Reported trial results for Macular Degeneration

77 trials have reported results.

AI generated results summary. Written by an AI model from the official source data and checked on a sample basis. It can contain mistakes, so confirm anything important against the original source. How we use AI

• NCT05536297 · results posted 14 April 2026

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05536297) enrolled a total of 278 participants across three groups. One group (64 people) received a treatment called ACP every month throughout the whole study. A second group (62 people) had previously received ACP on a mixed schedule — sometimes every month, sometimes every other month — and then switched to receiving it every month. A third group (152 people) had previously received a sham (inactive/dummy) treatment and then switched to receiving ACP every month. The trial was primarily measuring how many participants experienced any unwanted medical events (called adverse events), and secondarily looking at whether the body developed any antibody response to the drug, as well as measuring the levels of ACP in the blood over time. The reported data shows that, when it came to unwanted medical events, 50 out of 64 participants in the first group, 49 out of 62 in the second group, and 129 out of 152 in the third group had at least one such event recorded during the trial. Regarding antibody responses to the drug, the reported data shows that 1 participant in the first group, 0 in the second group, and 2 in the third group developed a detectable antibody response. For blood levels of ACP measured in units called ng/mL (nanograms per millilitre, a measure of how much of the drug was present in the blood), the reported data shows a range of measurements across different time points for each group; notably, the sham group started with very low levels (0.044 ng/mL) before switching to ACP, after which their levels rose to be broadly similar to the other groups (ranging from around 31 to 38 ng/mL across the later time points). These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT03364153 · results posted 12 March 2026

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03364153) enrolled 121 people with an eye condition affecting the retina. Sixty-one participants received injections of a drug called avacincaptad pegol, and 60 received a sham (dummy) procedure as a comparison group. The trial ran for 18 months and was primarily measuring how quickly a specific area of damage at the back of the eye — called the ellipsoid zone defect — grew over time. Secondary measurements included changes in vision sharpness and the eye's sensitivity to light. The reported data shows that, for the main outcome, the damaged area grew by an average of 0.64 square millimetres over 18 months in the avacincaptad pegol group, compared with 0.66 square millimetres in the sham group. For vision sharpness (measured using a standard letter-reading chart scored from 0 to 100, where higher is better), the avacincaptad pegol group's average score changed by −0.13 letters from the start of the trial, while the sham group's changed by −1.34 letters. For light sensitivity in the eye (measured in units called decibels, where higher is better), the avacincaptad pegol group's average changed by −1.16 and the sham group's by −1.92. Regarding adverse events (any unwanted medical occurrence during the trial), 53 out of 61 participants in the avacincaptad pegol group and 45 out of 60 in the sham group reported at least one such event. It is worth noting that 17 participants in the avacincaptad pegol group and 7 in the sham group did not complete the study, which the data does not explain further. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT04777201 · results posted 24 October 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled a total of 1,146 participants across three groups. The main study included 524 people who had previously been treated with a medicine called faricimab (Cohort A) and 505 people who had previously been treated with a different medicine called aflibercept (Cohort B); both groups then continued on faricimab using a personalised dosing approach. A separate smaller sub-study ran at the same time and included 117 additional participants who also received faricimab. The trial was primarily tracking what types of unwanted health events (called "adverse events") occurred in the treated eye, the other eye, and throughout the rest of the body, and — in the sub-study — whether the treatment was associated with any change in the density of cells on the surface of the cornea (the clear front part of the eye). The reported data shows that, in the main study, 188 people in Cohort A and 207 people in Cohort B experienced at least one unwanted event in their treated eye; of these, 13 (Cohort A) and 23 (Cohort B) were classed as severe. In the other (untreated) eye, 157 and 149 people respectively reported at least one such event, with 3 and 8 classed as severe. For unwanted events affecting the rest of the body, 343 people in Cohort A and 337 in Cohort B reported at least one; 83 and 93 of those were classed as severe. In the sub-study (16 participants reported a treated-eye event, and 17 reported an other-eye event). For the corneal cell density measurement, the reported data shows a 0.51% decrease in the treated eye and a 0.71% decrease in the untreated eye at one year; at the 24-week mark, the figures were a 0.02% decrease in the treated eye and a 0.29% decrease in the untreated eye. No data was reported for several sub-categories beyond what is described here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT05265624 · results posted 1 October 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 80 people in total, split into two groups: 60 people who received their genetic risk results early ("Early Genetic Results Disclosure") and 20 people who received them later ("Late Genetic Results Disclosure"). The trial was measuring whether learning about your personal genetic risk influenced levels of carotenoids — natural compounds found in fruit and vegetables — in the body. Carotenoid levels were tracked over 12 months using several different methods: a skin scan using light reflection, a second skin scan using a different light-based technique, an eye scan measuring carotenoids in the back of the eye, and a blood test. By the end of the study, 56 of the 60 early-disclosure participants and all 20 late-disclosure participants had completed the trial. The reported data shows the change in carotenoid levels from the start of the trial to the 12-month mark. For the skin measurements using reflectance spectroscopy, the early-disclosure group showed a reported change of 257.7 reflection units, while the late-disclosure group showed a change of 290.9 units. Using the second skin-scanning method (resonance Raman spectroscopy), the reported changes were 30,578.3 units for the early group and 31,678.6 units for the late group. For the eye-based measurement, the reported changes were very similar between the two groups: 10,622.6 units for the early group and 10,566.1 units for the late group. The blood test results showed two sets of figures for each group, with reported changes of 238.3 and 618.0 for the early-disclosure group, and 279.2 and 818.7 for the late-disclosure group — though no further explanation of these two separate figures was provided in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT05019521 · results posted 5 September 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05019521) studied a medicine called danicopan in people with geographic atrophy — a form of age-related macular degeneration where patches of the retina gradually break down, causing vision loss. Participants were randomly assigned to receive one of three doses of danicopan (100 mg twice daily, 200 mg twice daily, or 400 mg once daily) or a placebo (a dummy pill with no active medicine). In the first 52-week period, 93, 91, 91, and 90 people started in each of those groups respectively. After that, participants who had been on placebo were switched to one of the danicopan doses for a further 52 weeks. The trial's main goal was to measure how quickly the damaged area on the retina grew over the first year. The reported data shows that over the first 52 weeks, the rate at which the damaged retinal area grew was 0.465 mm/year in the 100 mg twice-daily group, 0.391 mm/year in the 200 mg twice-daily group, 0.443 mm/year in the 400 mg once-daily group, and 0.406 mm/year in the placebo group. (These numbers represent a mathematical transformation of the lesion size used to make the measurements more reliable — a smaller number means a slower rate of growth, which is considered a better result.) Several secondary measures were also reported, including the total size of the damaged area, the degree of damage to light-sensing cells in the retina, and the thickness of retinal layers, tracked at both 52 and 104 weeks. The reported data shows these measurements generally increased (indicating more damage) across all groups over time, with some variation between the danicopan doses and the placebo group; however, the figures for some sub-groups at Week 104 were not reported in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT04437368 · results posted 12 August 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04437368) enrolled 98 people in total across three groups: 52 people received a lower dose of an investigational gene therapy called GT005, 9 received a higher dose, and 37 were in an untreated control group. The trial was looking at a condition called geographic atrophy (GA) — a progressive eye condition where patches of cells in the back of the eye gradually die off. The main thing being measured was how much those damaged patches grew over time, specifically the change in their size (measured in square millimetres) from the start of the trial to 48 weeks later. The reported data shows that, for the primary measure at 48 weeks, the damaged area in the low-dose group grew by approximately 2.12 mm², the high-dose group by approximately 2.38 mm², and the untreated control group by approximately 1.14 mm². For the secondary measure looking at longer-term changes, the reported data shows that by 96 weeks the low-dose group had an increase of approximately 4.84 mm², the high-dose group approximately 4.07 mm², and the untreated control group approximately 2.80 mm². These numbers represent how much the affected area changed from where each group started — they do not on their own indicate whether one group was better or worse off overall, as individual starting points varied. The reported data also shows that across both parts of the trial combined, 18 people in the low-dose group, 9 in the high-dose group, and 2 in the untreated control group experienced what are described as ocular (eye-related) adverse events — that is, undesirable medical occurrences that happened after joining the trial. Non-ocular (non-eye-related) adverse events were recorded in 13 people in the low-dose group, 8 in the high-dose group, and 14 in the untreated control group. These are counts of events that were recorded and tracked, and no further detail about their nature or severity is provided in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT04757636 · results posted 5 August 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 998 people in total across three groups. All participants had a condition called neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) — a form of macular degeneration where abnormal blood vessels grow at the back of the eye. One group received a drug called OPT-302 on a standard schedule alongside another eye injection called aflibercept; a second group received the same combination but on a less frequent (extended) schedule; and a third group received aflibercept plus a sham (dummy) injection instead of OPT-302. The trial ran for 52 weeks and the main thing it measured was how many letters participants could read on a standardised eye chart (called an ETDRS chart) compared to when they started. The reported data shows that, on average, participants in all three groups read more letters on the eye chart at 52 weeks than they did at the start — a higher number means an improvement in reading ability. The standard-dosing OPT-302 combination group gained an average of about 13.5 letters, the extended-dosing OPT-302 combination group gained about 12.8 letters, and the sham (comparison) group gained about 13.7 letters. For the secondary measures, the reported data shows that the number of participants who gained 15 or more letters was 167, 156, and 162 in the three groups respectively, and those gaining 10 or more letters was 204, 197, and 204. A scan measuring fluid at the back of the eye showed that 30, 32, and 29 participants (in the same order) had no fluid detected at week 52. A measure of abnormal blood vessel area showed reductions of approximately 4.9, 4.9, and 4.6 square millimetres across the three groups. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT04757610 · results posted 22 July 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 986 people in total across three groups, all of whom had a condition called neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) — a form of age-related macular degeneration that can affect central vision. One group (329 people) received a combination of the drug ranibizumab plus OPT-302 on a standard injection schedule; a second group (326 people) received the same combination but on a less frequent ("extended") schedule; and a third group (331 people) received ranibizumab plus a sham (dummy) injection. The main thing the trial measured was how many letters participants could read on a standard eye chart (called an ETDRS chart) after 52 weeks, compared to when they started. The reported data shows that, on average, participants in all three groups were able to read more letters at 52 weeks than they could at the start. The standard-dosing combination group gained an average of 13.20 letters, the extended-dosing combination group gained an average of 12.41 letters, and the ranibizumab-plus-sham group gained an average of 14.30 letters. For the secondary outcomes, the number of participants who gained 15 or more letters was 159 in the standard-dosing group, 135 in the extended-dosing group, and 164 in the sham group. Those gaining 10 or more letters were 198, 182, and 202 respectively. A scan measuring fluid in the back of the eye also showed reductions across all groups, and the number of participants with no detectable fluid at all at week 52 was 33, 22, and 22 across the three groups respectively. It is worth noting that roughly half the participants in each group did not complete the study, which the reported data acknowledges but does not fully explain. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT04566445 · results posted 10 July 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04566445) enrolled 255 people in total across three groups: 87 received a medium dose of a gene therapy called GT005, 86 received a high dose of GT005, and 82 received no treatment (the untreated control group). The trial was studying geographic atrophy — a progressive condition where patches of cells at the back of the eye break down and grow over time — and was measuring how much those patches grew over roughly 72 weeks (about 18 months) as its main goal, with further measurements taken out to 96 weeks (about two years). The reported data shows that, at the 72-week mark (the primary measure), the average growth in the damaged area of the eye was approximately 2.10 mm² in the medium-dose group, 2.54 mm² in the high-dose group, and 2.05 mm² in the untreated control group. At 96 weeks (a secondary measure), the reported figures were approximately 4.41 mm² for the medium-dose group, 4.61 mm² for the high-dose group, and 3.77 mm² for the untreated control group. In other words, all three groups showed growth in the affected area over time, and the reported numbers were broadly similar across groups, with the untreated group showing slightly lower figures at both time points. The reported data also shows that adverse events (that is, unwanted medical occurrences recorded during the study) were tracked. Across the two treatment groups, a large majority of participants — 66 of 87 in the medium-dose group and 65 of 86 in the high-dose group — had at least one such recorded event during the study period, compared with 15 of 82 in the untreated control group. Serious adverse events were recorded for 13 participants in the medium-dose group and 21 in the high-dose group, with none recorded in the untreated control group. These figures reflect events that were recorded and reported; the data as submitted does not draw conclusions about what caused them. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT06785090 · results posted 6 May 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 87 people who had recently undergone cataract surgery — 45 in the bromfenac group (who received bromfenac eye drops) and 42 in a control group (who did not receive the drops). All 87 participants completed the study with no dropouts. The trial was primarily measuring changes in the thickness of the macula — a small but important area at the back of the eye — using a scanning technology called Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT), which takes detailed images of eye tissue. Measurements were taken before surgery and again six weeks after surgery. The reported data shows that, on average, macular thickness changed by 252.6 microns (a micron is one-thousandth of a millimetre) in the bromfenac group, and 253.1 microns in the control group, from their starting points to six weeks after surgery. The trial also tracked side effects specifically in the bromfenac group as a secondary measure. The reported data shows that 5 out of 45 participants in the bromfenac group experienced an adverse event (an unwanted or unexpected health event) potentially related to the eye drops, such as corneal erosion or irritation. No equivalent adverse event count was reported for the control group in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT04774926 · results posted 24 February 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04774926) enrolled 122 people, all of whom received a medicine called brolucizumab (6 mg). The trial was designed to look at an eye condition involving abnormal blood vessel growth beneath the retina (the light-sensitive layer at the back of the eye). The main thing the trial was trying to understand was whether certain patient characteristics at the start of the trial could predict which patients would end up completely free of fluid in their retina after about 48 weeks of treatment — receiving injections every 12 weeks. Of the 122 people who started, 91 completed the trial and 31 did not. The reported data shows that, out of the 120 participants included in this part of the analysis, 27 were classified as "fluid-free" at week 48 on a stable 12-weekly treatment schedule, while 93 were classified as "not fluid-free" (this second group included people who still had fluid present, those who needed more frequent 8-weekly injections, or those who stopped treatment or dropped out). The trial also looked at what the participants' eye scans showed at the start, to see if those features were linked to which group they ended up in. For example, among the 27 fluid-free participants, 19 had a particular type of abnormal blood vessel growth (Type 1) compared to 61 out of 93 in the not-fluid-free group. The reported data also describes patterns of fluid below a specific layer of the retina and the presence of certain reflective material in the retina at the start and end of the study, broken down across both groups. Data on any other outcome measures beyond these primary measures was not reported in the submitted results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03478878 · results posted 3 July 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 9 people in total — 7 in Cohort 1 and 2 in Cohort 2. All 9 participants completed the trial with no drop-outs. The trial was measuring changes in how quickly participants' eyes adjusted to the dark (called "rod intercept time," or RIT — the time it takes for the eye's light-sensitive cells to kick in after moving from a bright to a dark environment). It also measured how many letters participants could read under dim light conditions, and asked participants to fill in a questionnaire about how well they managed everyday tasks in low-light settings. The reported data shows that for the primary measure — dark adaptation time at the end of treatment — Cohort 1 participants started with an average RIT of about 16.8 minutes and this rose to about 18.7 minutes by the end of treatment, a reported average change of roughly 1.8 minutes. Cohort 2 participants started at about 24.3 minutes and rose to about 26.1 minutes, also a reported change of roughly 1.8 minutes. At the follow-up visit after treatment ended, the reported average change from baseline was about 1.9 minutes for Cohort 1 and about 2.3 minutes for Cohort 2. For the dim-light letter reading test, the reported data shows Cohort 1 averaged about 4–5 more letters read compared to baseline, while Cohort 2 showed little change (around −0.5 to +1.5 letters). For the low-light daily activities questionnaire (scored 0–100, where higher is better), the reported changes from baseline were small and varied in direction across both cohorts and both time points. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT04239027 · results posted 4 June 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04239027) enrolled 210 people, all of whom received a medicine called brolucizumab (also known as RTH258). The trial was looking at a condition affecting the back of the eye, specifically abnormal blood vessel growth under the retina (called choroidal neovascularisation, or CNV). Researchers used a specialised eye scan — a non-invasive imaging technique that photographs blood flow in the eye without dye injections — to measure the size of these abnormal blood vessel areas over roughly one year (48 weeks). By the end of the study, 184 participants had completed it, and 26 did not. The reported data shows that the primary measurement — the percentage change in the size of the abnormal blood vessel area at 12 weeks — showed a reported reduction of around 79% from where participants started. For the longer-term secondary measurements at 48 weeks, the reported data shows percentage reductions in that same area ranging from approximately 53% to 68%, depending on the time point measured. In terms of actual physical size (measured in square millimetres), the reported changes ranged from roughly −0.08 to −0.14 square millimetres across different time points. The reported data also shows that participants' vision scores (measured using a standard letter-reading eye chart) changed by between approximately 5 and 8 letters from their starting point at various time points up to week 48. Additionally, the reported figures show that between roughly 43% and 75% of participants were able to stay on a less frequent dosing schedule (one injection every 12 weeks) at different points after their initial treatment phase. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT04597632 · results posted 4 April 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this extension study enrolled 248 participants, all of whom received the eye injection brolucizumab 6 mg. Of these, 231 completed the study and 17 did not. The trial was measuring how well participants' vision held up over time, how thick the central part of the retina (the light-sensitive layer at the back of the eye) was, and how long doctors were able to go between treatment appointments without seeing signs of active disease returning in the eye. The reported data shows that, on average, participants' vision scores (measured by how many letters they could read on a standard eye chart, where higher is better) changed by around minus 1.8 to minus 2.9 letters from the start of the extension period to weeks 52 and 56 — meaning scores were slightly lower at those time points across the different groups. For the thickness of the central retina, the reported figures ranged from a small increase of about 5.9 micrometres in one group to a decrease of about 14.1 micrometres in another. Regarding treatment intervals, the reported data shows that at the end of the study, 68 participants were being seen every 20 weeks (the longest interval), 59 every 16 weeks, 47 every 12 weeks, 49 every 8 weeks, and 14 every 4 weeks — reflecting the range of appointment schedules participants were on without signs of active disease. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT04864834 · results posted 26 March 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04864834) enrolled 485 adults in total — 245 in the SOK583A1 group and 240 in the Eylea EU group. Both medicines are versions of aflibercept (40 mg/mL), an injection used in the eye for a condition called neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), which affects central vision. The trial was designed to compare the two treatments across a range of measures, including vision sharpness, changes in the layers of the eye, and the body's immune response to the medicine. Most participants completed the study (216 in the SOK583A1 group and 215 in the Eylea EU group). The reported data shows that the main thing being measured was the change in how many letters participants could read on a standardised eye chart (called an ETDRS chart) between the start of the study and week 8. In the SOK583A1 group, the average improvement was 6.5 letters; in the Eylea EU group it was 6.8 letters. For secondary measures, the reported data shows changes in the thickness of a specific layer at the back of the eye (central subfield thickness) at several time points — both groups showed reductions across all measured time points, ranging from around 100 to 188 micrometres in the SOK583A1 group and 99 to 173 micrometres in the Eylea EU group. Changes in a measure of abnormal blood vessel size in the eye were also recorded and appeared similar between groups. At weeks 24 and 52, the average letter-score improvements were 6.9 and 6.4 (SOK583A1) versus 7.4 and 7.7 (Eylea EU). Regarding the immune response (the body producing antibodies against the medicine), 2 participants in the SOK583A1 group and 6 in the Eylea EU group were reported to have developed such antibodies, while 232 and 225 respectively did not. The number of participants who experienced adverse events (unwanted health events recorded during the study) was also reported: 84 in the SOK583A1 group and 78 in the Eylea EU group had eye-related events; 55 and 51 had events elsewhere in the body; and 141 in each group had any adverse event of any kind over 52 weeks. The trial did not report what proportion of these events were considered serious or related to treatment in the structured data provided here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT04005352 · results posted 30 January 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04005352) enrolled 734 people in total — 366 received brolucizumab 6 mg and 368 received aflibercept 2 mg. Both are injected eye treatments used for a retinal eye condition. The trial was measuring how long doctors could go between injections without seeing any signs of disease activity (such as fluid in the retina or changes in vision), as well as whether participants' vision scores changed over time. The reported data shows that when looking at injection intervals up to Week 32, more participants in the brolucizumab group (141 out of 366) were on a 12-week schedule compared to the aflibercept group (73 out of 368), while more participants in the aflibercept group were on shorter 8-week or 4-week schedules. For vision scores — measured on a 0–100 scale where higher means better — both groups showed a similar average improvement from their starting point of around 5 points by weeks 28 and 32. Looking further out to Week 64, the reported data shows 104 brolucizumab participants reached a 16-week interval compared to 45 in the aflibercept group, though more aflibercept participants (154 vs 85) remained on a 4-week interval. The reported data also shows that 260 brolucizumab participants and 211 aflibercept participants had no signs of disease activity at some point during the study. The reported data shows that, among those who achieved a period of no disease activity, the 75th percentile time to first reaching that point after loading injections was 9.1 weeks for brolucizumab and 12.1 weeks for aflibercept. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT04435366 · results posted 28 December 2023

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved people with geographic atrophy (GA) — a serious eye condition linked to age-related macular degeneration that causes permanent loss of sight. In the first year, 225 people received the study drug (avacincaptad pegol) and 223 received a sham (inactive) procedure. In the second year, the groups were reorganised: some participants continued or switched treatments, bringing the total across all groups to 392 people entering year two. The trial was primarily measuring how quickly the area of damaged tissue in the eye grew over time, using a specialised eye-imaging technique. The reported data shows that over the first 12 months, the average rate of GA area growth was 0.336 mm/year in the treatment group compared with 0.392 mm/year in the sham group. Over the full 24 months, the reported growth rates were 2.23 mm²/year for those who received the drug for both years, 2.10 mm²/year for those who switched from sham to the drug in year two, and 2.59 mm²/year for those who remained in the sham group throughout. For vision sharpness (measured by how many letters a person could read on a standardised eye chart, out of 100), the reported data shows both groups experienced a decline from their starting scores by 24 months: the treatment group's score fell by about 7.3 points and the sham group's by about 6.5 points. Similarly, scores on a quality-of-life questionnaire about vision fell in both groups over 24 months, with the treatment group dropping by about 7.7 points and the sham group by about 7.0 points. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT04480463 · results posted 10 October 2023

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04480463) compared two treatments for an eye condition: an investigational treatment called SCD411 and an existing treatment called aflibercept. A total of 288 people were assigned to each group — 576 participants in all. The trial's main focus was on measuring changes in vision, specifically how many letters participants could correctly read on a standardised eye chart (a common way to measure vision in eye studies). By the end of the study, 259 people in the SCD411 group and 256 in the aflibercept group had completed the trial. The reported data shows that, for the primary (main) measurement of vision change, participants in the SCD411 group were reported to read an average of 5.5 more letters correctly compared to their starting point, while those in the aflibercept group were reported to read an average of 5.9 more letters correctly. A secondary (additional) measurement of vision change reported figures of 9.0 more letters for the SCD411 group and 7.7 more letters for the aflibercept group. The trial also measured how many participants in the SCD411 group developed antibodies (proteins the body can produce in response to a foreign substance) against SCD411. The reported data shows a range of percentage figures across different time points, but the individual time points and their labels were not fully detailed in the submitted data, so a complete breakdown cannot be described here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT04423718 · results posted 6 September 2023

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04423718) involved three groups of participants receiving different dosing regimens of a medicine called aflibercept, which is an injection used in the eye. In total, 1,009 people started the main part of the study — 336 in the first group (standard dose every 8 weeks, then a higher dose in an extension phase), 335 in the second group (higher dose every 12 weeks), and 338 in the third group (higher dose every 16 weeks). The trial was primarily measuring changes in vision, using a standardised eye chart test called the ETDRS letter score, where a higher score means better vision. The reported data shows that at 48 weeks — the main measurement point — average vision scores improved from the starting point in all three groups. The first group (standard dose) showed an average improvement of about 7 letters on the eye chart, the second group (higher dose every 12 weeks) showed an average improvement of about 6 letters, and the third group (higher dose every 16 weeks) showed an average improvement of about 5.9 letters. The reported data also shows that around 20–22% of participants across all groups gained 15 or more letters in vision from their starting score by week 48, and roughly 54–58% of participants reached a vision score of at least 69 letters (broadly comparable to being able to read a car number plate at a normal distance) by that same point. Regarding fluid in the eye — one of the secondary measurements — by week 16, between about 52% and 65% of participants showed no detectable fluid in the central part of the retina, with the higher-dose groups showing slightly higher percentages. The reported data also shows that the area of abnormal blood vessel growth in the eye (a feature of the condition being studied) decreased in all three groups by week 48, with reductions of approximately 2.4, 3.7, and 2.9 square millimetres respectively. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03525613 · results posted 6 July 2023

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03525613) enrolled 637 people across four groups to study a treatment called pegcetacoplan for geographic atrophy (GA) — a form of progressive vision loss affecting the back of the eye. Participants were assigned to receive either pegcetacoplan injections once a month or every other month, or a sham (dummy) procedure on the same schedules. The main thing being measured was how much the area of damaged tissue in the eye grew over 12 months, with further measurements continuing to 24 months. Not all participants completed the study — for example, 144 of the 213 in the monthly pegcetacoplan group finished, compared to 169 of 212 in the every-other-month group. The reported data shows that at 12 months, the average increase in the area of damaged tissue (measured in square millimetres) was 1.56 mm² in the monthly pegcetacoplan group, 1.65 mm² in the every-other-month group, and 1.97 mm² in the combined sham group. At 24 months, the reported figures were 3.12 mm², 3.28 mm², and 4.03 mm² respectively. For the secondary outcomes at 24 months, the reported data shows changes in light sensitivity (measured in decibels) of −3.32, −3.06, and −2.95 across the three groups; changes in reading speed (words per minute) of −22.4, −17.5, and −16.2; and changes in a reading independence questionnaire score of −0.29, −0.38, and −0.27. These scores were on a scale where a more negative number meant greater decline in reading independence. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03525600 · results posted 18 June 2023

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 621 people across four groups. Participants received either pegcetacoplan injections once a month, pegcetacoplan injections every other month, a sham (dummy) procedure once a month, or a sham procedure every other month. The trial was measuring changes in the size of geographic atrophy (GA) lesions — areas of damage at the back of the eye — in people with a condition called GA, which is an advanced form of age-related macular degeneration. The trial also looked at reading speed, reading independence, and overall vision over 24 months. The reported data shows that at 12 months (the main measurement point), the average increase in lesion size was 1.73 mm² in the monthly pegcetacoplan group, 1.76 mm² in the every-other-month pegcetacoplan group, and 1.96 mm² in the combined sham group. At 24 months, the reported average increases were 3.23 mm², 3.34 mm², and 3.97 mm² respectively. For vision (measured by a standard letter-reading chart), all groups showed a decline from their starting scores at 24 months: the monthly pegcetacoplan group declined by about 8.1 letters, the every-other-month group by about 8.9 letters, and the sham group by about 6.2 letters. Reading speed also declined across all groups, and scores on the reading independence questionnaire (where a lower score means more difficulty) declined slightly in all groups as well. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03066258 · results posted 16 May 2023

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03066258) enrolled 42 people across five groups (called cohorts), with 6 people in each of the first three cohorts and 12 in each of the last two. All participants had a condition affecting the back of the eye involving abnormal blood vessel growth. The trial was investigating a gene therapy called RGX-314, which was delivered directly into the eye. Most participants completed the study — 40 out of 42 finished, with one person in Cohort 1 and one in Cohort 5 not completing it. The trial was primarily measuring how many participants experienced any eye-related or general health-related unwanted events (called adverse events or serious adverse events) over roughly 26 weeks. The reported data shows that across all five cohorts, every participant — all 6, 6, 6, 12, and 12 people respectively — was recorded as having experienced at least one adverse event (whether eye-related or general) during the primary follow-up period. The same pattern was reported for the longer-term secondary safety follow-up. Regarding vision scores (measured using a standard letter chart, where a higher number means better vision), the reported average change from the starting point varied noticeably by cohort: Cohort 1 saw an average decrease of 7.6 letters, Cohort 2 an increase of 1.2 letters, Cohort 3 an increase of 14.0 letters, Cohort 4 an increase of 0.9 letters, and Cohort 5 a decrease of 3.8 letters. The reported data also shows changes in the thickness of the central part of the retina (a measure of fluid build-up, where a decrease suggests less fluid): Cohorts 1, 4, and 5 showed average decreases of 88.6, 56.7, and 108.2 micrometres respectively, while Cohorts 2 and 3 showed small average increases of 25.3 and 2.0 micrometres. The number of additional eye injections participants needed per year after receiving RGX-314 ranged from a reported average of 10.3 per year in Cohort 1 down to 2.0 per year in Cohort 5, with Cohorts 2, 3, and 4 sitting in between. Average changes in the area of abnormal blood vessel growth were small across all cohorts, ranging from no change (Cohort 2) to a reduction of 1.2 mm² (Cohort 3). These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT04331730 · results posted 26 October 2022

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04331730) enrolled 107 people in total across three groups. Thirty-six participants received a lower dose of an investigational oral tablet called AKST4290 (800 mg) alongside a standard eye injection called aflibercept, 35 received a higher dose of AKST4290 (1600 mg) with aflibercept, and 36 received a placebo (dummy tablet) with aflibercept. The trial was primarily measuring changes in vision over time, using a standard eye-chart test called the ETDRS chart, where scores range from 0 to 93 and a higher score means better vision. The reported data shows that, on average, participants in all three groups gained vision points from where they started. The lower-dose AKST4290 group gained an average of 10.4 points, the higher-dose group gained 6.7 points, and the placebo group gained 13.7 points. For the secondary measures, the reported data shows that in the two AKST4290 groups, the average time before an additional "as-needed" eye injection was first required was around 20.6 weeks (lower dose) and 20.1 weeks (higher dose). The rate of additional injections received from week 12 onward was reported as approximately 0.082 and 0.083 injections per week for the two AKST4290 groups respectively, compared with 0.125 per week in the placebo group. Regarding the proportion of people who gained 15 or more letters of vision by week 36, the reported figures were 30.6% in the lower-dose group, 14.3% in the higher-dose group, and 41.7% in the placebo group. Changes in retinal thickness (a measure of fluid in the eye) through week 12 were also reported, but the data as submitted does not provide a fuller breakdown of the adverse event (side effect) figures beyond participant counts by intensity category. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT03823300 · results posted 4 May 2022

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03823300) enrolled 331 people in the faricimab group and 327 people in the aflibercept group — a total of 658 participants. Both faricimab and aflibercept are medicines given by injection into the eye and are used for a type of vision problem affecting the retina (the light-sensitive layer at the back of the eye). The trial's main goal was to measure changes in participants' best corrected visual acuity — that is, the sharpest vision a person can achieve with glasses or contact lenses — over the course of the study, using a standard eye chart scored from 0 to 100 letters (higher is better). The reported data shows that for the primary measure — the average change in vision score from the start of the trial to around weeks 40, 44, and 48 — both groups gained the same number of letters on the eye chart: 6.6 letters in the faricimab group and 6.6 letters in the aflibercept group. For a later time window (weeks 52, 56, and 60), the reported figures were 6.6 letters for faricimab and 7.1 letters for aflibercept. Looking at the proportion of participants who gained 15 or more letters (a commonly used threshold in eye research) averaged over weeks 40–48, the reported data shows approximately 20.2% in the faricimab group and 22.2% in the aflibercept group met this mark; over weeks 52–60, those figures were 22.6% and 23.7% respectively. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03150589 · results posted 21 May 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial compared two medicines — SB11 (a proposed biosimilar, meaning a medicine designed to be very similar to an already-approved medicine) and Lucentis (ranibizumab, the reference medicine) — in people with a condition affecting vision. A total of 351 people were assigned to the SB11 group and 354 to the Lucentis group. The trial measured two things: changes in how well participants could read letters on a vision chart (called Best Corrected Visual Acuity, or BCVA), and changes in the thickness of a specific layer at the back of the eye (called Central Subfield Thickness, or CST), which was measured using a scanning technology called OCT. The reported data shows that, on average, participants in the SB11 group could read approximately 6.26 more letters on the vision chart compared to the start of the trial, while those in the Lucentis group could read approximately 7.08 more letters. For the eye thickness measurement, the reported data shows an average reduction of about 108.40 micrometres (a very small unit of length) in the SB11 group, and about 100.05 micrometres in the Lucentis group. No other outcome measures were included in the data provided, so any additional results from this trial were not reported in the information available here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03869684 · results posted 20 April 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03869684) involved 13 participants across three groups: 3 people received a placebo (inactive treatment), 5 received a low dose of MT-0814, and 5 received a high dose of MT-0814. The trial was looking at an eye condition and measuring two things: how well participants could read letters on an eye chart (known as best-corrected visual acuity), and the thickness of a specific layer at the centre of the retina (the back of the eye), measured using a scanning technology called optical coherence tomography. Of the 13 who started, only 5 completed the study — 1 in the placebo group, 2 in the low-dose group, and 2 in the high-dose group. The reported data shows that when it came to reading letters on the eye chart, the change from the start of the trial was small across all groups: the placebo group changed by an average of 0.4 letters, the low-dose group by 0.3 letters, and the high-dose group by 0.1 letters. For the retinal thickness measurement, the reported data shows the placebo group had a small decrease of 0.0053 mm, the low-dose group had a smaller decrease of 0.0016 mm, and the high-dose group had a slight increase of 0.0026 mm. These are very small numerical changes across all groups. It is worth noting that this was a very small trial with only 13 participants, and a large proportion did not complete the study, which means the numbers above should be understood in that context. No data on why participants did not complete the trial was reported in the structured results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT02540954 · results posted 8 April 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 168 people in each of two groups — 336 participants in total — all of whom had an eye condition being treated with a medicine called aflibercept. One group received injections on a flexible, extended schedule (meaning the time between injections could be stretched out based on how each person's eye was responding), while the other group received injections on a fixed schedule of once every eight weeks. The trial's main goal was to measure any change in how many letters participants could read on a standardised eye chart (called an ETDRS chart) over the course of the study. The reported data shows that, on average, both groups saw a very small decline in the number of letters they could read correctly by the end of the study. The extended-dosing group's average score dropped by 0.3 letters, and the fixed every-eight-weeks group dropped by 0.5 letters. For the secondary measurements, around 95% of the extended-dosing group and 94% of the fixed-dosing group were reported to have kept their vision stable (defined as losing fewer than 15 letters from their starting score). Roughly 24% of the extended-dosing group and 21% of the fixed-dosing group gained five or more letters from their starting score. No participants in the extended-dosing group and less than 1% in the fixed-dosing group were reported to have lost 30 or more letters. The reported data also shows changes in the physical appearance of the retina (the light-sensitive layer at the back of the eye), measured by a scanning technique called OCT. The central thickness of the retina decreased on average by about 24 micrometres in the extended-dosing group and about 33 micrometres in the fixed-dosing group. A measurement of abnormal blood vessel growth under the retina showed a small average increase in both groups (0.27 mm² and 0.20 mm² respectively), though what this means clinically is not described in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03794752 · results posted 5 January 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 8 participants, all of whom completed the study with none dropping out. All participants had low vision caused by either Age-related Macular Degeneration or Diabetic Macular Oedema — two conditions that can cause significant loss of central vision. The trial was a single-visit study, lasting approximately 1.5 hours per person, and looked at how participants performed on a range of vision tasks while wearing a head-mounted electronic visual enhancement device (essentially a wearable device designed to magnify or enhance what the wearer sees). The reported data shows results across several vision tasks. For distance vision (measured using a standard eye chart called the ETDRS chart), the numbers reported were 1, 4, 2, and 1 participants across different performance categories — though the labels for those categories were not included in the data provided. For near vision (also measured with the ETDRS chart), the reported numbers were 1, 2, 1, and 4 participants across categories. When it came to reading a standard paragraph, 4 out of 8 participants were reported as completing the reading assessment and 4 were reported as not completing it. For identifying facial expressions shown on a sheet and in a video, 4 participants were reported as able to identify them and 4 were reported as unable. For a task involving identifying shapes and objects on a shelf placed 5 feet away, the reported numbers were 3, 3, and 2 participants across categories — again, the specific category labels were not included in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT03038880 · results posted 5 January 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03038880) enrolled 71 participants in total across three groups. Twenty-four people received faricimab (6 mg) by injection every 12 weeks, 31 received faricimab (6 mg) every 16 weeks, and 16 received ranibizumab (0.5 mg) every 4 weeks — a medicine already in use that served as a comparison group. The trial was measuring changes in vision over time, specifically how many letters participants could read on a standardised eye chart (called an ETDRS chart, scored from 0 to 100, where a higher score means better vision). Six participants did not complete the study — three from each faricimab group — while all 16 in the ranibizumab group finished. The reported data shows that by week 40 — the trial's main measurement point — the average number of additional letters read on the eye chart, compared to where each participant started, was 9.3 letters for the faricimab every-12-weeks group, 12.5 letters for the faricimab every-16-weeks group, and 11.4 letters for the ranibizumab group. For the secondary measures, the reported data shows that at week 40, the proportion of participants who did not lose 15 or more letters from their starting score was 100% in the faricimab every-12-weeks group, approximately 96.7% in the faricimab every-16-weeks group, and 100% in the ranibizumab group. The proportion who gained 15 or more letters by week 40 was reported as approximately 8.7%, 23.3%, and 18.8% respectively across the three groups. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01485588 · results posted 6 November 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01485588) tested a treatment called hI-con1™, given as a single injection into the eye, across three different dose levels: 60 micrograms, 150 micrograms, and 300 micrograms. Six people were enrolled in each dose group, making 18 participants in total, and all 18 completed the study. The trial was measuring changes in two things over 24 weeks: the thickness of a central layer at the back of the eye (called the central retinal subfield thickness, measured using a scanning technology known as OCT), and the ability to read letters on a standard eye chart (called Best Corrected Visual Acuity, or BCVA — essentially how clearly someone can see with the best possible glasses or lenses). These measurements were taken as part of assessing how the body responded to different doses of the treatment. The reported data shows the following changes from the start of the study to week 24. For retinal thickness (measured in microns, which are very small units of length), the average change was minus 98 microns in the lowest dose group, minus 66 microns in the middle dose group, and minus 180.8 microns in the highest dose group — meaning the reported average thickness decreased in all three groups. For vision (measured by how many letters participants could read on the eye chart), the reported average change was minus 9.3 letters in the lowest dose group, plus 6.0 letters in the middle dose group, and plus 15.7 letters in the highest dose group. A higher number means more letters were read compared to the start of the study. It is worth noting that the data as submitted contains some inconsistencies in how the dose groups are labelled between the two outcome measures, so the figures should be interpreted with that in mind. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT02484690 · results posted 9 October 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02484690) enrolled 263 participants across five treatment groups. Two broad groups were studied separately: people who had never previously been treated for their eye condition ("treatment-naive"), and people whose eye condition had not fully responded to a prior type of treatment called anti-VEGF therapy ("incomplete responders"). Treatment-naive participants were assigned to one of four arms — ranibizumab injections every four weeks, or one of three faricimab injection regimens at different doses or schedules. Incomplete responders were assigned to either ranibizumab alone or a combination of ranibizumab and faricimab. The main thing being measured was change in vision, using a standardised letter chart score (where a higher score means better vision, on a scale of 0 to 100). The reported data shows the following for treatment-naive participants at week 36: the ranibizumab group's average letter score rose by 7.61 letters from the start, faricimab 1.5 mg every four weeks rose by 9.18 letters, faricimab 6 mg every four weeks rose by 6.02 letters, and faricimab 6 mg on a flexible four-to-eight-week schedule rose by 6.10 letters. When looking at the proportion of treatment-naive participants whose score improved by 15 or more letters — often considered a meaningful jump in vision — the reported figures were: 31.0% for ranibizumab, 36.6% for faricimab 1.5 mg, 27.9% for faricimab 6 mg every four weeks, and 23.7% for faricimab 6 mg on the flexible schedule. The proportion reaching a vision level of 20/40 or better (roughly the standard needed to drive in many places) was reported as 49.5%, 49.0%, 39.4%, and 41.8% respectively. For incomplete responders, the reported average change in letter score between week 12 and week 36 was 1.72 letters for the ranibizumab group and 0.04 letters for the combination group; the proportion gaining 15 or more letters in that period was 5.71% and 0.00%, and the proportion reaching 20/40 or better vision was 22.86% and 16.22% respectively. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02503332 · results posted 6 October 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02503332) enrolled 246 people in total across four groups. Participants received either pegcetacoplan (the treatment being studied) or a sham procedure (a dummy injection with no active medicine), and each was given either once a month or once every other month. The trial was primarily measuring changes in the size of geographic atrophy (GA) — a form of damage to the back of the eye — over 12 months, as well as tracking unwanted events that occurred during the study. Of the 246 people who started, 181 completed the trial. The reported data shows that when measuring the growth of the damaged area in the eye over 12 months, the monthly pegcetacoplan group showed a change of 0.26 mm (on a transformed scale used to handle the shape of the data), the every-other-month pegcetacoplan group showed 0.28 mm, and the combined sham group showed 0.35 mm. When measured as the actual area (untransformed), the reported changes were 1.49 mm², 1.69 mm², and 2.12 mm² respectively. For vision measured by a standard letter-reading chart, all groups showed a decline in score from where they started: the monthly pegcetacoplan group lost an average of 3.31 letters, the every-other-month group lost 5.78 letters, and the sham group lost 4.36 letters. For low-light vision, the monthly group lost 2.73 letters, the every-other-month group lost 3.21 letters, and the sham group lost 0.55 letters. Regarding unwanted events in the study eye, 65 participants in the monthly pegcetacoplan group, 47 in the every-other-month group, and 42 in the sham group reported at least one such event; events considered possibly or probably related to the study drug were reported in 21, 11, and 0 participants respectively. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page

• NCT02461771 · results posted 6 October 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 13 people in total, split across three groups (called cohorts): 3 people in Cohort 1, 3 in Cohort 2, and 7 in Cohort 3. Each group received a different dose of a drug called pegcetacoplan, given as an injection into the eye. All 13 participants completed the study. The trial was primarily measuring two things: how often unwanted health events (called adverse events) occurred after the injection, and how the drug moved through the body over time — that is, how much of it got into the bloodstream and how quickly. The reported data shows that when it came to any adverse events (unwanted health occurrences) after the injection, 2 out of 3 participants in Cohort 1, 2 out of 3 in Cohort 2, and 4 out of 7 in Cohort 3 experienced at least one such event. Serious adverse events were reported in 1 participant in Cohort 1, 1 in Cohort 2, and 2 in Cohort 3. Importantly, the reported data shows that zero participants across all three cohorts experienced what the trial defined as a "dose-limiting toxicity" — a specific set of serious eye-related events used as a key safety threshold. Regarding how the drug was absorbed into the bloodstream, the reported figures show that higher doses (across the three cohorts) were associated with higher measured drug levels in the blood, though the actual amounts remained relatively small. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01940887 · results posted 30 September 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01940887) enrolled 642 people with an eye condition — 322 in one group and 320 in the other. One group received a treatment called E10030 combined with either bevacizumab or aflibercept (two existing eye medicines), while the other group received a sham (dummy/placebo) procedure combined with the same eye medicines. The trial's main goal was to measure any change in vision — specifically the number of letters participants could read on a standard eye chart (called an ETDRS chart) — from the start of the trial to the 12-month mark. A higher number of additional letters read indicates better vision compared to the starting point. The reported data shows that after 12 months, participants in the E10030 combination group could read, on average, 9.42 more letters on the eye chart than they could at the start. In the sham combination group, participants could read, on average, 9.04 more letters than at the start. These are the average figures across all participants in each group — individual results would have varied. It is worth noting that a large number of participants did not complete Year 2 of the study (217 in the E10030 group and 222 in the sham group), and no Year 2 outcome data was reported in the structured results provided. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02613572 · results posted 6 August 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02613572) looked at a supplement called alpha lipoic acid (ALA) in people with geographic atrophy — a form of advanced age-related macular degeneration where patches of the retina gradually break down. The trial ran in two phases. In the first phase, 15 people tried escalating doses of ALA (600 mg, 800 mg, and 1200 mg) to see what side effects occurred. In the second phase, 53 people were split into two groups: 26 received 1200 mg of ALA daily and 27 received a dummy tablet (placebo), and they were followed for 18 months. Neither the participants nor the researchers knew who was getting which tablet during that second phase. The reported data shows that in Phase I, side effects (called adverse events) were recorded in 11 out of 15 participants at the 600 mg dose, 10 out of 15 at the 800 mg dose, and 10 out of 15 at the 1200 mg dose — though the data does not describe what those side effects were or how serious they were. For Phase II, the main thing being measured was how quickly the damaged area of the retina grew each year. The reported data shows that in the placebo group the damaged area grew by an average of 1.21 mm² per year, while in the ALA group it grew by an average of 1.71 mm² per year (these are the unadjusted figures; after statistical adjustment the numbers were 1.29 mm² and 1.63 mm² per year respectively). For a secondary measure — how vision scores (measured in letters read on an eye chart) changed each year — the placebo group lost an average of 3.8 letters per year and the ALA group lost an average of 3.1 letters per year. No further breakdown of these vision results was reported in the submitted data. It is important to note that the reported numbers above describe what was measured in this specific group of trial participants; they do not on their own tell us whether any difference between groups was meaningful or due to chance, and those additional statistical details were not included in the submitted results data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02462486 · results posted 30 July 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 949 people across three treatment groups: 316 received abicipar pegol 2 mg by injection every 8 weeks, 315 received the same drug every 12 weeks, and 318 received a comparison treatment called ranibizumab every 4 weeks. The trial ran for 52 weeks and was primarily measuring whether participants maintained stable vision — defined as not losing more than a certain number of letters on a standard eye chart — over that period. The reported data shows that, at week 52, 94.8% of participants in the every-8-weeks abicipar group, 91.3% in the every-12-weeks abicipar group, and 96.0% in the ranibizumab group had stable vision as defined by the trial. For secondary measures, the average change in the number of letters read correctly on the eye chart from the start of the trial to week 52 was reported as +8.3 letters for the every-8-weeks abicipar group, +7.3 letters for the every-12-weeks group, and +8.3 letters for the ranibizumab group (where a higher number means more letters read). The reported data also shows that the thickness of the central part of the retina (the back of the eye) decreased on average by about 147 micrometres in the every-8-weeks abicipar group, 142 micrometres in the every-12-weeks group, and 147 micrometres in the ranibizumab group — and in this measure, a decrease was considered an improvement. Around 28%, 24%, and 27% of participants in each respective group gained more than 15 letters on the eye chart. A quality-of-life questionnaire (scored 0–100, with higher being better) showed average increases from baseline of 2.8, 2.4, and 4.4 points across the three groups respectively. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT02581891 · results posted 21 May 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02581891) enrolled 271 people in total — 135 in the "early-start" group and 136 in the "late-start" group. The trial was comparing two different timing schedules for a "treat-and-extend" (T&E) approach to eye injections for a retinal condition. The main thing being measured was how vision changed over time, using a standardised reading chart called the ETDRS letter score, where a higher number of letters read correctly means better vision. The reported data shows that for the primary measure — the overall change in vision letters read from the start of the trial to the end — the early-start group's score changed by minus 2.1 letters on average, while the late-start group's score changed by minus 0.4 letters on average. At the halfway point (week 52), the reported data shows both groups had on average improved from their starting scores, with the early-start group reading about 7.8 more letters and the late-start group reading about 10.2 more letters than at the beginning. By the end of the trial at week 104, those average gains were reported as 4.3 letters for the early-start group and 7.9 letters for the late-start group. Regarding maintaining vision, 100% of participants in both groups were reported to have avoided losing three lines of vision (15 letters) at week 52; at week 104, that figure was reported as 93.4% in the early-start group and 96.2% in the late-start group. The reported data also shows that the thickness of the central part of the retina (measured by a scanning device called OCT) decreased in both groups by roughly 160 micrometres or more from the start of the study. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02555306 · results posted 14 January 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02555306) tested four different doses of an investigational eye treatment called DE-122: 0.5 mg, 1.0 mg, 2.0 mg, and 4.0 mg. A total of 12 people took part — three in each dose group — and all 12 completed the study. The trial measured two main things over 90 days: changes in how clearly participants could see (called "best corrected visual acuity," which is simply the sharpest vision possible even with glasses or contact lenses) and changes in the thickness of a specific layer at the back of the eye (called "central subfield thickness"), which can be measured using a specialised eye scan. The reported data shows that, when looking at vision sharpness (measured in a unit called ETDRS letters, where a higher number means better vision), the change from the start of the trial to day 90 varied across groups. The 0.5 mg group had an average change of −1.3 letters (a slight decrease), the 1.0 mg group had +2.7 letters, the 2.0 mg group had +1.0 letters, and the 4.0 mg group had +3.3 letters. For the eye-scan thickness measurement, the reported average changes were: −116.3 microns in the 0.5 mg group, +62.7 microns in the 1.0 mg group, −36.0 microns in the 2.0 mg group, and −111.3 microns in the 4.0 mg group. A negative number here means the thickness decreased, while a positive number means it increased. It is worth noting that each group contained only three participants, so these figures represent a very small number of people. No further breakdown of the data (such as individual results or measures of spread) was included in what was reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01972789 · results posted 23 October 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01972789) enrolled 349 people — 174 in an "Intensive Retinal Fluid" treatment group and 175 in a "Relaxed Retinal Fluid" treatment group. The trial was studying two different approaches to managing retinal fluid when giving eye injections (ranibizumab) for a condition affecting the back of the eye. The main thing being measured was how much participants' best-corrected vision (the sharpest vision possible with glasses or lenses) changed over 24 months, scored in "letters" on a standard eye chart — where a higher number means more letters read correctly compared to the start. By the end of the trial, 134 people in the intensive group and 145 in the relaxed group had completed it. The reported data shows that, on average, participants in the intensive group gained 3.2 letters of vision over 24 months, while those in the relaxed group gained 2.5 letters. At the 12-month mark, the reported gains were 4.6 letters and 3.9 letters respectively. The reported data also shows changes in the thickness of the central part of the retina (the light-sensitive layer at the back of the eye): by month 12, the intensive group showed an average reduction of 147.1 micrometres and the relaxed group 125.6 micrometres; by month 24 those figures were 158.9 and 126.9 micrometres. On average, participants in the intensive group received 9.5 injections in the first 12 months and 17 injections over 24 months, compared to 8.9 and 15.8 in the relaxed group. The reported data also tracked a condition called geographic atrophy (an area of damage at the back of the eye). The average area of atrophy increased by 0.8 mm² in the intensive group and 0.7 mm² in the relaxed group at 12 months, and by 1.5 mm² and 1.2 mm² respectively at 24 months. The number of participants who developed new atrophy was also recorded, though the data as submitted includes multiple sub-group counts across time points; the full breakdown was not presented in a way that allows a straightforward plain-language summary beyond what is noted here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01006538 · results posted 22 July 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01006538) involved 363 participants in total — 244 in the group that received a combination of epimacular brachytherapy (a form of localised radiation applied to the back of the eye) plus Lucentis® injections, and 119 in the group that received Lucentis® injections alone. The trial ran for 12 months and was primarily measuring two things: how much participants' vision changed over that period (using a standardised letter-reading chart called the ETDRS scale), and how many Lucentis® top-up injections each person needed during the year. The reported data shows that, on the vision chart, the combination group's scores fell by an average of 4.8 letters from where they started, while the injections-only group's scores fell by an average of 0.9 letters. For the number of injections needed, the combination group received an average of 4.8 injections per person over the year, compared with 4.1 in the injections-only group. On the secondary measures, 204 out of 244 participants in the combination group and 110 out of 119 in the injections-only group lost fewer than 15 letters of vision over 12 months. The number who gained 15 or more letters was 3 in the combination group and 6 in the injections-only group. The reported data also shows that the area of the eye lesion (measured by a dye-based imaging test) increased by an average of 1.2 mm² in the combination group and 0.4 mm² in the injections-only group over the same period. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01103505 · results posted 16 July 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 1,520 people in total — 763 in a group that used a home monitoring device (called ForeseeHome) alongside standard care, and 757 in a group that received standard care alone. The trial was measuring what happened to participants' vision at the point when a specific eye condition called choroidal neovascularisation (CNV) — an unwanted growth of new blood vessels in the eye, which can be a complication of macular degeneration — was detected. Most participants completed the study: 739 in the device group and 737 in the standard care group. The reported data shows that, among those who developed CNV during the study, the device monitoring group had lost an average of 7.4 "letters" of vision (measured on a standard eye chart scale) from their starting point at the time CNV was detected, while the standard care group had lost an average of 12.6 letters. For the secondary outcomes, the reported data shows that 87% of people in the device monitoring group could still read at a level of 20/40 or better (roughly the standard needed to drive) when CNV was detected, compared with 64% in the standard care group. Lesion sizes at the time of CNV detection were also reported: the total affected area had a median size of 0.23 disc areas in the device group versus 0.70 in the standard care group; the CNV area itself was 0.17 versus 0.60 disc areas; and the fluid area was 0.55 versus 0.90 disc areas. (A "disc area" is simply a unit used to measure small areas at the back of the eye, where one disc area equals about 2.54 square millimetres.) These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT02130024 · results posted 5 June 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial compared two eye injection medicines — ranibizumab (0.5 mg) and aflibercept (2.0 mg) — in people with wet age-related macular degeneration, a condition affecting central vision. A total of 142 people were assigned to the ranibizumab group and 139 to the aflibercept group, with 117 and 108 people respectively completing the full two years. The trial's main focus was measuring changes in an area of damage at the back of the eye called geographic atrophy (GA) — a patch where light-sensing cells have been lost — over 24 months. The reported data shows that for the primary outcome, the average change in the size of the GA area (measured using a square-root transformation to handle the spread of values) from the start of the study to 24 months was 0.363 mm in the ranibizumab group and 0.285 mm in the aflibercept group, starting from baseline averages of 0.024 mm and 0.050 mm respectively. At 12 months, the reported changes were 0.155 mm and 0.145 mm. For secondary outcomes, the reported data shows that among participants who had no GA at the start, around 28.8% in the ranibizumab group and 25.4% in the aflibercept group developed new GA over the 24 months. The average number of injections given over two years was reported as 17.7 for ranibizumab and 17.0 for aflibercept. Vision scores (measured in letters read correctly) changed by an average of +6.5 letters for ranibizumab and +5.3 letters for aflibercept at 24 months, where a positive number means more letters were read correctly compared to the start. Retinal thickness at the centre of the eye decreased by an average of 151.3 micrometres (ranibizumab) and 181.7 micrometres (aflibercept) at 24 months, where a decrease represents a reduction in swelling. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02087085 · results posted 23 April 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02087085) enrolled 154 people who received a 400 µg brimonidine implant and 156 people who received a sham (inactive) procedure — 310 participants in total. The trial was studying geographic atrophy (GA), a condition where patches of the retina gradually break down, causing vision loss. The main thing being measured was whether the size of those damaged patches changed over 24 months, and the trial also tracked how well participants could read letters on a standard eye chart. The reported data shows that, for the primary outcome — change in the size of the damaged retinal area — the brimonidine implant group's lesion area increased by an average of about 3.15 mm² from the start of the study, while the sham group's increased by about 3.50 mm². (A larger number means the damaged area grew more.) For the secondary vision outcome using a standard eye chart, the brimonidine group read on average about 10.9 fewer letters correctly at 24 months compared to the start, while the sham group read about 9.7 fewer letters correctly. For a low-light version of the same vision test, the brimonidine group read about 8.1 fewer letters correctly, compared to 6.7 fewer in the sham group. A further pre-specified outcome measuring retinal sensitivity was listed but no data was reported for it. It is also worth noting that a large proportion of participants — 120 in the brimonidine group and 116 in the sham group — did not complete the study, which the trial's reported figures do not fully explain. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02247479 · results posted 23 April 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02247479) enrolled 906 people across three groups: 305 received a sham (dummy) procedure, 298 received lampalizumab every 4 weeks, and 303 received lampalizumab every 6 weeks. The trial was measuring changes in geographic atrophy — a form of damage to the back of the eye associated with advanced macular degeneration — over 48 weeks. The study was ended early, so data was collected only up to Week 48 rather than the originally planned 96 weeks. Roughly half of participants in each group completed the study. The reported data shows that the primary measurement — the growth in the damaged area at the back of the eye — increased by approximately 2.04 mm² in the sham group, 2.02 mm² in the every-4-weeks group, and 2.09 mm² in the every-6-weeks group over 48 weeks (a larger number means more progression). For the secondary measurements, the reported data shows the number of points on a vision sensitivity test where people had no response increased by around 8 points in all three groups. Average sensitivity of the central part of the eye (measured in decibels) fell by 1.61 in the sham group, 1.33 in the every-4-weeks group, and 2.24 in the every-6-weeks group. The ability to read letters on a standard eye chart declined by 4.5 letters in the sham group, 3.4 letters in the every-4-weeks group, and 4.6 letters in the every-6-weeks group. Around 86–89% of participants across all groups did not lose 15 or more letters of vision. Vision tested under dim light conditions declined by 3.0, 2.4, and 2.7 letters respectively across the three groups. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00769392 · results posted 21 March 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT00769392) involved 28 people, all in a single group. It was looking at the discomfort experienced during a type of eye injection called an intravitreal injection — where medicine is delivered directly into the eye — as well as the discomfort from the anaesthetic (numbing treatment) given beforehand. Of the 28 people who started, 24 completed the trial and 4 did not. The reported data shows that discomfort during the eye injection itself was measured using a pain scale of 0 to 10, where 0 means no pain and 10 means severe pain. Across four recorded time points or measurements, the reported scores were 3.0, 2.3, 2.8, and 3.1 out of 10. For the discomfort felt from the anaesthetic given before the injection, the reported scores across four measurements were 1.4, 1.6, 0.7, and 1.0 out of 10. The data does not provide further detail about what each individual measurement time point represents, so that information was not reported in a way that allows further explanation here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02247531 · results posted 14 March 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02247531) enrolled 975 people across three groups: 321 received a sham (dummy) procedure, 330 received lampalizumab injections every four weeks, and 324 received lampalizumab injections every six weeks. The trial was measuring changes in a condition called geographic atrophy (GA) — a form of progressive damage to the back of the eye — over 48 weeks. The study was ended early, so data was collected only up to week 48 instead of the originally planned 96 weeks. In total, 634 participants completed the study. The reported data shows that the primary thing being measured was the change in the size of the damaged area at the back of the eye, where a larger number means more growth (worsening). The sham group's damaged area grew by an average of 1.93 square millimetres, compared to 2.09 square millimetres in the every-four-weeks group and 2.02 square millimetres in the every-six-weeks group. For the secondary measures, the reported data shows similar patterns across groups: reductions in the eye's sensitivity to light (with the every-six-weeks group showing a slightly larger reported decline), small reductions in the number of letters read correctly on a standard eye chart across all three groups, and roughly 87–88% of participants in each group did not lose 15 or more letters of vision over the 48 weeks. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02745119 · results posted 15 February 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02745119) involved 842 people in total across four groups, all receiving injections of a medicine called lampalizumab into the eye. Participants were split based on how often they received the injection — either every four weeks or every six weeks — and whether they had received lampalizumab before (in an earlier related trial) or were receiving it for the first time. The trial was measuring the types and rates of side effects (called adverse events) that occurred in the eye and in the rest of the body, as well as whether participants developed antibodies (immune system proteins) against the medicine. Notably, the reported data shows that none of the participants completed the study — all 842 were recorded as not completing it, though the data does not explain why. The reported data shows that eye-related adverse events of any severity were recorded in roughly 25% to 40% of participants depending on the group, while body-wide (non-eye) adverse events were recorded in approximately 42% to 55% of participants across the groups. When looking across all participants combined, around 35% experienced an eye-related adverse event and around 51% experienced a body-wide adverse event. For the antibody measure, the reported data shows that 0% of participants in every group developed detectable antibodies against lampalizumab. It is worth noting that some of the severity-level breakdowns in the data were not fully reported for all groups. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT02120950 · results posted 15 January 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02120950) enrolled 333 people in total across three groups. The two main randomised groups were: 157 people who received the eye injection aflibercept plus a "sham" (inactive) version of a light-based treatment called photodynamic therapy (PDT), and 161 people who received aflibercept plus actual active PDT. A smaller non-randomised group of 15 people received aflibercept only. The trial ran for 52 weeks (about one year) and its main focus was measuring changes in vision — specifically, how many letters participants could correctly read on a standard eye chart, before and after treatment. The reported data shows that, on average, participants in the aflibercept plus sham PDT group could read approximately 10.7 more letters on the eye chart at 52 weeks compared to when they started. In the aflibercept plus active PDT group, the average improvement was approximately 10.8 letters. For the secondary outcome — the proportion of people who did not lose 15 or more letters (roughly three lines on the chart) during the year — the reported figures were 97.5% in the sham PDT group and 96.9% in the active PDT group. Additionally, the data shows that around 87.9% of the sham PDT group and 85.7% of the active PDT group did not need any additional "rescue" treatment during the first year. On average, participants in both groups received approximately 5.1–5.2 aflibercept injections over the course of the study. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01940900 · results posted 15 August 2018

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01940900) enrolled 626 people in total — 311 in one group and 315 in the other. Participants were split into two groups: one group received a treatment called E10030 combined with ranibizumab (an eye injection), and the other received a sham procedure (a dummy, inactive procedure) combined with ranibizumab. The trial was primarily measuring changes in vision over 12 months, using a standard eye-chart scoring system called ETDRS letters, where a higher score means better vision. The reported data shows that after 12 months, both groups had higher vision scores compared to where they started. The group receiving E10030 plus ranibizumab had an average increase of about 9.91 letters on the eye chart, while the group receiving the sham procedure plus ranibizumab had an average increase of about 10.36 letters. No secondary outcome measure data was included in the structured results provided. It is also worth noting that not everyone completed the trial — 29 people in the first group and 31 in the second group did not finish. The reported data shows only these two numbers for the primary outcome, and no further breakdown or additional outcome results were available in the submitted data. If any other measurements were taken during the trial, they were not reported in the data provided here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01134055 · results posted 8 January 2018

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01134055) enrolled 510 people across seven groups. Participants received either placebo eye drops (given four times a day), one of five different doses or schedules of pazopanib eye drops, or ranibizumab injections — which were used as an open-label comparison group. The trial ran for 52 weeks and was primarily measuring changes in vision, specifically how many letters participants could read on a standard eye chart (called an ETDRS chart) compared to when they started. The reported data shows that, at 52 weeks, the average change in the number of letters read correctly from the start of the trial was small across all groups. The placebo group gained an average of 0.22 letters; the pazopanib eye drop groups ranged from gains of 0.28 to 1.81 letters depending on the dose and frequency; and the ranibizumab injection group gained an average of 1.42 letters. For context, a change of less than five letters on this chart is generally considered a very small shift in vision. On a secondary measure, all groups that received eye drops (including placebo) also received ranibizumab re-injections during the study when certain criteria were met — the percentage of eligible visits at which re-injections were given ranged from approximately 55% to 68% across those groups over 52 weeks. The reported data also shows that changes in the thickness of the central part of the retina (measured in microns) varied across groups and time points, with some groups showing small increases and others small decreases from their starting measurements. The numbers for some secondary measures were only partially reported in the submitted data, and where figures were not included, those details were not reported rather than estimated here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00733304 · results posted 5 December 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT00733304) enrolled 42 participants across three groups, each receiving a different dose or dosing schedule of the study treatment: 19 people in the "5 mg/mL three times a day" group, 15 in the "2 mg/mL three times a day" group, and 8 in the "5 mg/mL once a day" group. Of those who started, 12, 12, and 3 participants respectively completed the study. The trial was tracking a range of body measurements over up to six months — including blood pressure, heart rate, blood protein levels (albumin and haemoglobin), liver-related markers in the blood, and various blood cell counts — to see how these figures changed from the start of the study to later time points. The reported data shows that changes in blood pressure across all three groups were small. For example, the shifts in the top (systolic) blood pressure number ranged from about minus 0.9 to plus 3.9 millimetres of mercury (mmHg), and changes in the bottom (diastolic) number ranged from minus 0.5 to plus 1.8 mmHg — these figures represent how much higher or lower readings were compared to the starting measurement. Heart rate changes were similarly modest, ranging from about minus 2.5 to plus 5.1 beats per minute across groups and time points. Changes in albumin and haemoglobin (proteins in the blood) were also small, mostly within a few grams per litre of the starting level. Liver marker readings (ALP, ALT, and AST) showed minor fluctuations, with the largest single reported change being minus 7.5 international units per litre in one group at one time point. Blood cell counts and their percentage breakdowns showed only very small numerical shifts throughout the study period. It is important to note that this was a relatively small trial, and the reported data describes only the numbers that were measured — not what those numbers mean for any individual person's health. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT02355028 · results posted 14 November 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02355028) enrolled 93 people in total — 47 in the LHA510 group and 46 in the Vehicle (comparison/placebo) group. The trial was looking at whether LHA510, an eye drop treatment, could reduce how often people needed additional injections of a medicine called LUCENTIS® (ranibizumab), which is used to treat a condition affecting the back of the eye. The main thing being measured was how many participants in each group needed a LUCENTIS® retreatment injection by Day 84 (roughly three months into the study). By the end of the study, 36 people in the LHA510 group and 41 in the Vehicle group completed the trial. The reported data shows that for the main outcome, 25 out of the participants in the LHA510 group and 25 out of the participants in the Vehicle group were identified as needing a LUCENTIS® retreatment injection by Day 84 — the same number in both groups. For the secondary outcomes, the reported data shows that at Day 28, 5 people in the LHA510 group and 8 in the Vehicle group needed retreatment; at Day 56, those numbers were 21 and 19 respectively. Retinal thickness (a measure of fluid or swelling at the back of the eye) was also tracked — a negative number means the retina got thinner, which may suggest less swelling. The reported data shows changes across several time points in both groups, with figures ranging from around −47 to +11 micrometres in the LHA510 group and −43 to +1 micrometres in the Vehicle group. Vision, measured by the number of letters read correctly on an eye chart, was also tracked; the reported data shows small changes in both groups across the study period, with the LHA510 group showing figures ranging from −1.7 to +1.7 letters and the Vehicle group ranging from +1.6 to +2.5 letters. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01748292 · results posted 20 October 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 60 people in total — 20 assigned to receive monthly eye injections of a medicine called ranibizumab, and 40 assigned to a "treat and extend" schedule, where the time between injections was gradually stretched out. The trial was measuring changes in vision, the number of injections needed, fluid levels in the eye, and the occurrence of unwanted health events over a period of roughly three years (156 weeks). The reported data shows that both groups had improvements in their vision scores (measured on a standardised letter chart where higher numbers mean better vision) compared to where they started. In the monthly injection group, the reported improvement ranged from about 8.6 to 10.5 letters at different time points across the study. In the treat-and-extend group, the reported improvement ranged from about 0.95 to 10.5 letters across the same time points. Regarding the number of injections given, the reported data shows the monthly group received an average of about 31.5 injections over the full three years, compared to around 25 in the treat-and-extend group. For unwanted health events (adverse events), 2 participants in the monthly group and 6 in the treat-and-extend group were reported to have ocular (eye-related) events, while 7 and 20 participants respectively were reported to have non-ocular events. Changes in the thickness of a specific part of the eye (the central fovea) were also recorded, with both groups showing reductions in thickness from their starting measurements. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00612456 · results posted 28 September 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial tested pazopanib eye drops in three different groups: one group received a higher concentration (5 mg/mL) three times a day, another received a lower concentration (2 mg/mL) three times a day, and a third received the higher concentration (5 mg/mL) once a day. A total of 70 people started the trial — 27 in the first group, 27 in the second, and 16 in the third. The main thing being measured was the change in the thickness of a specific area at the back of the eye (the central retina), using a specialised scanner, after 29 days of treatment. The reported data shows that after 29 days, the average retinal thickness changed by different amounts across the three groups. In the higher-concentration three-times-daily group, the reported average change was 7.5 microns (a micron is one-thousandth of a millimetre). In the lower-concentration three-times-daily group, it was between 3.0 and 10.0 microns depending on which method of data analysis was used. In the once-daily group, the reported change ranged from 9.1 to 31.2 microns depending on the analysis method. It is worth noting that the data was analysed two ways: one that filled in missing measurements with the last known value, and one that left gaps as gaps — which accounts for the differing figures. The reported data also shows results from several monitoring checks, including eye examinations, blood pressure and heart rate readings, heart tracing (ECG) tests, blood and urine tests. None of the participants had eye examination results flagged as a concern. Small numbers of participants across the groups had blood pressure readings or blood/urine test results noted as being outside normal ranges, and some had ECG readings recorded as abnormal — the specific counts for each group are included in the trial record. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01769352 · results posted 15 September 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 42 people in total who had developed swelling at the back of the eye (called macular oedema) after eye surgery. Participants were split into four groups depending on the type of surgery they had (cataract surgery or other eye surgery) and which dosing schedule of eye drop medicines they received — one group received a steroid eye drop more frequently (every hour) alongside an anti-inflammatory drop, while the other received the steroid less frequently (four times a day) with the same anti-inflammatory drop. The trial measured changes in vision, swelling thickness at the centre of the retina, and eye pressure over up to 48 weeks. All 42 participants completed the study. The reported data shows that, for the primary outcome — change in vision score over the first 12 weeks — all four groups showed an increase in their letter scores (higher scores mean better vision on the scale used). The cataract surgery group on the more frequent steroid dosing reported an average increase of 10.6 letters, compared with 7.8 letters in the less frequent dosing group. The other-surgery groups reported increases of 13.1 and 9.4 letters respectively. For the secondary outcome of retinal swelling thickness, the reported data shows reductions across all groups over the first 12 weeks, ranging from a decrease of around 25.9 to 152.7 micrometres depending on the group. Eye pressure changes over the same period were also reported, with small increases ranging from 0.3 to 3.3 mmHg across the groups. For the longer follow-up period (weeks 12 to 48), further changes in vision scores, retinal thickness, and eye pressure were also reported across the different dosing-change subgroups, with figures varying by group as detailed in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00931489 · results posted 2 July 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this study enrolled 131 participants across five groups: 40 people with wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD) whose condition responded to treatment (responders), 40 people from the general population (normal controls), 5 wet AMD patients whose condition stopped responding relatively quickly (acute non-responders), 39 people with dry AMD, and 7 wet AMD patients whose condition had stopped responding over a longer period (chronic non-responders). All participants who started the study completed it. The study was looking at whether certain proteins in the blood — called anti-retinal and anti-RPE antibodies, which are substances the body can produce that may target parts of the eye — were present in people with wet AMD compared to people without the condition. It also looked at changes in vision and retinal thickness over six months in the wet AMD groups. The reported data shows that, for the primary question about these eye-targeting antibodies, 31 out of the wet AMD patient group and 26 out of the normal population group showed a detectable presence of anti-retinal antibodies. A separate figure of 36 was also recorded for the wet AMD group in relation to anti-RPE antibodies, though the data as submitted does not include a matching second figure for the normal population group for that measure, so a direct comparison cannot be made. For the secondary measures, the reported data shows that the responder group gained an average of about 10 letters on the vision chart over six months, while the acute non-responder group gained an average of about 6 letters. When it came to retinal thickness (measured in micrometres using a scan called OCT), the responder group showed an average decrease of 82 micrometres, while the acute non-responder group showed an average increase of 22 micrometres. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01988662 · results posted 28 February 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 205 people in total — 104 in the ranibizumab group and 101 in the aflibercept group. Both are medicines given by injection into the eye for conditions affecting vision. The trial was primarily measuring how much a protein in the blood called VEGF (a substance involved in blood vessel growth) changed after three months of treatment. It also tracked changes in vision, changes in the thickness of a part of the eye called the retina, and the number of people who experienced unwanted health events during the study. The reported data shows that for the primary outcome at the three-month mark, the ranibizumab group had an average increase of about 41% in blood VEGF levels from their starting point, while the aflibercept group had an average decrease of about 22%. For vision (measured by the number of letters read correctly on an eye chart), both groups showed increases from their starting scores over time — by the final reported timepoint, the ranibizumab group averaged about 6 more letters correct and the aflibercept group about 7 more letters correct than at the start. For retinal thickness, both groups showed reductions over time; by the final timepoint the ranibizumab group averaged a reduction of about 94 micrometres and the aflibercept group about 124 micrometres. Regarding unwanted health events, 32 participants in each group experienced ocular (eye-related) or systemic (whole-body) adverse events, and 3 participants in the ranibizumab group and 5 in the aflibercept group experienced serious adverse events. The reported data also shows a secondary measure looking at how closely blood VEGF levels and the amount of medicine detected in the blood were related to each other at various timepoints; those figures (called correlation coefficients, a number between –1 and +1 showing how closely two things move together) were generally small and close to zero for both groups across all visits, meaning no strong consistent relationship was observed in the reported numbers. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT02140164 · results posted 16 January 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at minocycline — an antibiotic — as a treatment for a specific type of fluid build-up in the central part of the eye, called cystoid macular oedema. Seven people enrolled in the single treatment group, five completed the trial, and two did not finish. Before receiving the study drug, each participant had three eye measurements taken, and those were averaged to create a starting point for comparison. The trial then tracked changes in eye measurements at six months and twelve months. The reported data shows the main measurement the trial was tracking — the thickness of fluid in the eye, measured in tiny units called microns using a specialised eye scan — changed by an average of −16.7 microns at six months compared to before treatment. At twelve months, the reported change was −37.3 microns. A negative number means the average measurement went down compared to the starting point. The reported data also shows a secondary measurement called microperimetry, which tests how sensitive different spots in the central vision are (measured in decibels, a unit of signal strength): this changed by −1.01 decibels at six months and −1.02 decibels at twelve months, again compared to the pre-treatment average. Two other planned measurements — electrical response tests of the eye called electroretinogram testing — were not reported. It is worth noting this was a very small study of only seven participants, and the results as reported on ClinicalTrials.gov reflect that limited group only. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02222207 · results posted 8 September 2016

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02222207) enrolled 52 people in a single group called "Part A Regorafenib." Of these, 51 were included in the main analysis and 48 completed the study. The trial was measuring changes in vision — specifically, how well participants could read letters on a standardised eye chart (called the ETDRS chart) — at two points in time: four weeks and twelve weeks after the start of the study. A higher score on this chart means better vision. The reported data shows that, on average, participants' vision scores changed by +1.18 letters from their starting point by week four, meaning scores were slightly higher (better) at that point. By week twelve, the average change from the starting point was −2.36 letters, meaning scores were slightly lower (worse) on average compared to where they began. For the secondary measures, the reported data shows that 42% of participants had a change of no loss or some gain in vision between weeks four and twelve. Additionally, 16% of participants were reported to have lost 10 or more letters of vision compared to their starting point by week twelve. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT02121522 · results posted 27 June 2016

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02121522) involved 14 participants who all received the study treatment, BI 144807. Thirteen participants completed the trial, while one did not finish. The trial was measuring changes in the eye over approximately one month — specifically, changes in the thickness of a central part of the retina (the light-sensitive layer at the back of the eye) and changes in the area of abnormal leaking blood vessels, both of which are features associated with a condition affecting vision. The reported data shows that, on Day 29, the central retinal thickness increased by an average of 44.0 micrometres (a micrometre is one-thousandth of a millimetre) compared to the starting measurement. For the secondary measurement, the reported data shows that the area of abnormal leaking blood vessels decreased by an average of 0.7 square millimetres compared to the starting measurement. These numbers simply describe what was recorded during the trial — they do not on their own tell us whether any change is good, bad, or meaningful without further expert interpretation. It is also worth noting that, because this was a small trial with only 14 participants, the results should be understood in that context. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01846299 · results posted 23 May 2016

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01846299) enrolled 178 people across two groups — 118 in the ranibizumab (injection treatment) group and 60 in the sham (dummy/placebo) group. The trial was measuring changes in vision and eye fluid in people with a retinal condition. The main thing being measured was best-corrected visual acuity — essentially, how many letters on a standardised eye chart participants could read after correction with glasses or lenses. Researchers also tracked the thickness and volume of fluid in the central part of the retina using a scanning technology called OCT (a type of detailed eye imaging). Most participants completed the study — 106 in the treatment group and 50 in the sham group. The reported data shows that, for the primary outcome (letter chart reading), the ranibizumab group had a reported average change of +5.7 letters from their starting score, while the sham group (who later received ranibizumab) had a reported average change of +2.9 letters. For the secondary outcomes looking at retinal thickness, the reported data shows reductions in the thickness of the central retina over various time points in both groups, with negative numbers indicating a reduction (which, according to the trial's own description, represents a change in the measured value). For example, at one early time point, the ranibizumab group showed an average reduction of 83.6 micrometres in central retinal thickness, compared to 14.3 micrometres in the sham group. At later time points, the reported figures for both groups appeared closer together. Similar patterns were reported for retinal fluid volume. The number of participants with fluid detected in the retina at various time points was also recorded, though the specific time points for each of these individual measurements were not detailed in the data submitted. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT02181517 · results posted 5 April 2016

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02181517) enrolled 25 people in total across three groups: 10 received abicipar pegol at a 1 mg dose, 10 received abicipar pegol at a 2 mg dose, and 5 received ranibizumab at a 0.5 mg dose. All 25 participants completed the study. The trial was measuring changes in vision and retinal thickness in people with an eye condition, comparing two doses of an investigational treatment (abicipar pegol) against a comparator treatment (ranibizumab). Vision was assessed using a standard letter-reading eye chart (where more letters read correctly means better vision), and retinal thickness was measured using a specialised scanning device. The reported data shows that, for the main outcome — change in the number of letters read correctly by week 16 — participants in the abicipar pegol 1 mg group gained an average of 4.4 letters from their starting score, those in the abicipar pegol 2 mg group gained 10.1 letters, and those in the ranibizumab group gained 15.2 letters. At week 20, the reported average gains were 5.6 letters, 6.7 letters, and 14.4 letters respectively. When looking at how many participants gained 15 or more letters (roughly three lines on a standard eye chart), the reported data shows this occurred in 30% of each abicipar pegol group and 60% of the ranibizumab group. For a gain of 10 or more letters, the figures were 40% in each abicipar pegol group and 60% in the ranibizumab group. The reported data also shows changes in the thickness of the central part of the retina (the light-sensitive layer at the back of the eye). Starting thicknesses were 443.8, 383.8, and 348.8 microns (a unit of measurement) for the 1 mg, 2 mg, and ranibizumab groups respectively. A reduction in thickness was considered an improvement. By an earlier time point, average reductions were 106.5, 112.8, and 124.4 microns, and by a later time point, reductions were 78.2, 90.3, and 110.4 microns across the three groups. Please note this was a small, early-phase study with a limited number of participants, and the specific time points for the retinal thickness measurements were not labelled in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00572039 · results posted 15 October 2015

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 241 people in total — 121 in a group receiving "Problem Solving Treatment" and 120 in a group receiving "Supportive Therapy." Of those, 105 and 110 people respectively completed the trial. The study was measuring how well each approach helped people with vision loss manage everyday activities they found difficult, as well as their overall quality of life related to their vision. The primary outcome measured was called "Targeted Vision Function" (TVF) — a score reflecting how difficult participants found up to four everyday vision-related goals they personally chose, such as meal preparation. Scores ranged from 0 (not difficult) to 4 (impossible), with higher scores meaning greater difficulty. The reported data shows that at the outcome assessment, the Problem Solving Treatment group scored 2.18 and the Supportive Therapy group scored 2.14–2.15 on this scale — very similar figures between the two groups. For the secondary outcome — vision-related quality of life, measured on a scale of 0 to 100 where higher means better — the reported data shows the Problem Solving Treatment group scored 66.4–66.6 and the Supportive Therapy group scored 64.8–65.2, again with small differences between the two groups. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01397409 · results posted 18 June 2015

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial tested a drug called AGN-150998 (given as an injection into the eye) in people with a retinal eye condition. The trial ran in three separate stages, each with a different purpose, and compared AGN-150998 at various doses against an existing eye injection medicine called ranibizumab. In total, 24 people took part in Stage 1, 183 in Stage 2, and 64 in Stage 3. The reported data shows the following across the three stages. In Stage 1, which tested single injections at doses of 1.0 mg up to 4.2 mg to find the highest dose that could be given, the highest tested dose of 4.2 mg was identified as the highest tolerated dose. Scans measuring retinal thickness (the layer at the back of the eye) showed average reductions from starting levels ranging from about 114 to 240 microns (a micron is one-thousandth of a millimetre) depending on the dose — the researchers noted that a reduction in this measurement indicated improvement. In Stage 2, which tracked how long it took before the disease became active again after treatment, the reported median time (the middle value in the group) to recurrence was around 57–59 days across all three groups. In Stage 3, which measured changes in vision using a standard letter-reading eye chart (scored 0–100 letters), all three groups started with average scores of around 58–60 letters. The reported average change from that starting point was an increase of 8.2 letters in the AGN-150998 2.0 mg group, 6.3 letters in the 1.0 mg group, and 5.3 letters in the ranibizumab group. The reported data also shows some secondary (additional) measurements from Stage 2. The average time between a second injection and the next recurrence of disease activity was reported as 85 days for the 4.2 mg group, 112 days for the 3.0 mg group, and 111 days for the ranibizumab group. Average retinal thickness reductions from starting levels in Stage 2 were reported as approximately 180 microns (4.2 mg group), 155 microns (3.0 mg group), and 157 microns (ranibizumab group). These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00877032 · results posted 31 March 2015

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial tested a drug called RN6G across six different dose levels (0.3, 1, 3, 10, 20, and 40 milligrams per kilogram of body weight) compared to a placebo (an inactive treatment). A total of 57 people enrolled across all groups, with 6–7 participants in each RN6G dose group and 20 in the placebo group. The trial was primarily measuring how often participants experienced unwanted medical events — both eye-related and body-wide — after receiving the treatment. It also tracked how the drug moved through the body over time (for example, how quickly it reached its highest level in the blood and how long it stayed there). The reported data shows that, for eye-related events, the number of participants who experienced them ranged from 1 person in the lowest and one mid-range dose groups up to 4 people in the 20 mg/kg group, while 6 people in the placebo group reported eye-related events. For body-wide events (which included all types of unwanted medical occurrences), the reported data shows between 4 and 6 participants across the RN6G dose groups experienced these, compared to 15 out of 18 treated participants in the placebo group. Note that some severity-level figures appear incomplete in the submitted data, so a full breakdown by mild, moderate, and severe categories was not available to report here. The reported data also shows that as the dose of RN6G increased, the amount of drug detected in the blood rose accordingly — the peak blood concentration ranged from 4.70 micrograms per millilitre at the lowest dose up to 1,245 micrograms per millilitre at the highest dose, and the time taken to reach that peak level was broadly similar across all dose groups, generally around 2 to 4.5 hours. These blood-level measurements describe how the drug behaved in the body and do not on their own indicate whether the drug produced any particular health outcome. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00746668 · results posted 27 February 2015

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 36 people in total, spread across seven groups — one control group (6 people) and six other groups (5 people each). All 36 participants completed the study with no dropouts. The trial was measuring reading speed in people who had undergone some form of training, testing them before training began and then after each of three separate training modules. The reported data shows reading speed was measured in words per minute (wpm) at four different points. Before training started, the average reading speed was reported as 58.9 wpm. After the first training module, the reported average was 50.5 wpm. After the second module, it was reported as 86.2 wpm. After the third and final module, the reported average was 49.1 wpm. No secondary outcome measures were included in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so no further figures are available to report. It is worth noting that the numbers reported across the four time points varied up and down rather than following a single clear direction — the reported data simply records what was measured at each stage, and no explanation for these variations was included in the structured results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01445548 · results posted 9 May 2014

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 6 people, all of whom received injections of a drug called sirolimus directly into one eye (called the "study eye"). Five of the 6 participants completed the trial; one did not finish. The trial was measuring changes in a condition called geographic atrophy (GA) — an eye condition where patches of cells in the back of the eye (the retina) die off, causing vision loss. One eye received the treatment while the other eye was observed without treatment, acting as a comparison. The main things being measured were how quickly the area of damaged retina grew over 12 months, and whether vision (measured by how many letters a person could read on a standardised eye chart) changed over that time. The reported data shows that in the treated eye, the area of retinal damage grew at a rate of 0.19 square millimetres per month, and the total increase in damaged area over 12 months was 2.26 square millimetres. In the untreated fellow eye, the reported rate of growth was 0.13 square millimetres per month, with a total increase of 1.53 square millimetres over 12 months. For vision, the reported data shows that participants lost an average of 15.6 letters on the eye chart in the treated eye over 12 months, while the untreated fellow eye showed no average change (0 letters) over the same period. These are the numbers as submitted — no comparison group outside of the fellow eye was included in this small trial. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01810042 · results posted 7 April 2014

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01810042) enrolled 49 participants who all received a medicine called ranibizumab. The trial was looking at a condition involving abnormal blood vessel growth beneath the retina (the light-sensitive layer at the back of the eye), known as choroidal neovascularisation (CNV). The main thing researchers were measuring was the width (or "caliber") of the largest of these abnormal blood vessels. They also tracked the overall size of the abnormal vessel patch, and participants' vision scores. Of the 49 people who started, 39 completed the trial, and 10 did not. The reported data shows that the average width of the largest abnormal blood vessel measured approximately 43.53 micrometres (a micrometre is one-thousandth of a millimetre — an extremely small unit). The reported average size of the abnormal vessel patch was approximately 3.03 square millimetres. For vision, participants' sight was tested using a standard letter-reading chart (called an ETDRS chart, where a higher score out of 100 means better vision). The reported data shows an average score of 69 letters at the time of measurement. When comparing vision scores at the start of the trial to scores at 6 months, the reported data shows an average change of +12.5 letters, where a positive number means letters read improved and a negative number would have meant it worsened. It is important to note that because there was only one group in this trial — no comparison group — these numbers describe what was observed rather than a comparison between treatments. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00658619 · results posted 26 April 2013

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at a small implant containing a drug called brimonidine tartrate, which was placed inside the eye. The trial was studying people with a condition called geographic atrophy — a form of age-related damage to the back of the eye where patches of tissue gradually break down and grow larger over time. A small first stage involved 6 people (3 in each dose group), while the main second stage enrolled 113 people split across three groups: 41 people received a higher-dose implant (400 µg), 49 received a lower-dose implant (200 µg), and 23 received a sham procedure with no implant. Of those, 31, 37, and 21 people respectively completed the study. The reported data shows that the main thing being measured was how much the damaged area in the eye grew over the course of the trial, using specialised eye photography. A higher number means more growth (worsening). At the start of the study, the average size of the damaged area was reported as approximately 6.2 disc areas in the higher-dose group, 6.9 in the lower-dose group, and 5.5 in the sham group (one "disc area" equals roughly 1.77 square millimetres). The reported change from the starting point showed the damaged area grew by an average of 0.90 disc areas in the higher-dose group, 1.01 in the lower-dose group, and 1.24 in the sham group. For vision measured by an eye chart (out of 100 letters), the reported average change was minus 5.0 letters in the higher-dose group, minus 3.2 in the lower-dose group, and minus 3.3 in the sham group — where a negative number means slightly fewer letters were read correctly compared to the start. Changes in contrast sensitivity and reading speed were also measured; the reported differences across all three groups were small, ranging from approximately minus 0.9 to plus 1.1 letters on the contrast chart, and from minus 1.15 to plus 0.45 words per minute for reading speed. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01122511 · results posted 5 September 2012

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01122511) enrolled a total of four participants — two in a group receiving dexamethasone and ranibizumab (two medicines given together), and two in a group receiving ranibizumab along with a sham (a pretend, inactive procedure used for comparison). The trial was designed to measure changes in vision and eye health over 12 months, looking at things like how many letters participants could read on an eye chart, the thickness of the retina at the back of the eye, and whether any leakage in the blood vessels of the eye changed over time. The reported data shows that none of the four participants completed the trial — all four are recorded as "not completed" in the submitted results. Because no participants finished the study, no outcome numbers were reported for any of the measures the trial was designed to assess. This means there are no figures available for changes in vision, retinal thickness, or leakage from the eye's blood vessels at the 12-month mark. The data was simply not reported for any of these outcomes, rather than showing a particular result. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00775411 · results posted 3 September 2012

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 44 participants, all of whom received a combination treatment of two medicines — dexamethasone (700 micrograms) and ranibizumab. Forty-three of the 44 participants completed the trial, with one person not finishing. The trial was measuring changes in the thickness of the central part of the retina (the light-sensitive layer at the back of the eye) over time, as well as changes in vision and signs of fluid leakage at the back of the eye. The reported data shows that, for the primary measure, the average central retinal thickness at the start of the trial was 360.9 microns, and by week 4 this had changed by an average of −62.0 microns (meaning the retina appeared thinner on average at that point). For vision, measured using a letter-reading eye chart scored from 0 to 100, the reported data shows participants could read an average of 46.5 letters correctly at the start, and this figure changed by an average of +4.5 letters by week 26. Regarding fluid leakage at the back of the eye — assessed using a dye-based imaging technique at week 26 — the reported data shows that 74.4% of participants were recorded as improved (leakage area reduced by 10% or more), 18.6% were recorded as unchanged, and 7.0% were recorded as worsened (leakage area increased by 10% or more). These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00511706 · results posted 3 September 2012

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 243 people in total — 123 in a group receiving both dexamethasone (a steroid) and ranibizumab (an eye injection), and 120 in a group receiving a sham (dummy) procedure alongside ranibizumab. The trial was looking at whether adding dexamethasone to ranibizumab treatment affected how long patients could go between needing repeat eye injections, as well as changes in vision and eye scan measurements over roughly 25 weeks. The reported data shows that the main thing being measured — the number of days between the second and third ranibizumab injections — was 34 days on average for the dexamethasone-plus-ranibizumab group, compared with 29 days for the sham-plus-ranibizumab group. For vision (measured by how many letters participants could read on an eye chart, out of 100), the reported data shows both groups started at similar levels — around 55–58 letters — and both showed a small increase of roughly 2 letters by week 25. Retinal thickness (measured by a laser eye scan) showed a small reduction in both groups, with the sham group recording a slightly larger decrease (about 13 microns) compared to the dexamethasone group (about 7 microns). The area of fluid leakage at the back of the eye also reduced in both groups, with the dexamethasone group showing a slightly larger reduction (about 2.3 square millimetres) than the sham group (about 1.7 square millimetres). These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00593450 · results posted 30 August 2012

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 1,185 people across four groups to compare two eye injection medicines — Lucentis and Avastin — for what appears to be a condition affecting vision (likely age-related macular degeneration). Participants were assigned to receive either Lucentis or Avastin, and within each medicine group they received injections either on a fixed monthly schedule or only "as needed" based on their eye health. The trial ran for one year, and the main thing being measured was how much a person's vision score changed from the start of the trial to the end. The reported data shows that, on average, vision scores (measured by the number of letters read correctly on a standardised eye chart) improved across all four groups over the year. The monthly Lucentis group gained an average of 8.5 letters, the monthly Avastin group gained 8.0 letters, the as-needed Lucentis group gained 6.8 letters, and the as-needed Avastin group gained 5.9 letters. The reported data also shows a large difference in drug costs: the average drug cost per patient over the year was reported as approximately US$23,400 for monthly Lucentis, US$13,800 for as-needed Lucentis, US$595 for monthly Avastin, and US$385 for as-needed Avastin. The monthly groups received on average around 11–12 injections over the year, while the as-needed groups received roughly 7–8 injections. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00637377 · results posted 23 January 2012

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 1,240 people across four treatment groups. Participants were randomly assigned to receive one of four injection regimens into the eye: ranibizumab 0.5 mg every four weeks; or one of three aflibercept (EYLEA) regimens — 2 mg every four weeks, 0.5 mg every four weeks, or 2 mg every eight weeks. All participants had a form of vision loss affecting the back of the eye, and the trial ran for 52 weeks (one year). The main thing being measured was whether participants avoided a significant drop in vision — specifically, losing fewer than 15 letters on a standard eye chart test. The reported data shows that, at the one-year mark, the vast majority of participants across all four groups avoided that significant vision drop: approximately 94% in the ranibizumab group, 96% in the aflibercept 0.5 mg every-four-weeks group, and around 95–96% in the two higher-dose aflibercept groups. On top of that, the reported data shows that on average, participants in all groups were actually able to read *more* letters on the eye chart than they could at the start — gains of roughly 8 to 10 letters were reported across the groups. Around 29–35% of participants in each group gained 15 or more letters, which is considered a meaningful improvement in vision. Scores on a questionnaire about how vision affected daily life (rated 0 to 100) also showed increases of roughly 5 to 6 points from the start across all groups. Changes in the size of abnormal blood vessel growth at the back of the eye were also measured, with reductions reported in all groups. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00395057 · results posted 13 December 2011

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 138 people in total, split across four groups of roughly 34–35 participants each. Three groups received different dose levels of an investigational eye injection called AGN 211745 (at 100, 300, or 1,000 micrograms), while a fourth group received a comparator injection called ranibizumab (500 micrograms). The trial was measuring things related to eye health at three months, including whether vision improved, how large certain problem areas in the eye were, and how thick a key part of the retina (the fovea — the spot responsible for sharp central vision) measured. It is worth noting that very few participants completed the study: only 1–2 people per group finished, and the large majority did not complete it. The reported data shows that, when looking at the main thing being measured — the percentage of patients whose vision improved by 15 or more letters on an eye chart at three months — the figures were 5.9% in the highest-dose AGN 211745 group, 2.9% in the middle-dose group, 0% in the lowest-dose group, and 17.6% in the ranibizumab group. For the size of the affected area in the eye, the reported measurements at three months were 6.17, 4.29, 6.54, and 3.89 square millimetres across the four groups respectively. Foveal thickness (where above 250 microns is considered outside the normal range) was reported as 484.6, 413.2, 437.1, and 269.8 microns across the groups. The reported data shows that a questionnaire about how vision affected daily life was not analysed because the study was terminated early, so no numbers are available for that measure. Finally, the average number of days before participants needed to move to a standard rescue treatment was reported as approximately 91–92 days across the three AGN 211745 groups and 130.5 days in the ranibizumab group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00239928 · results posted 4 May 2011

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT00239928) was a follow-on study involving 61 participants, all of whom had previously taken part in an earlier related trial (NCT00150202). The study tracked one group of participants who received the treatment EYE001, and 51 of the 61 people completed the study. The trial was measuring changes in vision over time, specifically how many letters participants could read on a standard eye chart (called the ETDRS chart, a common tool used to measure eyesight). On this chart, 85 letters is the best possible score and 0 is the worst. The reported data shows that, when comparing participants' vision to where it stood at the start of the earlier trial, the average number of letters read declined at each check-in point over time — ranging from a drop of about 3 letters early on to a drop of around 10 letters at later time points. When measured from the start of this current study specifically, the reported average decline ranged from less than 1 letter at the first check-in to about 6 letters by the later time points. In terms of individual participants, the reported data shows that at most check-in points, roughly 29 to 41 out of 61 participants had lost fewer than 15 letters compared to where they started in the earlier trial (this group includes anyone whose vision stayed the same or improved). Between 4 and 7 participants at any given time point had gained more than 15 letters compared to that earlier starting point, while the number who experienced a severe vision loss of 30 or more letters rose from 0 at the first check-in to around 6–7 participants at later time points. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00539734 · results posted 8 April 2011

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 26 people who received a treatment called ranibizumab (a medicine injected into the eye). Twenty-five of the 26 participants completed the study, and one did not finish. The trial was measuring changes in a type of eye test called a multifocal ERG (electroretinogram) — a test that records how the retina (the light-sensitive layer at the back of the eye) responds to visual signals. Specifically, the trial looked at two things: how strong the retina's electrical signal was, and how quickly the retina responded to a visual stimulus, comparing measurements taken before treatment to those taken three months later. The reported data shows that at the three-month mark, the average strength (called "amplitude") of the retina's electrical signal in the ranibizumab group was recorded at 2.859 nanovolts per degree squared — nanovolts being a very small unit of electrical measurement. The average time it took the retina to respond to a visual signal (called "implicit time") was reported as 31.621 milliseconds (thousandths of a second). These are simply the numbers recorded at three months; the data as submitted does not separately report what the measurements were at the start of the study (baseline), so the size of any change cannot be calculated from the figures provided here. For the secondary outcome — tracking serious complications such as eye infection or retinal detachment — no numerical data was reported on ClinicalTrials.gov. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

See the full Macular Degeneration page · What changed recently

Not medical advice. These are results as reported by the trial sponsor to a public registry, summarised in plain English. They describe what a trial recorded, not whether a treatment is suitable for any person. Verify anything important against the original registry record and discuss what it means for you with your doctor.