search
Back to results

Immediate Office Probing vs Deferred Facility Probing for Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction in Children 6 to <10 Months Old (NLD3)

Primary Purpose

Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction

Status
Completed
Phase
Phase 3
Locations
United States
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Immediate Office Probing
Deferred Facility Probing
Sponsored by
Jaeb Center for Health Research
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional treatment trial for Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction focused on measuring Nasolacrimal duct obstruction, Simple probing

Eligibility Criteria

6 Months - 10 Months (Child)All SexesDoes not accept healthy volunteers

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Age 6 to <10 months
  • Onset of NLDO symptoms and/or signs prior to 6 months chronological age in study eye(s)
  • Presence in study eye(s) of epiphora, increased tear film, and/or mucous discharge in the absence of an upper respiratory infection or an ocular surface irritation that investigator believes is due to NLDO
  • At least one open punctum present in study eye(s)

A history of NLDO treatment with lacrimal massage, topical antibiotics or steroids, or systemic antibiotics is permitted.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • History of nasolacrimal duct surgery including probing, nasolacrimal intubation, balloon catheter dilation, or dacryocystorhinostomy in study eye(s) History of trauma to the lacrimal drainage system of the study eye(s)
  • Glaucoma in study eye(s)
  • Corneal surface disease in study eye(s)
  • Microphthalmia in study eye(s)
  • Down Syndrome
  • Craniosynostosis
  • Goldenhar sequence
  • Clefting syndromes
  • Hemifacial microsomia
  • Midline facial anomalies

Sites / Locations

  • Intermountain Eye Centers

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm Type

Active Comparator

Active Comparator

Arm Label

Immediate Office Probing

Deferred Facility Probing

Arm Description

Probing to be performed in the office setting using topical anesthesia and infant restraint. Probing to be performed either the same day as randomization or within two weeks.

Probing to be performed in a surgical facility under general anesthesia within four weeks after completion of the 26-week visit if any of the clinical signs persist.

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Proportion of Participants With Treatment Success
Absence of three clinical signs of NLDO (epiphora, increased tear lake, and mucous discharge) upon masked examination at 18 months of age.
Cost of Treatment
Total cost of treatment including the cost of an initial office consultation and all surgeries received (i.e. initial surgeries and reoperations) and medications prescribed for NLDO between randomization and the 18 months of age visit. Estimates of treatment costs were obtained primarily from the 2011 Medicare Fee Schedules.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Months of Symptoms of Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction (NLDO) Between Randomization and 18 Months of Age
Months of NLDO symptoms between randomization and 18 months of age. When resolution of NLDO occurred without surgery, the time of resolution was estimated as the midpoint between randomization and the first time point at which symptoms/signs were reported as absent (i.e. 3-month phone call, 6-month visit, or 18 months of age visit) without a subsequent report of symptoms/signs. For patients who underwent successful surgery, months of symptoms was estimated as months between randomization and the surgery. Patients who had clinical signs present at the 18 month of age visit were considered to have had symptoms present since randomization.
Proportion of Deferred Facility Probing Group Participants With 6-Month Resolution of NLDO Without Surgery
Absence of three clinical signs of NLDO (epiphora, increased tear lake, and mucous discharge) upon unmasked examination 6 months after randomization. Participants who were operated before the 6-month visit were considered treatment failures.
Proportion of Participants With Office Probing Success 6 Months After Randomization
The proportion of immediate office group participants whose office probing was successful when assessed 6 months after randomization. Office probing success was defined as absence of three clinical signs of NLDO (epiphora, increased tear lake, and mucous discharge) 6 months after randomization and no reoperation.

Full Information

First Posted
October 27, 2008
Last Updated
May 19, 2016
Sponsor
Jaeb Center for Health Research
Collaborators
National Eye Institute (NEI)
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT00780741
Brief Title
Immediate Office Probing vs Deferred Facility Probing for Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction in Children 6 to <10 Months Old
Acronym
NLD3
Official Title
A Randomized Trial Comparing Immediate Probing in an Office Setting With Deferred Probing in a Facility Setting for Treatment of Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction in Children 6 to <10 Months Old
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
May 2016
Overall Recruitment Status
Completed
Study Start Date
October 2008 (undefined)
Primary Completion Date
November 2011 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
January 2012 (Actual)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Sponsor
Name of the Sponsor
Jaeb Center for Health Research
Collaborators
National Eye Institute (NEI)

4. Oversight

Data Monitoring Committee
Yes

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
The purpose of this study is: To determine the cost-effectiveness of treating NLDO using immediate office probing compared with deferred probing in a facility setting. As part of the primary objective, the study will determine the proportion of eyes experiencing spontaneous resolution among subjects randomized to the deferred probing group. The secondary objectives are: To determine the success proportion for eyes undergoing immediate office probing as an initial procedure. To determine the success proportion for eyes undergoing deferred facility probing as an initial procedure.
Detailed Description
Nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO) is a common ocular condition in the first year of life. Many cases will resolve spontaneously or with massage. Many studies of primary treatment of NLDO have been reported, however these case series have largely been retrospective, uncontrolled, and conducted in single centers. The substantial uncertainty regarding an estimate of spontaneous resolution is a primary reason for conducting the current study. Probing is the most widely-used initial treatment for NLDO in infancy. Our group recently completed a prospective observational study which found a 78% success proportion of probing among children aged 6 to <12 months. Other estimates of the success rate for probing vary between 69% and 92%. Two differing approaches to nasolacrimal probing have been most often been used: (1) immediate office probing (early probing - generally soon after 6 months of age) and (2) medical management (episodic antibiotic eye drops with massage of the lacrimal sac) until 9-13 months of age followed by probing under general anesthesia or conscious sedation (deferred probing). The advantages of early probing are the avoidance of general anesthesia or conscious sedation, immediate resolution of symptoms, fewer physician visits, fewer antibiotic prescriptions, lesser cost per procedure, and possible prevention of fibrosis from inflammation in the nasolacrimal duct. The advantages of deferred probing include more subject comfort with the procedure and possible avoidance of a surgical procedure completely. The optimal approach to the management of NLDO in the first year of life remains uncertain. Our prospective observational data suggest a slightly reduced chance of success with immediate office probing (75% for office probing, 80% for facility probing), however, immediate office probing may be more cost-effective even if the proportion with success is lower. For a subject undergoing a single operation, immediate office probing is less expensive than deferred probing in a facility because there is no fee for anesthesia, the facility, or for medications prescribed during the pre-operative observation period. Some portion of this lower cost would be offset however by the additional cost of a second procedure if the initial office probing is not successful. Deferred facility probing is more expensive per procedure; however, the overall costs are reduced by the number of children whose NLDO spontaneously resolves while waiting to perform the procedure in a facility. The study is a randomized clinical trial which aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of treating NLDO using immediate office probing compared with deferred probing in a facility setting. As part of the primary objective, the study will determine the proportion of eyes experiencing spontaneous resolution among subjects randomized to the deferred probing group.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction
Keywords
Nasolacrimal duct obstruction, Simple probing

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Phase 3
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Masking
None (Open Label)
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
220 (Actual)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
Immediate Office Probing
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
Probing to be performed in the office setting using topical anesthesia and infant restraint. Probing to be performed either the same day as randomization or within two weeks.
Arm Title
Deferred Facility Probing
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
Probing to be performed in a surgical facility under general anesthesia within four weeks after completion of the 26-week visit if any of the clinical signs persist.
Intervention Type
Procedure
Intervention Name(s)
Immediate Office Probing
Intervention Description
Nasolacrimal duct probing in an office setting with topical anesthesia and restraint of the infant.
Intervention Type
Procedure
Intervention Name(s)
Deferred Facility Probing
Intervention Description
Nasolacrimal duct probing performed under general anesthesia in a hospital outpatient surgery center or an ambulatory surgery center.
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Proportion of Participants With Treatment Success
Description
Absence of three clinical signs of NLDO (epiphora, increased tear lake, and mucous discharge) upon masked examination at 18 months of age.
Time Frame
18 months of age
Title
Cost of Treatment
Description
Total cost of treatment including the cost of an initial office consultation and all surgeries received (i.e. initial surgeries and reoperations) and medications prescribed for NLDO between randomization and the 18 months of age visit. Estimates of treatment costs were obtained primarily from the 2011 Medicare Fee Schedules.
Time Frame
Randomization to 18 months of age
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Months of Symptoms of Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction (NLDO) Between Randomization and 18 Months of Age
Description
Months of NLDO symptoms between randomization and 18 months of age. When resolution of NLDO occurred without surgery, the time of resolution was estimated as the midpoint between randomization and the first time point at which symptoms/signs were reported as absent (i.e. 3-month phone call, 6-month visit, or 18 months of age visit) without a subsequent report of symptoms/signs. For patients who underwent successful surgery, months of symptoms was estimated as months between randomization and the surgery. Patients who had clinical signs present at the 18 month of age visit were considered to have had symptoms present since randomization.
Time Frame
Randomization to 18 months of age.
Title
Proportion of Deferred Facility Probing Group Participants With 6-Month Resolution of NLDO Without Surgery
Description
Absence of three clinical signs of NLDO (epiphora, increased tear lake, and mucous discharge) upon unmasked examination 6 months after randomization. Participants who were operated before the 6-month visit were considered treatment failures.
Time Frame
Randomization to 6 months
Title
Proportion of Participants With Office Probing Success 6 Months After Randomization
Description
The proportion of immediate office group participants whose office probing was successful when assessed 6 months after randomization. Office probing success was defined as absence of three clinical signs of NLDO (epiphora, increased tear lake, and mucous discharge) 6 months after randomization and no reoperation.
Time Frame
Randomization to 6 months

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
6 Months
Maximum Age & Unit of Time
10 Months
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria: Age 6 to <10 months Onset of NLDO symptoms and/or signs prior to 6 months chronological age in study eye(s) Presence in study eye(s) of epiphora, increased tear film, and/or mucous discharge in the absence of an upper respiratory infection or an ocular surface irritation that investigator believes is due to NLDO At least one open punctum present in study eye(s) A history of NLDO treatment with lacrimal massage, topical antibiotics or steroids, or systemic antibiotics is permitted. Exclusion Criteria: History of nasolacrimal duct surgery including probing, nasolacrimal intubation, balloon catheter dilation, or dacryocystorhinostomy in study eye(s) History of trauma to the lacrimal drainage system of the study eye(s) Glaucoma in study eye(s) Corneal surface disease in study eye(s) Microphthalmia in study eye(s) Down Syndrome Craniosynostosis Goldenhar sequence Clefting syndromes Hemifacial microsomia Midline facial anomalies
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Katherine A. Lee, M.D., Ph.D.
Organizational Affiliation
Intermountain Eye Centers
Official's Role
Study Chair
Facility Information:
Facility Name
Intermountain Eye Centers
City
Boise
State/Province
Idaho
ZIP/Postal Code
83702
Country
United States

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Citations:
PubMed Identifier
22801833
Citation
Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. Resolution of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction with nonsurgical management. Arch Ophthalmol. 2012 Jun;130(6):730-4. doi: 10.1001/archophthalmol.2012.454.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
23954210
Citation
Lee KA, Chandler DL, Repka MX, Melia M, Beck RW, Summers CG, Frick KD, Foster NC, Kraker RT, Atkinson S; PEDIG. A comparison of treatment approaches for bilateral congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013 Nov;156(5):1045-50. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2013.06.014. Epub 2013 Aug 15.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
24568978
Citation
Miller AM, Chandler DL, Repka MX, Hoover DL, Lee KA, Melia M, Rychwalski PJ, Silbert DI; Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group; Beck RW, Crouch ER 3rd, Donahue S, Holmes JM, Quinn GE, Sala NA, Schloff S, Wallace DK, Foster NC, Frick KD, Golden RP, Lambert SR, Tien DR, Weakley DR Jr. Office probing for treatment of nasolacrimal duct obstruction in infants. J AAPOS. 2014 Feb;18(1):26-30. doi: 10.1016/j.jaapos.2013.10.016.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
23229693
Citation
Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. A randomized trial comparing the cost-effectiveness of 2 approaches for treating unilateral nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Arch Ophthalmol. 2012 Dec;130(12):1525-33. doi: 10.1001/archophthalmol.2012.2853.
Results Reference
result
Links:
URL
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23229693
Description
PubMed Abstract
URL
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3537230/
Description
PubMed Central HHS Public Access - Full Text

Learn more about this trial

Immediate Office Probing vs Deferred Facility Probing for Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction in Children 6 to <10 Months Old

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs