan-Meier estimation with the log-rank test and by Cox proportional-hazards regression.
- Conditions
- Open-Angle Glaucoma, Ocular Hypertension
- Being tested
- Selective laser trabeculoplasty, Micropulse laser trabeculoplasty, Pattern laser trabeculoplasty
- Keywords
- laser trabeculoplasty, selective laser trabeculoplasty, micropulse laser trabeculoplasty, pattern laser trabeculoplasty, intraocular pressure, open-angle glaucoma
- Medical subject headings
- Glaucoma, Open-Angle, Ocular Hypertension
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Selective laser trabeculoplastyDevice
Nanosecond-pulse laser trabeculoplasty delivered over 360 degrees with a Tango laser (Ellex Medical Lasers, Adelaide, Australia) after two drops of pilocarpine 2% and topical anaesthetic.
Micropulse laser trabeculoplastyDevice
Micropulsed 577-nm laser trabeculoplasty delivered over 360 degrees with an IQ 577 laser (Iridex, Mountain View, California, USA) after two drops of pilocarpine 2% and topical anaesthetic.
Pattern laser trabeculoplastyDevice
Short-exposure pattern laser trabeculoplasty delivered over 360 degrees with a Pascal Streamline 577 (Topcon, Tokyo, Japan) after two drops of pilocarpine 2% and topical anaesthetic.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) | Active comparator | Single 360-degree session of selective laser trabeculoplasty with 3-nanosecond pulses, approximately 100 non-overlapping 400-micrometre spots, pulse energy titrated to visible microbubble formation in approximately 50% of applications up to a maximum of 1.4 mJ per pulse. Receives: Device: Selective laser trabeculoplasty |
| Micropulse laser trabeculoplasty (MLT) | Experimental | Single 360-degree session of micropulse laser trabeculoplasty at 577 nm, 1000 mW, 300-ms envelope, 300-micrometre spot, 15% duty cycle. Receives: Device: Micropulse laser trabeculoplasty |
| Pattern laser trabeculoplasty (PLT) | Experimental | Single 360-degree session of pattern laser trabeculoplasty at 577 nm: power titrated with 10-ms pulses until light blanching of the meshwork, then exposure shortened to 5 ms, with 100-micrometre spots delivered in 32 automatically rotating arc-shaped patterns of three rows of 13 spots, zero spacing, for approximately 1250 spots over 360 degrees. Receives: Device: Pattern laser trabeculoplasty |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Intraocular pressure at 6 months
Intraocular pressure (mmHg) measured by Goldmann applanation tonometry at the same time of day (+/- 1 hour) by an assessor masked to allocation. At every visit three consecutive readings were taken and their arithmetic mean used in the analysis. The treatment effect was the adjusted mean difference in 6-month intraocular pressure between each pair of treatment groups, estimated by analysis of covariance with baseline intraocular pressure as a covariate; a difference of +/-2.0 mmHg was prespecified as the equivalence margin.
Measured: 6 months after treatment
Secondary outcomes (4)
Percentage change in intraocular pressure from baseline
Percentage change in intraocular pressure from baseline, computed from the mean of three consecutive Goldmann applanation readings at each scheduled visit.
Measured: 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months and 6 months after treatment
Number of intraocular pressure-lowering medications
Count of topical and systemic intraocular pressure-lowering medications in use. From month 1 onward medications were titrated against an individual target intraocular pressure defined before treatment as the lower of a 25% reduction from presenting pressure or 18 mmHg; the week-1 count was used as the baseline medication burden.
Measured: 1 week, 1 month, 3 months and 6 months after treatment
Cumulative treatment success
Proportion of eyes maintaining treatment success, defined as an intraocular pressure reduction of at least 20% from baseline without an increase in the number of intraocular pressure-lowering medications, evaluated at each scheduled visit from month 1. An eye was classified as a failure at the first visit at which the criterion was not met and was not reinstated thereafter. Analysed by Kaplan-Meier estimation with the log-rank test and by Cox proportional-hazards regression.
Measured: from month 1 through 6 months after treatment
Adverse events, including postoperative intraocular pressure spike
Adverse events recorded at every scheduled visit. Intraocular pressure was additionally measured 1 hour after treatment to detect pressure spikes.
Measured: from treatment through 6 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted10 Aug 2026
- Study start1 Feb 2025
- Primary completion1 Apr 2026
- Study completion1 May 2026
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Open-Angle 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
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 90 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Udine
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Daniele Veritti, University of Udine
- Investigators
- Daniele Veritti, Principal investigator, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Udine
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07756411
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- OCU_DMED_TRAB_2026_1
- Status last verified
- May 2026
- First submitted
- 4 Aug 2026
- Last updated
- 10 Aug 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: The dataset analysed in the study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 10 Aug 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Subvisible Laser Trabeculoplasty in Medically Treated Open-angle Glaucoma: a Randomized Three-arm Comparison of Selective, Micropulse and Pattern Delivery Protocols.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07756411
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- OCU_DMED_TRAB_2026_1
- Conditions
- Open-Angle Glaucoma, Ocular Hypertension
- Keywords
- laser trabeculoplasty, selective laser trabeculoplasty, micropulse laser trabeculoplasty, pattern laser trabeculoplasty, intraocular pressure, open-angle glaucoma
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 90 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of UdineUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Feb 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Apr 2026 (actual)
- Study completion
- 1 May 2026 (actual)
- First posted
- 10 Aug 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.
This randomized, single-centre, three-arm trial compared three subvisible laser trabeculoplasty delivery protocols in eyes with open-angle glaucoma already receiving intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering medication: selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT, 3-nanosecond pulses), micropulse laser trabeculoplasty (MLT, 577 nm with 15% duty cycle), and pattern laser trabeculoplasty (PLT, 5-ms pattern delivery). Ninety eyes of 90 patients were allocated 1:1:1 to a single 360-degree session and followed for 6 months. The primary outcome was IOP at 6 months, with an equivalence margin of +/-2.0 mmHg prespecified for pairwise comparisons. Secondary outcomes were percentage IOP change, number of IOP-lowering medications, cumulative treatment success (IOP reduction of at least 20% from baseline without an increase in medications), and adverse events. Outcome assessment was performed by a second ophthalmologist masked to allocation and to clinical history.
Detailed description
Background and rationale
Laser trabeculoplasty is an established first-line and adjunctive treatment in open-angle glaucoma. Three subvisible delivery protocols are in clinical use and differ substantially in the physics of energy delivery: selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) uses 3-nanosecond pulses titrated to microbubble formation; micropulse laser trabeculoplasty (MLT) uses a 577-nm envelope chopped at a low duty cycle; pattern laser trabeculoplasty (PLT) uses short-exposure, high-density automated patterns. Evidence comparing them is indirect: SLT has been compared with medication in randomized and registry studies, SLT and MLT have been compared in retrospective series and in meta-analyses concluding non-inferiority, and each modality has been compared separately against medical therapy. No trial had compared all three protocols head to head in the same cohort under a single protocol.
Objectives
The trial was designed to determine whether the three subvisible delivery protocols differ in IOP reduction and in treatment success at 6 months in eyes with open-angle glaucoma already receiving medical therapy.
Design and setting
Prospective, randomized, parallel-group, three-arm trial conducted at the Glaucoma Unit of the Department of Medicine - Ophthalmology, University of Udine, Italy. The protocol adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki, was approved by the local institutional review board, and all participants gave written informed consent. The trial was not registered before enrolment of the first participant and is registered retrospectively.
Participants
Adults with primary or secondary open-angle glaucoma were eligible. Gonioscopy was performed in every eye and only gonioscopically open angles were included. Eyes were selected for subvisible laser trabeculoplasty according to standard practice at the unit (IOP inadequately controlled on medical therapy, intolerance of medical therapy, or both), so that all participants were receiving IOP-lowering medication at entry.
Randomization and masking
One eye per patient was enrolled; when both eyes were eligible, the study eye was the eye with the higher baseline IOP. Eyes were allocated 1:1:1 by a computer-generated random number sequence. Participants and the treating surgeon were not masked to allocation, which is not feasible when the three lasers differ in console and audible signature. All IOP measurements and anterior segment examinations were performed by a second ophthalmologist masked to allocation and to clinical history; outcome assessment was therefore single-masked. Medication changes were decided by the unmasked treating physician against a pre-set individual target, so masking did not extend to the co-intervention.
Interventions
Every eye received a single 360-degree session, performed by the same surgeon, after two drops of pilocarpine 2% and topical anaesthetic.
SLT was delivered with a Tango laser (Ellex Medical Lasers, Adelaide, Australia) over 360 degrees using approximately 100 non-overlapping 400-micrometre spots and 3-nanosecond pulses. Pulse energy was titrated to produce visible microbubble formation in approximately 50% of applications, up to a maximum of 1.4 mJ per pulse.
MLT was delivered with an IQ 577 laser (Iridex, Mountain View, California, USA): 577 nm, 1000 mW, 300-ms envelope, 300-micrometre spot, 15% duty cycle.
PLT was delivered with a Pascal Streamline 577 (Topcon, Tokyo, Japan): power was titrated with 10-ms pulses until light blanching of the meshwork was seen, then exposure was shortened to 5 ms, rendering the treatment subvisible, with 100-micrometre spots delivered in 32 automatically rotating arc-shaped patterns of three rows of 13 spots, zero spacing, for approximately 1250 spots over 360 degrees.
Follow-up and co-intervention
Eyes were examined at baseline and at 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months. Each visit included anterior segment examination, best-corrected visual acuity, and Goldmann applanation tonometry performed at the same time of day (+/- 1 hour) by the masked assessor. At every visit three consecutive IOP readings were taken and their arithmetic mean was used in all analyses. IOP was additionally measured 1 hour after treatment to detect pressure spikes. An individual target IOP was set before treatment for every eye as the lower of a 25% reduction from presenting IOP (Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial criterion) or 18 mmHg (Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study criterion). From month 1 onward medications were titrated against this target; the week-1 visit therefore precedes any protocol-driven medication change, and week-1 medication counts were used as the baseline medication burden.
Sample size
The sample-size calculation was based on the global treatment effect in an analysis of covariance model comparing three treatment groups. Assuming an omnibus effect size f = 0.35, a two-sided alpha of 0.05, and 80% power, 82 eyes were required; this was rounded to 84 eyes to allow equal allocation of 28 eyes per group. Ninety eyes were enrolled, providing approximately 84% power under the original assumptions.
Statistical analysis
All randomized eyes were analysed according to their assigned treatment group in the intention-to-treat population. The primary outcome was analysed using analysis of covariance with 6-month IOP as the dependent variable, treatment group as a fixed factor, and baseline IOP as a covariate; adjusted means and all three pairwise adjusted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were derived from this model, with the Holm correction applied to the pairwise comparisons. Equivalence was assessed by two one-sided tests against the prespecified +/-2.0 mmHg margin. A linear mixed-effects model was used for the longitudinal IOP data. Cumulative treatment success was analysed by Kaplan-Meier estimation with the log-rank test and by Cox proportional-hazards regression.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) | Active comparator | Device: Selective laser trabeculoplastySingle 360-degree session of selective laser trabeculoplasty with 3-nanosecond pulses, approximately 100 non-overlapping 400-micrometre spots, pulse energy titrated to visible microbubble formation in approximately 50% of applications up to a maximum of 1.4 mJ per pulse. |
| Micropulse laser trabeculoplasty (MLT) | Experimental | Device: Micropulse laser trabeculoplastySingle 360-degree session of micropulse laser trabeculoplasty at 577 nm, 1000 mW, 300-ms envelope, 300-micrometre spot, 15% duty cycle. |
| Pattern laser trabeculoplasty (PLT) | Experimental | Device: Pattern laser trabeculoplastySingle 360-degree session of pattern laser trabeculoplasty at 577 nm: power titrated with 10-ms pulses until light blanching of the meshwork, then exposure shortened to 5 ms, with 100-micrometre spots delivered in 32 automatically rotating arc-shaped patterns of three rows of 13 spots, zero spacing, for approximately 1250 spots over 360 degrees. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- adults with primary or secondary open-angle glaucoma.
- gonioscopically open angle confirmed by gonioscopy in the study eye.
- receiving intraocular pressure-lowering medication at entry, with an indication for subvisible laser trabeculoplasty according to standard practice at the unit (IOP inadequately controlled on medical therapy, intolerance of medical therapy, or both).
- written informed consent.
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- previous laser trabeculoplasty, iridotomy or iridoplasty.
- corneal disease precluding visualization of the trabecular meshwork or reliable applanation tonometry.
- previous intraocular surgery other than uncomplicated cataract extraction.
- systemic medication known to affect intraocular pressure.
- pregnancy.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Selective laser trabeculoplastyNanosecond-pulse laser trabeculoplasty delivered over 360 degrees with a Tango laser (Ellex Medical Lasers, Adelaide, Australia) after two drops of pilocarpine 2% and topical anaesthetic. | Device | Selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) |
| Micropulse laser trabeculoplastyMicropulsed 577-nm laser trabeculoplasty delivered over 360 degrees with an IQ 577 laser (Iridex, Mountain View, California, USA) after two drops of pilocarpine 2% and topical anaesthetic. | Device | Micropulse laser trabeculoplasty (MLT) |
| Pattern laser trabeculoplastyShort-exposure pattern laser trabeculoplasty delivered over 360 degrees with a Pascal Streamline 577 (Topcon, Tokyo, Japan) after two drops of pilocarpine 2% and topical anaesthetic. | Device | Pattern laser trabeculoplasty (PLT) |
Primary outcome
Intraocular pressure at 6 months
Time frame: 6 months after treatment
Intraocular pressure (mmHg) measured by Goldmann applanation tonometry at the same time of day (+/- 1 hour) by an assessor masked to allocation. At every visit three consecutive readings were taken and their arithmetic mean used in the analysis. The treatment effect was the adjusted mean difference in 6-month intraocular pressure between each pair of treatment groups, estimated by analysis of covariance with baseline intraocular pressure as a covariate; a difference of +/-2.0 mmHg was prespecified as the equivalence margin.
4 secondary outcomes
Percentage change in intraocular pressure from baseline
Time frame: 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months and 6 months after treatment
Number of intraocular pressure-lowering medications
Time frame: 1 week, 1 month, 3 months and 6 months after treatment
Cumulative treatment success
Time frame: from month 1 through 6 months after treatment
Adverse events, including postoperative intraocular pressure spike
Time frame: from treatment through 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 10 Aug 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. The dataset analysed in the study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Related trials for Open-Angle 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
RecruitingObservational study
PRESERFLO™ MicroShunt XI Observational PMCF Study With no Control Group
Primary Open Angle Glaucoma
RecruitingPhase 4
Adaptive Optics OCT Evaluation of Rhopressa's Effects on the Retinal Ganglion Cells in Glaucoma Patients
Open Angle Glaucoma (OAG), Glaucoma
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Glaucoma, Visual Field Loss, and Their Association With Life Space in Older Adults
Primary Open Angle Glaucoma
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Impact of Glaucoma and Visual Field Loss on Life Space
Primary Open-angle Glaucoma
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.
Daniele Veritti principal investigator
Department of Ophthalmology, University of Udine
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Selective laser trabeculoplasty, Micropulse laser trabeculoplasty and Pattern laser trabeculoplasty in people with Open-Angle Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension, run by University of Udine at 1 site in Italy.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 5 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 10 Aug 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 Italy. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Intraocular pressure at 6 months (time frame: 6 months after treatment). 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 10 Aug 2026.