Evaluation of the Melbourne Rapid Fields Test Procedure

Participant Experience Using Novel Perimetry Tests to Monitor Glaucoma Progression

PRCIS

Participant surveys taken after using tablet-based and smart visual function analyzer (SVFA) perimetry tests suggest that patients may prefer novel perimetry tests over traditional visual field machines.

PURPOSE

Compare patient experience using the IMOvifa SVFA and the tablet-based Melbourne Rapid Fields visual field (VF) tests to the Humphrey Field 24-2 Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm Standard.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Prospective observational cohort study on adult participants with diagnoses of glaucoma suspect, ocular hypertension, or glaucoma. Participants attended 2 study visits ~3 months apart. During the first visit, participants were trained to use the 2 novel perimeters, took 1 test on both new devices and the Humphrey Field Analyzer, then were surveyed. Participants received tablets and performed weekly tablet VF tests at home between study visits. At the final study visit, participants re-took the VF tests and completed the same surveys.

RESULTS

Eighty-one participants were surveyed twice. At the baseline survey, participants preferred the SVFA (71.7%) and tablet tests (69.2%) over the Humphrey VF. Most were willing to perform weekly monitoring at home on the SVFA (69.1%) and tablet (75.4%). Participants generally had a "very good" overall experience when testing on the SVFA (71.6%) and tablet (90.1%). At the final visit, fewer participants were willing to test on the tablet daily (23.5% to 9.9%; P = 0.02 for change) and more were willing to test monthly (18.5% to 33.3%; P = 0.03 for change).

CONCLUSION

Users reported a preference for novel VF devices. Overall participant experience using these devices was positive, supporting the feasibility of home monitoring of VFs from an experience perspective.

Comparison of Perimetric Outcomes from a Tablet Perimeter, Smart Visual Function Analyzer, and Humphrey Field Analyzer

PURPOSE

The tablet-based Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) visual field (VF) test and the IMOvifa Smart Visual Function Analyzer (SVFA) are portable perimeters that may allow for at-home monitoring and more frequent testing. We compared tablet and SVFA results with outputs from the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 24-2 Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm Standard program.

DESIGN

Observational cross-sectional study.

SUBJECTS

Adult participants with a diagnosis of glaucoma, suspected glaucoma, or ocular hypertension seen in the Massachusetts Eye and Ear glaucoma clinic were enrolled. All participants were reliable and experienced HFA testers.

METHODS

Participants were tested with the SVFA and HFA. The study staff also trained participants on the MRF tablet with instructions to take weekly tests at home for 3 months. Visual field results from the 3 devices were compared.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), reliability parameters, and point sensitivity.

RESULTS

Overall, 79 participants (133 eyes) with a mean age of 61 ± 13 years (range, 26-79 years) were included; 59% of the participants were female, and the mean HFA MD was -2.7 ± 3.9 dB. The global indices of MD and PSD did not significantly vary between HFA and the 2 novel devices, except that the tablet VF reported a 0.6 dB higher PSD compared with HFA. However, tablet and SVFA sensitivities significantly differed from those of the HFA at 36 and 39 locations, respectively, out of 52 locations. Relative to HFA, the tablet overestimated light sensitivity in the nasal field while underestimating the temporal field. The SVFA generally underestimated light sensitivity, but its results were more similar to HFA results compared with the tablet.

CONCLUSIONS

Although average MD values from the 2 novel devices suggest that they provide similar results to the HFA, point-by-point comparisons highlight notable deviations. Differences in specific point sensitivity values were significant, especially between the tablet and the other 2 devices. These differences may in part be explained by differences in the devices' normative databases as well as how MD is calculated. However, the tablet had substantial differences based on location, indicating that the tablet design itself may be responsible for differences in local sensitivities.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Performance of a Smart Device over 12-Months for Home Monitoring of Patients with Intermediate Age-Related Macular Degeneration

Background: To determine the 12-month compliance with and retention of home monitoring (HM) with Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRFh) for patients with intermediate age-related macular degeneration (iAMD) and compare visual acuity (VA) and retinal sensitivity (RS) results to clinical measures. Methods: Participants were recruited to a 12-month HM study with weekly testing of vision with MRFh. Inclusion criteria were a diagnosis of iAMD, understand English instructions, VA ≥ 20/40, and access to an iPad. Supervised in-clinic testing of high contrast VA (HVA, ETDRS), low-luminance VA (LLVA, ETDRS with ND2 filter), and RS (Macular Integrity Assessment, MAIA, and MRF in-clinic, MRFc) was conducted every 6-months. Results: A total of 54 participants (67 ± 6.8 years) were enrolled. Compliance to weekly HM was 61% and study retention at 12-months was 50% of those with uptake (n = 46). No difference was observed between MRFc and MRFh across all RS and VA outcomes (p > 0.05). MRFh RS was higher than MAIA (29.1 vs. 27.1 dB, p < 0.001). MRFh HVA was not different from ETDRS (p = 0.08), but LLVA was 9 letters better (81.5 vs. 72.4 letters, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Over 12-months, MRFh yields a moderate level of compliance with (61%) and retention (50%) of weekly testing. Further studies are required to assess the ability of MRFh to detect early progression to nAMD.

Test Reliability and Compliance to a Twelve-Month Visual Field Telemedicine Study in Glaucoma Patients

Background: Our primary aim is to quantify test reliability and compliance of glaucoma patients to a weekly visual field telemedicine (VFTM) schedule. A secondary aim is to determine concordance of the VFTM results to in-clinic outcomes. Methods: Participants with stable glaucoma in one eye were recruited for a 12 month VFTM trial using the Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF-home, MRFh) iPad application. Participants attended routine 6 month clinical reviews and were tasked with weekly home monitoring with the MRFh over this period. We determined compliance to weekly VFTM (7 + 1 days) and test reliability (false positives (FPs) and fixation loss (FL) <33%). A secondary aim considered concordance to in-clinic measures of visual field (MRF-clinic (MRFc) and the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA)) in active participants (≥10 home examinations and 5 reliable HFA examinations). The linear trend in the MRFh mean deviation (MD) was compared to the HFA guided progression analysis (GPA) using Bland−Altman methods. Data are shown as the mean ± standard deviation. Results: Forty-seven participants with a mean age of 64 ± 14.6 years were recruited for the trial. The VFTM uptake was 85% and compliance to weekly home monitoring was 75% in the presence of weekly text reminders in the analysed group (n = 20). The analysed group was composed of test subjects with five reliable in-clinic HFA examinations (GPA analysis available) and who submitted a minimum of 10 MRFh examinations from home. Of the 757 home examinations returned, approximately two-thirds were reliable, which was significantly lower than the test reliability of the HFA in-clinic (MRFh: 65% vs. HFA: 85%, p < 0.001). The HFA-GPA analysis gave little bias from the MRFh slope (bias: 0.05 dB/yr, p > 0.05). Two eyes were found to have clinical progression during the 12 month period, and both were detected by VFTM. Conclusions: VFTM over 12 months returned good compliance (75%) to weekly testing with good concordance to in-clinic assays. VFTM is a viable option for monitoring patients with glaucoma for visual field progression in between clinical visits.