United States Population Disparities in Ophthalmic Care: Blindness and Visual Impairment in the IRIS® Registry (Intelligent Research in Sight).

PURPOSE: To evaluate associations of patient characteristics with United States eye care use and likelihood of blindness. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (19 546 016) with 2018 visual acuity (VA) records in the American Academy of Ophthalmology's IRIS® Registry (Intelligent Research in Sight). METHODS: Legal blindness (20/200 or worse) and visual impairment (VI; worse than 20/40) were identified from corrected distance acuity in the better-seeing eye and stratified by patient characteristics. Multivariable logistic regressions evaluated associations with blindness and VI. Blindness was mapped by state and compared with population characteristics. Eye care use was analyzed by comparing population demographics with United States Census estimates and proportional demographic representation among blind patients versus a nationally representative US population sample (National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey [NHANES]). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence and odds ratios for VI and blindness; proportional representation in the IRIS® Registry, Census, and NHANES by patient demographics. RESULTS: Visual impairment was present in 6.98% (n = 1 364 935) and blindness in 0.98% (n = 190 817) of IRIS patients. Adjusted odds of blindness were highest among patients ≥ 85 years old (odds ratio [OR], 11.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.33-13.59 vs. those 0-17 years old). Blindness also was associated positively with rural location and Medicaid, Medicare, or no insurance vs. commercial insurance. Hispanic (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.46-1.74) and Black (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.63-1.84) patients showed a higher odds of blindness versus White non-Hispanic patients. Proportional representation in IRIS Registry relative to the Census was higher for White than Hispanic (2- to 4-fold) or Black (11%-85%) patients (P < 0.001). Blindness overall was less prevalent in NHANES than IRIS Registry; however, prevalence in adults aged 60+ was lowest among Black participants in the NHANES (0.54%) and second highest among comparable Black adults in IRIS (1.57%). CONCLUSIONS: Legal blindness from low VA was present in 0.98% of IRIS patients and associated with rural location, public or no insurance, and older age. Compared with US Census estimates, minorities may be underrepresented among ophthalmology patients, and compared with NHANES population estimates, Black individuals may be overrepresented among blind IRIS Registry patients. These findings provide a snapshot of US ophthalmic care and highlight the need for initiatives to address disparities in use and blindness. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

EXTERNAL DRAINAGE OF SUBRETINAL FLUID DURING RHEGMATOGENOUS RETINAL DETACHMENT REPAIR.

PURPOSE: To describe the safety and efficacy of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) repair with external drainage of subretinal fluid using a 28-gauge External Drainage and Depression device (Vortex Surgical, Chesterfield, MO). METHODS: Retrospective review of patients who underwent primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repair with scleral buckle, pars plana vitrectomy, or scleral buckle/pars plana vitrectomy using the drainage device from August 2018 through March 2020, performed by four surgeons at two vitreoretinal practices. RESULTS: Eighty-three eyes of 83 patients were included. At presentation, 28% had proliferative vitreoretinopathy. Surgery included 65% scleral buckle/pars plana vitrectomy, 33% pars plana vitrectomy, and 2% scleral buckle. There were no cases of retinal incarceration and two subretinal hemorrhages at the drainage site (both < 2 DD), 2 cases of recurrent RD with proliferative vitreoretinopathy (1 had proliferative vitreoretinopathy at presentation), and 6 (10%) new epiretinal membranes (3 were mild). There were no other complications. Mean follow-up was 274 days. Single operation success rate for those with ≥ 6-month follow-up was 97% (57/59). CONCLUSION: External drainage of subretinal fluid during rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repair demonstrated a favorable safety profile with a high single operation success rate. Further study of the role of external drainage in rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repair is warranted.

Endophthalmitis after Cataract Surgery in the United States: A Report from the Intelligent Research in Sight Registry, 2013-2017.

PURPOSE: To determine recent incidence and visual outcomes for acute-onset endophthalmitis after cataract surgery performed in the United States. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: United States cataract surgery patients, 2013-2017 (5 401 686 patients). METHODS: Cases of acute-onset postoperative endophthalmitis occurring within 30 days after cataract surgery were identified using diagnosis codes in the American Academy of Ophthalmology IRIS (Intelligent Research in Sight) Registry database, drawn from electronic health records in ophthalmology practices across the nation. Annual and aggregate 5-year incidences were determined for all cataract surgeries and specifically for standalone procedures versus those combined with other ophthalmic surgeries. Patient characteristics were compared. Mean and median visual acuity was determined at 1 month preoperative as well as 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months postoperative among patients with and without endophthalmitis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of acute-onset postoperative endophthalmitis after cataract surgery. RESULTS: A total of 8 542 838 eyes underwent cataract surgery, 3629 of which developed acute-onset endophthalmitis (0.04%; 95% confidence interval, 0.04%-0.04%). Endophthalmitis incidence was highest among patients aged 0 to 17 years (0.37% over 5 years), followed by patients aged 18 to 44 years (0.18% over 5 years; P < 0.0001). Endophthalmitis occurred 4 times more often after combined cases (cataract with other ophthalmic procedures) than after standalone cataract surgeries (0.20% vs. 0.04% of cases), and occurred in 0.35% of patients receiving anterior vitrectomy. Mean 3-month postoperative visual acuity was 20/100 (median, 20/50) among endophthalmitis patients, versus a mean of approximately 20/40 (median, 20/30) among patients without endophthalmitis. However, 4% of endophthalmitis patients still achieved 20/20 or better visual acuity, and 44% achieved 20/40 or better visual acuity at 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: Acute-onset endophthalmitis occurred in 0.04% of 8 542 838 cataract surgeries performed in the United States between 2013 and 2017. Risk factors may include younger age, cataract surgery combined with other ophthalmic surgeries, and anterior vitrectomy. Visual acuity outcomes vary; however, patients can recover excellent vision after surgery. Big data from clinical registries like the IRIS Registry has great potential for evaluating rare conditions such as endophthalmitis, including developing benchmarks, longer-term time trend investigation, and comprehensive analysis of risk factors and prophylaxis.

The 2016 American Academy of Ophthalmology IRIS® Registry (Intelligent Research in Sight) Database: Characteristics and Methods.

PURPOSE: To describe the characteristics of the patient population included in the 2016 IRIS® Registry (Intelligent Research in Sight) database for analytic aims. DESIGN: Description of a clinical data registry. PARTICIPANTS: The 2016 IRIS Registry database consists of 17 363 018 unique patients from 7200 United States-based ophthalmologists in the United States. METHODS: Electronic health record (EHR) data were extracted from the participating practices and placed into a clinical database. The approach can be used across dozens of EHR systems. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographic characteristics. RESULTS: The 2016 IRIS Registry database includes data about patient demographics, top-coded disease conditions, and visit rates. CONCLUSIONS: The IRIS Registry is a unique, large, real-world data set that is available for analytics to provide perspectives and to learn about current ophthalmic care and treatment outcomes. The IRIS Registry can be used to answer questions about practice patterns, use, disease prevalence, clinical outcomes, and the comparative effectiveness of different treatments. Limitations of the data are the same limitations associated with EHR data in terms of documentation errors or missing data and the lack of images. Currently, open access to the database is not available, but there are opportunities for researchers to submit proposals for analyses, for example through a Research to Prevent Blindness and American Academy of Ophthalmology Award for IRIS Registry Research.

Real-World Vision in Age-Related Macular Degeneration Patients Treated with Single Anti-VEGF Drug Type for 1 Year in the IRIS Registry.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare real-world visual acuity (VA) in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) treated with a single anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) drug monotherapy for 1 year from the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Intelligent Research in Sight (IRIS) Registry. DESIGN: Retrospective, nonrandomized, comparative study. PARTICIPANTS: IRIS Registry patients with nAMD who received bevacizumab, ranibizumab, or aflibercept only for 1 year between 2013-2016. METHODS: Participants were divided into 3 groups based on monotherapy type. Multivariate analysis of covariance models (ANCOVA) was constructed in a stepwise fashion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) VA at 1 year and mean change in logMAR VA between baseline and 1 year were compared between drug types. RESULTS: Of 13 859 patients, 6723 received bevacizumab, 2749 received ranibizumab, and 4387 received aflibercept only for 1 year. A total of 84 828 injections were performed. The mean number of injections (standard deviation) at 1 year was higher in the ranibizumab (6.4 [±2.4]) and aflibercept groups (6.2 [±2.4]) compared to bevacizumab group (5.9 [±2.4]; P < 0.0001). In the age-adjusted model, both ranibizumab and aflibercept achieved better logMAR VA at 1 year compared with bevacizumab (0.50 [±0.49], 0.49 [±0.44], 0.55 [±0.57]; P < 0.0001). However, this difference was not significant after multivariate adjustment (age, baseline VA, diabetes, posterior vitreous detachment, number of injections, race, insurance). There was no statistical difference in the age-adjusted or multivariate-adjusted mean logMAR VA change (standard deviation) at 1 year among treatment groups (-0.048 [0.44] bevacizumab, -0.053 [0.46] ranibizumab, -0.040 [0.39] aflibercept; P = 0.46). A higher percentage of patients achieved a ≥3-line VA improvement at 1 year in the bevacizumab group (22.7%) compared with ranibizumab (20.1%; P = 0.0093) and aflibercept (17.8%; P < 0.0001). However, after multivariate adjustment, aflibercept exhibited a greater log odds of a ≥3-line VA loss compared with bevacizumab only (1.25 log odds ratio; P < 0.0016). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that all 3 drugs improve VA similarly over 1 year of monotherapy.

Treatment Patterns for Myopic Choroidal Neovascularization in the United States: Analysis of the IRIS Registry.

PURPOSE: To characterize treatment patterns and outcomes in eyes with treatment-naïve myopic choroidal neovascularization (mCNV) in the United States. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals aged 18 years and older seen in clinics participating in the American Academy of Ophthalmology's IRIS (Intelligent Research in Sight) Registry. METHODS: We analyzed data from the IRIS Registry, from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2014, to identify cases of treatment-naïve mCNV, which was defined as the presence of myopic refractive error worse than -6.0 diopters with the presence of subretinal/choroidal neovascularization as indicated by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis of "362.16: Retinal Neovascularization NOS." MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Type of initial treatment for mCNV was categorized as the administration of 1 of the following within the first 365 days after the diagnosis date: (1) observation (i.e., no treatment); (2) intravitreal anti-VEGF injection; (3) verteporfin photodynamic therapy (vPDT); or (4) laser photocoagulation. We assessed the difference between logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution (logMAR) visual acuity (VA) on the diagnosis date (baseline) and 1 year after the diagnosis date. Anti-VEGF injection frequency per treated eye over a 1-year period was also estimated. RESULTS: We identified 185 patients with treatment-naïve mCNV in 1 or both eyes. Treatment within 1 year of diagnosis was recorded for 73.0% (135/185); the remainder was classified as "observation." Nearly all treatment (134/135; 99.3%) consisted of anti-VEGF injections; 0.7% (1/135) received vPDT. Those treated with anti-VEGF injections showed significant improvement in VA at 1 year (mean logMAR VA improvement of 0.17 units, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12-0.20, P < 0.01), whereas those who were not treated showed a significant decline in VA at 1 year (mean logMAR VA decline: 0.03 units, 95% CI, 0.008-0.05, P < 0.01). The mean number of anti-VEGF injections for an eye with mCNV during the first year after diagnosis was 2.8 (standard deviation, 2.5) (median, 2.0; interquartile range, 1.0-4.0). CONCLUSIONS: In the United States, anti-VEGF injection was the most frequently utilized treatment for mCNV. Those treated were observed to gain vision. However, one quarter of patients received no treatment and lost vision. Further studies are needed to understand the sociodemographic and health-systems barriers surrounding the delivery of anti-VEGF injections to patients with mCNV.

The American Academy of Ophthalmology and the Formation of the American Board of Ophthalmology.

At the turn of the 20th century, the American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology joined the American Ophthalmological Society and the Section on Ophthalmology of the American Medical Association to form America's first board for the certification of medical specialists, the American Board of Ophthalmology. Academy leaders helped pave the way for the development of rigorous standards for the training of ophthalmologists and pushed for the advancement of excellence within the profession.

The Prevalence of Myopic Choroidal Neovascularization in the United States: Analysis of the IRIS(®) Data Registry and NHANES.

PURPOSE: To determine the prevalence of high myopia (HM), progressive high (degenerative) myopia (PHM), and myopic choroidal neovascularization (mCNV) in the United States. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals aged 18 years and older participating in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and patients aged 18 years and older seen in clinics participating in the American Academy of Ophthalmology's Intelligent Research in Sight (IRIS(®)) Registry. METHODS: We analyzed NHANES data from 2005 to 2008 to determine the prevalence of HM in the United States. This prevalence was then applied to estimates from the US Population Census (2014) to arrive at a population burden of HM at the diopter level in the United States. Data from the IRIS Registry were used to calculate the real-world prevalence rates of PHM and mCNV among patients with HM at the diopter level. This was subsequently applied to this reference population with HM to calculate the diopter-adjusted prevalence and population burden of PHM and mCNV in the United States in 2014. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: High myopia was defined as myopic refractive error of ≤6.0 diopters in the right eye. Progressive HM was defined as HM with the International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) code of "360.21: Progressive High (Degenerative) Myopia." Myopic CNV was defined as HM with the presence of subretinal/choroidal neovascularization indicated by the ICD-9-CM diagnosis of "362.16: Retinal Neovascularization NOS." RESULTS: The estimated diopter-adjusted prevalence of HM, PHM, and mCNV was 3.92% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.82-5.60), 0.33% (95% CI, 0.21-0.55), and 0.017% (95% CI, 0.010-0.030), respectively, among adults in the United States aged 18 years and older in 2014. This translated into a population burden of approximately 9 614 719 adults with HM, 817 829 adults with PHM, and 41 111 adults with mCNV in the United States in 2014. CONCLUSIONS: Although HM and PHM impose a relatively large burden among adults in the United States, mCNV seems to be a rare disease. Relating data from the IRIS Registry and NHANES could be a novel method for assessing ophthalmic disease prevalence in the United States. Future studies should aim to better assess current treatment patterns and optimal management strategies of this condition.

Integrating the Internship into Ophthalmology Residency Programs: Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology American Academy of Ophthalmology White Paper.

Future ophthalmologists will need to have broad skills to thrive in complex health care organizations. However, training for ophthalmologists does not take advantage of all of the postgraduate years (PGYs). Although the traditional residency years seem to have little excess capacity, enhancing the internship year does offer an opportunity to expand the time for ophthalmology training in the same 4 PGYs. Integrating the internship year into residency would allow control of all of the PGYs, allowing our profession to optimize training for ophthalmology. In this white paper, we propose that we could capture an additional 6 months of training time by integrating basic ophthalmology training into the intern year. This would allow 6 additional months to expand training in areas such as quality improvement or time for "mini-fellowships" to allow graduates to develop a deeper set of skills.