Glaucoma Unit, Department of Medicine - Ophthalmology, University of Udine
Udine, UD, 33100, Italy
NCT Number: NCT07756411
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.
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me18 year and older
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
Udine, UD, 33100, Italy
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.
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
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.
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.
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.
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.
Time frame: 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months and 6 months after treatment
Percentage change in intraocular pressure from baseline, computed from the mean of three consecutive Goldmann applanation readings at each scheduled visit.
Time frame: 1 week, 1 month, 3 months and 6 months after treatment
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.
Time frame: from month 1 through 6 months after treatment
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.
Time frame: from treatment through 6 months
Adverse events recorded at every scheduled visit. Intraocular pressure was additionally measured 1 hour after treatment to detect pressure spikes.
University of Udine
Other
Subvisible Laser Trabeculoplasty in Medically Treated Open-angle Glaucoma: a Randomized Three-arm Comparison of Selective, Micropulse and Pattern Delivery Protocols.
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT03891446
Eye Diseases, Glaucoma
Dothan, Alabama, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT03850782
Eye Diseases, Glaucoma
Sun City, Arizona, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT04647214
Eye Diseases, Glaucoma
Culver City, California, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT04910100
Eye Diseases, Glaucoma
Newport Beach, California, United States
View Trial Details