View clinical trials related to Macular Edema.
Filter by:Cystoid macular edema (CME) is the most common cause of suboptimal post-operative visual acuity in uncomplicated cataract extractions. Over two million cataract extractions are performed each year, with a reported incidence ranging from 1.5 to 6.9%, resulting in an estimated 20,000-130,000 new cases of CME annually. Clinical CME historically was associated with visual acuity of 20/40 or worse with fluorescein angiographic evidence of macular edema in a classic petaloid pattern. Angiographic CME physiologically signals an inflammatory process causing distortion of the outer plexiform layer, which if not resolved quickly could result in non-repairable visual loss. Topical, periocular, or intravitreal corticosteroids, despite their associated side effects, are the mainstay for pharmacologic treatment for patients with CME. Their efficacy has never been demonstrated in a randomized, controlled and blinded study. This is an open-label, Phase II study of intravitreally administered ranibizumab in subjects with cystoid macular edema secondary to non-ischemic retinopathy, as seen following cataract surgery with intraocular lens implantation.
Patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy or clinically significant diabetic macular edema requiring surgical intervention will receive a pre-operative injection of Macugen. An initial, pre-injection vitreous tap will be done in order to provide baseline VRGF 165 and cytokine levels. At the onset of the vitrectomy, a second vitreous sample will be taken to obtain intra-operative levels of Macugen, VEGF 165 and cytokines.
The purpose of the study is to find out if treatment with an intravitreal injection of triamcinolone or an intravitreal injection of ranibizumab can prevent loss of vision caused by panretinal photocoagulation treatment. At the present time, it is not known whether intravitreal steroid or anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections are beneficial in preventing vision loss after panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) treatment. It is possible that one or both of the types of injections will prevent vision loss after PRP treatment. However, it is not known whether the benefits of the injections will outweigh the risks. It is possible that because of side effects, the injections may not be as good as laser alone in treating the diabetic retinopathy.
The purpose of the study is to find out which is a better treatment for diabetic macular edema (DME): laser alone, laser combined with an intravitreal injection of triamcinolone, laser combined with an intravitreal injection of ranibizumab, or intravitreal injection of ranibizumab alone. At the present time, it is not known whether intravitreal steroid or anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections, with or without laser treatment, are better than just laser by itself. It is possible that one or both of the types of injections, with or without laser treatment, will improve vision more often than will laser without injections. However, even if better vision outcomes are seen with injections, side effects may be more of a problem with the injections than with laser. Therefore, this study is conducted to find out whether the benefits of the injections will outweigh the risks.
The study objective is to determine the course of changes in OCT measured macular thickness and visual acuity following a single session of focal photocoagulation for center-involved DME. The response will be evaluated separately in eyes with and without prior focal photocoagulation for DME. The purpose is to determine the proportion of eyes that continue to improve at least 5 letters in visual acuity or at least 10% in central retinal thickness after a session of focal photocoagulation. In addition, the study will explore whether any baseline factors can be identified that are predictive of the response. All subjects will have follow-up visits 8 weeks and 16 weeks post treatment. At the 16-week visit, study eyes are evaluated for change in retinal thickness and visual acuity from baseline. - Treatment is to be deferred and follow up continued if visual acuity letter score has improved by >5 or OCT central subfield thickness has decreased by >10% compared with baseline. - If visual acuity letter score has not improved by at least 5 and OCT central subfield thickness has not decreased by at least 10%, then the eye is classified as 'not improved' and the investigator may provide additional treatment. Follow up ends for eyes that receive additional treatment at this visit. However, if the investigator and participant elect to defer additional treatment (even if deferral criteria are not met), then follow up will continue until the study eye receives additional treatment for DME. - Eyes continuing in follow up have visits every 8 weeks (+1week) as long as there has been continued improvement in visual acuity (letter score improved >5 ) or retinal thickness (central subfield thickness decreased by >10%) compared with the visit 16 weeks earlier. The longest follow-up time will be 48 weeks. By providing information on the length of time during which clinically meaningful improvement occurs following focal photocoagulation, clinicians will be better able to determine when further photocoagulation or other treatments should be considered for persistent DME. Depending on the results of this study, a future randomized clinical trial will be considered comparing the more aggressive retreatment photocoagulation regimen currently serving as the standard DRCR Network approach to focal photocoagulation for macular edema with the less aggressive regimen evaluated in this protocol.
Melanoma is the most common primary tumour which occurs inside the eye. For over 20-years, it has been possible, in many cases, to use local delivery of radiation to the eye to treat this type of tumour, avoiding the need to surgically remove the affected eye. This treatment, however, is often complicated by radiation-induced loss of vision, months or years after treatment. The aim of this research project is to investigate the potential prevention of radiation complications in the eye by giving anti-inflammatory medication (a long-acting steroid) in the form of a local injection around the eye at the time of treatment, and at 4-months and 8-months following treatment. This medication (named ‘triamcinolone’) has been successfully used to treat similar complications of diabetic eye disease, for example, and has a good safety profile. The rationale of this study is to attempt to preserve vision, in addition to preserving the eye, in patients affected by this eye tumour, and therefore preserve quality of life for these patients.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety and tolerability of Ranibizumab in patients with Clinically Significant Diabetic Macular Edema (CSDME). It will also compare treatment outcomes for patients receiving 0.5mg Ranibizumab and higher doses of 1.0mg and 2.0mg Ranibizumab.
A multicenter study to compare multiple doses of intravitreal microplasmin for non-surgical PVD induction for treatment of patients with DME.
The aim of the present study is to compare the functional and clinical differences and advantages between a standard operating system and a newly developed even smaller system for pars plana vitrectomy. The present study may work out the possible advantages and disadvantages between the routinely used 20-gauge vitrectomy system and the newly developed 23-gauge device.
Central and branch retinal vein occlusions are major causes of visual loss. Hemorrhage and capillary nonperfusion, when they involve the macula, can contribute to visual loss, but the major cause is macular edema. Focal and grid laser photocoagulation can sometimes provide benefit in patients with macular edema due to branch vein occlusions, but several laser treatments are often needed and recovery of vision can be very slow and incomplete 1. Laser photocoagulation does not provide benefit for macular edema due to central vein occlusions 2. Therefore, new treatments are needed.The objective of this study is to assess the bioactivity of 3 intravitreous injections 0.5 mg or 0.3 mg of ranibizumab in patients with macular edema due to central and branch retinal vein occlusions and correlate activity with peak and trough aqueous levels. The purpose of this research protocol is pilot study to determine if a randomized placebo controlled trial is warranted.