Prismatic correction in patients affected by age-related macular degeneration

Randomized Controlled Trial of a Spectacle Lens for Macular Degeneration

SIGNIFICANCE

E-Scoop, a spectacle lens, provides no clinically relevant improvements on quality of life, visual acuity, and contrast sensitivity for patients with AMD. Because patients' burden is high and therapeutic options are scarce, the incentive to develop effective vision rehabilitation interventions remains.

PURPOSE

Patients with AMD experience low quality of life due to vision loss, despite angiogenesis inhibitor interventions that slow down progression for some patients. E-Scoop, which includes low-power prisms, 6% magnification, yellow tint, and antireflection coating, might aid in daily activities by improving distance viewing. Separately, these features have little proven effectiveness. E-Scoop has not been formally tested. This study aimed to determine the impact of E-Scoop on quality of life and the effect on visual acuity and contrast sensitivity.

METHODS

In this randomized controlled, open-label trial, 190 of 226 eligible patients were included. The primary outcome was quality of life measured with the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. The follow-up for quality of life was after 6 weeks for controls and after 3 weeks of use for E-Scoop wearers. The visual measures were repeated after 6 weeks, with optimal refractive correction, with and without E-Scoop.

RESULTS

Randomization resulted in 99 E-Scoop and 86 control group patients for intention-to-treat analysis. No differential change was found between the E-Scoop and control groups on the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire using Rasch analysis (Cohen d = -0.07, P = .53). Statistically significant but small effects were found in favor of E-Scoop on binocular visual acuity (mean difference, 0.05 logMAR [2.5 letters, P < .001]) and contrast sensitivity (mean difference, 0.10 logCS [2 letters, P < .001]).

CONCLUSIONS

No effect of E-Scoop on quality of life was found. E-Scoop showed effects that were statistically significant, although not clinically meaningful and within typical variability, on visual measures.

Homonymous hemianopsia versus unilateral spatial neglect rehabilitation strategies in stroke patients

Abstract Visual rehabilitation therapy is one of the most problematic issue in stroke rehabilitation. The difficulties consist in specific assessment of visual deficit and poor results reports by the authors of the clinical studies. Opposite, experimental studies reports encouraging results that give hopes in this specific rehabilitation therapy. There are still difficult to analyze different aquisitions concerning various visual residual deficits after stroke, the main rehabilitation targgets being motor rehabilitation in order to ensure at least a partial autonomy in day by day life. All the studies that proved there are chances for a better quality of life if there is an improvement of visual abilities together with motor and cognitive skills with a better rehabilitation prognosis. The aim of this paper is to make a brief report regarding two of the most important visual deficits after stroke as are homonymous hemianopsia and neglect. Starting with differential diagnosis, neuroplasticity and specific rehabilitation available method, the main issues are discussed. a better understanding of phenomena that are associated with spontaneous rehabilitation, or enhancing the progress of recuperation by various method, could be able to bring a new light and hopefully better results in rehabilitation for these patients Key words: stroke, visual impairment, visual rehabilitation, neuroplasticity, homonymous hemianopsia,

Reading aids for adults with low vision

BACKGROUND

The purpose of low-vision rehabilitation is to allow people to resume or to continue to perform daily living tasks, with reading being one of the most important. This is achieved by providing appropriate optical devices and special training in the use of residual-vision and low-vision aids, which range from simple optical magnifiers to high-magnification video magnifiers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different visual reading aids for adults with low vision.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 12); MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; BIREME LILACS, OpenGrey, the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The date of the search was 17 January 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

This review includes randomised and quasi-randomised trials that compared any device or aid used for reading to another device or aid in people aged 16 or over with low vision as defined by the study investigators. We did not compare low-vision aids with no low-vision aid since it is obviously not possible to measure reading speed, our primary outcome, in people that cannot read ordinary print. We considered reading aids that maximise the person's visual reading capacity, for example by increasing image magnification (optical and electronic magnifiers), augmenting text contrast (coloured filters) or trying to optimise the viewing angle or gaze position (such as prisms). We have not included studies investigating reading aids that allow reading through hearing, such as talking books or screen readers, or through touch, such as Braille-based devices and we did not consider rehabilitation strategies or complex low-vision interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. At least two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The primary outcome of the review was reading speed in words per minute. Secondary outcomes included reading duration and acuity, ease and frequency of use, quality of life and adverse outcomes. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 small studies with a cross-over design (435 people overall), one study with two parallel arms (37 participants) and one study with three parallel arms (243 participants). These studies took place in the USA (7 studies), the UK (5 studies) and Canada (1 study). Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) was the most frequent cause of low vision, with 10 studies reporting 50% or more participants with the condition. Participants were aged 9 to 97 years in these studies, but most were older (the median average age across studies was 71 years). None of the studies were masked; otherwise we largely judged the studies to be at low risk of bias. All studies reported the primary outcome: results for reading speed. None of the studies measured or reported adverse outcomes.Reading speed may be higher with stand-mounted closed circuit television (CCTV) than with optical devices (stand or hand magnifiers) (low-certainty evidence, 2 studies, 92 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that reading duration was longer with the electronic devices and that they were easier to use. Similar results were seen for electronic devices with the camera mounted in a 'mouse'. Mixed results were seen for head-mounted devices with one study of 70 participants finding a mouse-based head-mounted device to be better than an optical device and another study of 20 participants finding optical devices better (low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence from three studies (93 participants) suggested no important differences in reading speed, acuity or ease of use between stand-mounted and head-mounted electronic devices. Similarly, low-certainty evidence from one study of 100 participants suggested no important differences between a 9.7'' tablet computer and stand-mounted CCTV in reading speed, with imprecise estimates (other outcomes not reported).Low-certainty evidence showed little difference in reading speed in one study with 100 participants that added electronic portable devices to preferred optical devices. One parallel-arm study in 37 participants found low-certainty evidence of higher reading speed at one month if participants received a CCTV at the initial rehabilitation consultation instead of a standard low-vision aids prescription alone.A parallel-arm study including 243 participants with AMD found no important differences in reading speed, reading acuity and quality of life between prism spectacles and conventional spectacles. One study in 10 people with AMD found that reading speed with several overlay coloured filters was no better and possibly worse than with a clear filter (low-certainty evidence, other outcomes not reported).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence supporting the use of a specific type of electronic or optical device for the most common profiles of low-vision aid users. However, there is some evidence that stand-mounted electronic devices may improve reading speeds compared with optical devices. There is less evidence to support the use of head-mounted or portable electronic devices; however, the technology of electronic devices may have improved since the studies included in this review took place, and modern portable electronic devices have desirable properties such as flexible use of magnification. There is no good evidence to support the use of filters or prism spectacles. Future research should focus on assessing sustained long-term use of each device and the effect of different training programmes on its use, combined with investigation of which patient characteristics predict performance with different devices, including some of the more costly electronic devices.

Reading aids for adults with low vision

BACKGROUND

The purpose of low-vision rehabilitation is to allow people to resume or to continue to perform daily living tasks, with reading being one of the most important. This is achieved by providing appropriate optical devices and special training in the use of residual-vision and low-vision aids, which range from simple optical magnifiers to high-magnification video magnifiers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of reading aids for adults with low vision.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE, (January 1950 to January 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2013), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to January 2013), OpenGrey (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe) (www.opengrey.eu/), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov/) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 31 January 2013. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and used the Science Citation Index to find articles that cited the included studies and contacted investigators and manufacturers of low-vision aids. We handsearched the British Journal of Visual Impairment from 1983 to 1999 and the Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness from 1976 to 1991.

SELECTION CRITERIA

This review includes randomised and quasi-randomised trials in which any device or aid used for reading had been compared to another device or aid in people aged 16 or over with low vision as defined by the study investigators.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine small studies with a cross-over-like design (181 people overall) and one study with three parallel arms (243 participants) in the review. All studies reported the primary outcome, results for reading speed.Two studies including 92 participants found moderate- or low-quality evidence suggesting that reading speed is higher with stand-mounted electronic devices or electronic devices with the camera mounted in a 'mouse' than with optical magnifiers, which in these trials were generally stand-mounted or, less frequently, hand-held magnifiers or microscopic lenses. In another study of 20 participants there was moderate-quality evidence that optical devices are better than head-mounted electronic devices (four types).There was low-quality evidence from three studies (93 participants) that reading using head-mounted electronic devices is slower than with stand-based electronic devices. The technology of electronic devices may have changed and improved since these studies were conducted.One study suggested no difference between a diffractive spectacle-mounted magnifier and either refractive (15 participants) or aplanatic (15 participants) magnifiers.One study of 10 people suggested that several overlay coloured filters were no better and possibly worse than a clear filter.A parallel-arm study including 243 participants with age-related macular degeneration found that custom or standard prism spectacles were no different from conventional reading spectacles, although the data did not allow precise estimates of performance to be made.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence on the effect of different types of low-vision aids on reading performance. It would be necessary to investigate which patient characteristics predict performance with different devices, including costly electronic devices. Better-quality research should also focus on assessing sustained long-term use of each device. Authors of studies testing several devices on the same person should consider design and reporting issues related to their sequential presentation and to the cross-over-like study design.

The use of prisms for vision rehabilitation after macular function loss: an evidence-based review

To determine the efficacy of prisms used for redirection of incoming images towards the peripheral retina in cases with macular function loss. Meta-analysis of published work reporting outcomes from interventions using prisms was performed. The primary outcome measure selected for analysis was visual acuity (VA) used for viewing distance targets. Pooled data from 449 cases where prisms were prescribed for wearing in distance glasses were analysed. Visual acuity was better after using prisms (1.05 versus 0.89 logMAR units, p < 0.044). Mean effect size for improving VA was 79 bigger than the effect size calculated for the control group (0.158 versus 0.002). Most patients (76%) reported compliance with the therapy and also reported other benefits directly derived from the realized VA improvement. Published studies collectively offer positive evidence in support of using prisms for low vision rehabilitation after macular function loss. Further research is required to reach definitive binding conclusions.

Eccentric gaze direction in patients with central field loss

PURPOSE

This study describes the binocular eccentric gaze direction (EGD) of 434 patients with binocular central field loss and presents a comparison with other studies on eccentric gaze behavior.

METHODS

We reviewed the records of 434 patients with bilateral central scotomas. Eligible patients had not received eccentric viewing training and demonstrated a spontaneously developed eccentric gaze behavior. Data were collected on monocular and binocular EGD, visual acuity, and underlying ocular pathology. Findings concerning the EGD were compared with other studies that evaluated gaze behavior in patients with central field loss.

RESULTS

In the group of 434 patients, age-related macular disease was the most frequent pathology (77%). The majority of these patients demonstrated a binocular EGD (bEGD) to the right (50%). In 25% of the patients, a superior bEGD was found. Less often, a bEGD to the left (14%) and to inferior (11%) were encountered. Review of the literature indicates that the majority of patients developed a monocular EGD in the superior direction.

CONCLUSIONS

This is a study on bEGD behavior in a large population of patients with bilateral central scotomas. The bEGD was guided by the gaze of the better-seeing eye. The preference for a bEGD to the right differs from findings of previous studies. Review of the literature suggests that not only the ocular pathology but also the method of investigation is most likely to influence the observed EGD. Most studies evaluated the location of the preferred retinal locus using a monocular technique; this may not reflect an individual's actual binocular behavior as it relates to activities of daily living.

The Natural History and Prognosis of Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration

PURPOSE

To describe the natural history and progression of visual loss in eyes with untreated neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

Four thousand three hundred sixty-two untreated neovascular AMD patients from published interventional studies.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature from 1980 to August 2005 was performed. Studies reporting disease progression outcomes for untreated patients with neovascular AMD were included. Outcome measures were summarized using simple counts and means. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted and tests of heterogeneity were performed where appropriate.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Changes in visual acuity (VA) loss, development of comorbidities, and fellow eye involvement.

RESULTS

Fifty-three primary studies were included. Nearly half of the studies (28) were randomized clinical trials. The quality of the studies was high, with over 80% providing level I or II evidence. Mean baseline VA among study patients was 0.64 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) (approximately 20/87 Snellen). The mean VA change in logMAR progressed from 0.1 (1 line lost) at 3 months to 0.3 (2.7 lines lost) after 12 months and 0.4 (4 lines lost) after 24 months. The proportion of patients who developed severe vision loss (>6 lines) from baseline increased from 21.3% at 6 months to 41.9% by 3 years. The proportion of patients with VA worse than logMAR 1.0 (20/200 Snellen) increased from 19.7% at baseline to 75.7% by 3 years. Neovascular AMD developed in the fellow eye in 12.2% of patients by 12 months and in 26.8% by 4 years. Meta-analyses of vision outcome by subtype of neovascular AMD were not possible.

CONCLUSIONS

A doubling of the visual angle of presenting VA may be expected to occur in the year after initial presentation in eyes with untreated neovascular AMD. No conclusions can be drawn as to the differences in rates of disease progression by neovascular AMD subtype. The diversity of reporting formats, paucity of long-term natural history data, and heterogeneity among the reported clinical studies impose limits to the clear understanding of long-term prognosis for visual function in neovascular AMD.

Long-term evaluation of eccentric viewing spectacles in patients with bilateral central scotomas

PURPOSE

Yoked prism spectacles (eccentric viewing spectacles [EVS]) facilitate eccentric viewing in patients with bilateral central scotomas. This study was conducted to evaluate the long-term success and patient satisfaction of this type of low-vision aid. METHODS. In this retrospective cross-sectional study, we reviewed the low-vision rehabilitation records of all patients who received EVS since 1993. With an 18-item survey, 191 patients were questioned about the wearing characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages of the EVS. Descriptive and nonparametric statistics were applied to compare regular users with those persons who no longer use the EVS.

RESULTS

The response rate was 83.2% and the average follow-up time was 4.5 years. Forty percent of all patients still used the EVS. The main disadvantages of these spectacles, mentioned mainly by the nonusers, included the heavy weight (41%), perception of curved lines (46%), dizziness during walking (46%), and poor cosmetic appearance (25%). Many successful long-term users considered the EVS suitable for home activities (86%) and walking in the street (70%) and reported that this device reduced eccentric viewing (77%), created better vision in the center of their visual field (67%), and helped with recognition of objects and faces (64%).

CONCLUSIONS

The prescription of EVS aids eccentric viewing in patients with dense central scotomas. Although associated with a number of disadvantages and side effects, 40% of the patients continued to use EVS. The results of this study indicate that patients who experience difficulties with eccentric fixation are most likely to benefit from these low-vision aids. A thorough explanation of the advantages and disadvantages of the EVS is important to prevent unnecessary disappointments.