Active clinical trials for "Edema"

This study is being conducted to assess the effects of topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) on macular retinal volume compared with placebo in eyes with non-central diabetic macular edema (DME). A secondary objective of this study is to assess the effects of topical NSAIDs on central subfield thickness and to compare the progression of non-central DME to central DME as determined by optical coherence tomography (OCT) and stereoscopic fundus photographs. Furthermore, this phase II study is being conducted (1) to determine whether the conduct of a phase III trial has merit based on an anatomic outcome, (2) to estimate recruitment potential of a phase III investigation, and (3) to provide information on outcome measures needed to design a phase III trial. The study is not designed to establish the efficacy of NSAIDs in the treatment of non- central DME.

To determine the efficacy of intravitreally (IVT) administered VEGF Trap-Eye on the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) assessed by the early treatment diabetic retinopathy study (ETDRS) chart in subjects with diabetic macular edema (DME) with central involvement

Although multiple studies have suggested that treatment with ranibizumab is safe and efficacious and superior to focal/grid laser alone for patients with center-involved diabetic macular edema (DME), there may be barriers in place to widespread adoption of ranibizumab use given its high cost per dose and the need for multiple treatments over time. Prioritizing resources from a public health policy perspective could be easier if more precise estimates regarding the risks and benefits of other anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapies were available, especially when the difference in costs could be billions of dollars over just a few years. Thus, there is a clear rationale at this time to explore potential anti-VEGF alternatives to ranibizumab that might prove to be as or more efficacious, might deliver equally lasting or longer-lasting treatment effects, and cost substantially less. Of the potentially available alternative anti-VEGF agents for this trial, bevacizumab and aflibercept are the best candidates for a direct comparison study. Bevacizumab shares the most similar molecular structure, costs far less, and is widely available. Furthermore, there is already preliminary evidence to suggest that it may be efficacious in the treatment of DME and it is already being widely used for this indication. Although aflibercept has a similar cost per unit dose to ranibizumab, it has the potential to decrease treatment burden and associated cost. If results from a comparative trial demonstrate improved efficacy or suggest similar efficacy of bevacizumab or aflibercept over ranibizumab, this information might give clinicians scientific rationale to substitute either one of these drugs for ranibizumab in the treatment of DME, and might thereby have substantial implications for public policy in terms of future estimates of health care dollars and possibly number of treatments necessary for anti-VEGF treatment of diabetic macular disease. Because of its availability and lower cost, bevacizumab is already currently in widespread clinical use for treatment of DME despite the lack of FDA approval for this indication. Thus, a clinical trial that suggested whether bevacizumab could be used as a safe and efficacious alternative to ranibizumab could substantially impact nationwide practice patterns for treatment of DME by either validating the current use of bevacizumab or by demonstrating improved outcomes with ranibizumab or aflibercept treatment for DME. Study Objective The primary objective of the proposed research is to compare the efficacy and safety of (1) intravitreal aflibercept, (2) intravitreal bevacizumab, and (3) intravitreal ranibizumab when given to treat central-involved DME in eyes with visual acuity of 20/32 to 20/320.

This study will evaluate the efficacy of ultra low dose danazol (Optina™) for the treatment of diabetic macular edema.

The Hyper-CL™ lenses are indicated for therapeutic use as a bandage to protect the corneal surface and to relieve corneal pain in the treatment of acute or chronic ocular pathologies, such as bullous keratopathy, corneal erosions, entropion, corneal edema, and corneal dystrophies as well as post-surgical conditions resulting from cataract extraction and corneal surgery. The lenses may be prescribed for daily wear with removal for cleaning and disinfection (chemical, not heat) prior to reinsertion, as recommended by the eye care professional. In addition Hyper-CL™ contact lenses can also provide optical correction during healing if required. Prospective open-label, randomized, crossover clinical study To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Hyper-CL™ lens in subjects suffering from corneal edema. This study is designed to evaluate the efficacy of the Hyper-CL™ lens contact lens on corneal edema thickness as compared with salt solution treatment only in subjects suffering from corneal edema. Treatment with the Hyper-CL™ lens may result with greater reduction in edema thickness as compared with treatment with salt solution only in subjects suffering from corneal edema. Men and women suffering from a decrease in vision due to corneal edema that meet the inclusion/exclusion criteria and provide written Informed Consent will be enrolled in the study. A total of 25 subjects will be enrolled. Each subject will be treated with: Treatment A: Hyper-CL™ lens only (7 days) Treatment B: Hyper-CL™ lens + salt solution (7 days) Treatment C: salt solution only (7 days) One week (7 days) of washout without any treatment will be between treatments. Subject will be equally allocated (with a 1:1:1:1:1:1 ratio) to one of the following 6 crossover regimen based on a randomization scheme with blocks stratified by center: C-A-B; B-C-A; A-B-C; C-B-A; B-A-C; A-C-B. Up to 2 centers will participate in this study. Each subject will be followed from baseline to 42 days. All Subjects will come for a clinic visit at 7, 14, 21, 28, 35 and 42 days post first treatment. Completion of active enrolment is anticipated to last approximately 6 months. The primary end point will be achieved when the final study subject has completed 42 day follow-up.

Multicentre randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether 5 monthly fixed dosing of 700 µg Dexamethasone Posterior Segment Drug Delivery System (Ozurdex) is as efficacious as Optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided PRN dosing in patients with refractory diabetic macular edema.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate efficacy and safety of ASP8232 in subjects with diabetic macular edema (DME). This study will evaluate the percent change from baseline in excess central subfield thickness (CST) in the study eye as assessed by spectral domain-optical coherence Tomography (SD-OCT) for ASP8232 monotherapy at Month 3.

To assess the safety and effectiveness of repeat doses of AA4500 in the treatment of edematous fibrosclerotic panniculopathy (EFP) commonly known as cellulite in adult women.

To determine whether TLC399 (ProDex) provides an ideal, safe, long-acting, dexamethasone sodium phosphate (DSP) delivery system for the treatment of macular edema due to retinal vein occlusion (RVO).

A Phase 1 Study to evaluate the Safety of teprotumumab in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema.