Barriers and enablers to diabetic retinopathy screening: a cross-sectional survey of young adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS) attendance in young adults (YAs) is consistently below recommended levels. The aim of this study was to identify barriers and enablers of DRS attendance among YAs in the UK living with type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: YAs (18-34 years) were invited to complete an anonymous online survey in June 2021 assessing agreement with 30 belief statements informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) of behavior change describing potential barriers/enablers to DRS. RESULTS: In total, 102 responses were received. Most had T1D (65.7%) and were regular attenders for DRS (76.5%). The most salient TDF domains for DRS attendance were 'Goals', with 93% agreeing that DRS was a high priority, and 'Knowledge', with 98% being aware that screening can detect eye problems early.Overall, 67.4% indicated that they would like greater appointment flexibility (Environmental context/resources) and 31.3% reported difficulties getting time off work/study to attend appointments (Environmental context/resources). This was more commonly reported by occasional non-attenders versus regular attenders (59.1% vs 23.4%, p=0.002). Most YAs were worried about diabetic retinopathy (74.3%), anxious when receiving screening results (63%) (Emotion) and would like more support after getting their results (66%) (Social influences). Responses for T1D and T2D were broadly similar, although those with T2D were more likely have developed strategies to help them to remember their appointments (63.6% vs 37.9%, p=0.019) (Behavioral regulation). CONCLUSIONS: Attendance for DRS in YAs is influenced by complex interacting behavioral factors. Identifying modifiable determinants of behavior will provide a basis for designing tailored interventions to improve DRS in YAs and prevent avoidable vision loss.

Barriers and enablers to diabetic eye screening attendance: An interview study with young adults with type 1 diabetes.

AIM: The aim of this study was to identify barriers and enablers of diabetic eye screening (DES) attendance amongst young adults with diabetes living in the United Kingdom. METHODS: Semistructured qualitative interviews with adults aged 18-34 years with diabetes. Participants were purposively sampled to aim for representation across gender, geographical locations, diabetes type, years since diabetes diagnosis and patterns of attendance (i.e. regular attenders, occasional non-attenders, regular non-attenders). Data were collected and analysed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to explore potential individual, sociocultural and environmental influences on attendance. Data were analysed using a combined deductive and inductive thematic analysis approach. Barriers/enablers were mapped to behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to identify potential strategies to increase attendance. RESULTS: Key barriers to attendance reported by the sample of 29 study participants with type 1 diabetes, fell within the TDF domains: [Knowledge] (e.g. not understanding reasons for attending DES or treatments available if diabetic retinopathy is detected), [Social Influences] (e.g. lack of support following DES results), [Social role and Identity] (e.g. not knowing other people their age with diabetes, feeling 'isolated' and being reluctant to disclose their diabetes) and [Environmental Context and Resources] (e.g. lack of appointment flexibility and options for rescheduling). Enablers included: [Social Influences] (e.g. support of family/diabetes team), [Goals] (e.g. DES regarded as 'high priority'). Many of the reported barriers/enablers were consistent across groups. Potential BCTs to support attendance include Instructions on how to perform the behaviour; Information about health consequences; Social support (practical) and Social comparison. CONCLUSIONS: Attendance to diabetic eye screening in young adults is influenced by a complex set of interacting factors. Identification of potentially modifiable target behaviours provides a basis for designing more effective, tailored interventions to help young adults regularly attend eye screening and prevent avoidable vision loss.

Interpretation of change scores for the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25: the minimally important difference.

AIM: To estimate the minimally important difference (MID) in change in National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25 (VFQ-25) composite score using methods aligned with patient perception. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from adults with primary angle closure or primary angle closure glaucoma enrolled in the Effectiveness, in Angle-closure Glaucoma, of Lens Extraction study. We included data from 335 participants with patient reported visual function (VFQ-25) and health status measured by the EQ-5D-3L over 36 months. We used the recommended anchor-based methods (receiver operating characteristic (ROC), predictive modelling and mean change) to determine the MID of the VFQ-25. EQ-5D-3L anchor change was defined as none (<0.065); minimal (0.065≤EQ-5D-3L change ≤0.075 points) and greater change (>0.075 points). RESULTS: Mean baseline VFQ-25 score was 87.6 (SD 11.8). Estimated MIDs in the change in VFQ-25 scores (95% CI) were 10.5 (1.9 to 19.2); 3.9 (-2.3 to 10.1); 5.8 (1.9 to 7.2) and 8.1 (1.7 to 14.8) for the 'within-patient', 'between-patient' change, ROC and predictive modelling anchor methods respectively. Excluding estimates from the methodologically weaker 'within-patient' method, the MID of a change in VFQ-25 composite score is 5.8 (median value). CONCLUSIONS: Estimates of the MID using multiple methods assist in the interpretation of the VFQ scores. In the context of early glaucoma related visual disability, a change score of around six points on the VFQ-25 is likely to be important to patients. Further confirmatory research is required. Studies comparing changes in patient-reported outcome measure scores with a global measure of patients' perceived change are required.

Population screening for glaucoma in UK: current recommendations and future directions.

Effective population screening for glaucoma would enable earlier diagnosis and prevention of irreversible vision loss. The UK National Screening Committee (NSC) recently published a review that examined the viability, effectiveness and appropriateness of a population-based screening programme for primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). In our article, we summarise the results of the review and discuss some future directions that may enable effective population screening for glaucoma in the future. Two key questions were addressed by the UK NSC review; is there a valid, accurate screening test for POAG, and does evidence exist that screening reduces morbidity from POAG compared with standard care. Six new studies were identified since the previous 2015 review. The review concluded that screening for glaucoma in adults is not recommended because there is no clear evidence for a sufficiently accurate screening test or for better outcomes with screening compared to current care. The next UK NSC review is due to be conducted in 2023. One challenge for POAG screening is that the relatively low disease prevalence results in too many false-positive referrals, even with an accurate test. In the future, targeted screening of a population subset with a higher prevalence of glaucoma may be effective. Recent developments in POAG polygenic risk prediction and deep learning image analysis offer potential avenues to identifying glaucoma-enriched sub-populations. Until such time, opportunistic case finding through General Ophthalmic Services remains the primary route for identification of glaucoma in the UK and greater public awareness of the service would be of benefit.

Perceived barriers and enablers to the provision of diabetic retinopathy screening for young adults: a cross-sectional survey of healthcare professionals working in the UK National Diabetic Eye Screening Programme.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS) attendance in young adults is consistently below recommended levels. The aim of this study was to conduct a survey of screening providers in the UK Diabetic Eye Screening Programme (DESP) to identify perceived barriers and enablers to DRS attendance in young adults and elicit views on the effectiveness of strategies to improve screening uptake in this population. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Members of the British Association of Retinal Screening (n=580) were invited to complete an anonymous online survey in July 2020 assessing agreement with 37 belief statements, informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) of behavior change, describing potential barrier/enablers to delivering DRS for young adults and further survey items exploring effectiveness of strategies to improve uptake of DRS. RESULTS: In total, 140 (24%) responses were received mostly from screener/graders (67.1%). There was a high level of agreement that the DESP had a role in improving attendance in young adults (96.4%) and that more could be done to improve attendance (90.0%). The most commonly reported barriers related to TDF domains Social influences and Environmental context and resources including lack of integration of DRS with other processes of diabetes care, which limited the ability to discuss diabetes self-management. Other barriers included access to screening services and difficulties with scheduling appointments. Less than half (46.4%) of respondents reported having a dedicated strategy to improve screening uptake in young adults. Strategies perceived to be effective included: screening within the community; prompts/reminders and integrating eye screening with other diabetes services. CONCLUSIONS: Screening providers were concerned about screening uptake in young adults, although many programs lacked a dedicated strategy to improve attendance. Problems associated with a lack of integration between DRS with other diabetes care processes were identified as a major barrier to providing holistic care to young adults and supporting diabetes self-management.

Effect of Corneal Cross-linking versus Standard Care on Keratoconus Progression in Young Patients: The KERALINK Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: To examine the efficacy and safety of corneal cross-linking (CXL) for stabilization of progressive keratoconus. DESIGN: Observer-masked, randomized, controlled, parallel-group superiority trial. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty participants 10 to 16 years of age with progressive keratoconus, one eye of each deemed the study eye. METHODS: The study eye was randomized to either CXL plus standard care or standard care alone, with spectacle or contact lens correction as necessary for vision. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was steep keratometry (K2) in the study eye as a measure of the steepness of the cornea at 18 months. Secondary outcomes included keratoconus progression defined as a 1.5-diopter (D) increase in K2, visual acuity, keratoconus apex corneal thickness, and quality of life. RESULTS: Of 60 participants, 30 were randomized to CXL and standard care groups. Of these, 30 patients in the CXL group and 28 patients in the standard care group were analyzed. Mean K2 in the study eye 18 months after randomization was 49.7 D (standard deviation [SD], 3.8 D) in the CXL group and 53.4 D (SD, 5.8 D) in the standard care group. The adjusted mean difference in K2 in the study eye was -3.0 D (95% confidence interval [CI], -4.9 to -1.1 D; P = 0.002), favoring CXL. Adjusted differences between groups in uncorrected and corrected vision favored eyes receiving CXL: -0.31 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR; 95% CI, -0.50 to -0.11 logMAR; P = 0.002) and -0.51 logMAR (95% CI, -1.37 to 0.35 logMAR; P = 0.002). Keratoconus progression in the study eye occurred in 2 patients (7%) randomized to CXL compared with 12 patients (43%) randomized to standard care. The unadjusted odds ratio suggests that on average, patients in the CXL arm had 90% (odds ratio, 0.1; 95% CI, 0.02-0.48; P = 0.004) lower odds of experiencing progression compared with those receiving standard care. CONCLUSIONS: CXL arrests progression of keratoconus in the majority of young patients. CXL should be considered as a first-line treatment in progressive disease. If the arrest of keratoconus progression induced by CXL is sustained in longer follow-up, particular benefit may be derived from avoiding a later requirement for contact lens wear or corneal transplantation.

Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery compared with phacoemulsification: the FACT non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Cataract surgery is one of the most common operations. Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) is a technique that automates a number of operative steps. OBJECTIVES: To compare FLACS with phacoemulsification cataract surgery (PCS). DESIGN: Multicentre, outcome-masked, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. SETTING: Three collaborating NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 785 patients with age-related cataract in one or both eyes were randomised between May 2015 and September 2017. INTERVENTION: FLACS (n = 392 participants) or PCS (n = 393 participants). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was uncorrected distance visual acuity in the study eye after 3 months, expressed as the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR): 0.00 logMAR (or 6/6 if expressed in Snellen) is normal (good visual acuity). Secondary outcomes included corrected distance visual acuity, refractive outcomes (within 0.5 dioptre and 1.0 dioptre of target), safety and patient-reported outcome measures at 3 and 12 months, and resource use. All trial follow-ups were performed by optometrists who were masked to the trial intervention. RESULTS: A total of 353 (90%) participants allocated to the FLACS arm and 317 (81%) participants allocated to the PCS arm attended follow-up at 3 months. The mean uncorrected distance visual acuity was similar in both treatment arms [0.13 logMAR, standard deviation 0.23 logMAR, for FLACS, vs. 0.14 logMAR, standard deviation 0.27 logMAR, for PCS, with a difference of -0.01 logMAR (95% confidence interval -0.05 to 0.03 logMAR; p = 0.63)]. The mean corrected distance visual acuity values were again similar in both treatment arms (-0.01 logMAR, standard deviation 0.19 logMAR FLACS vs. 0.01 logMAR, standard deviation 0.21 logMAR PCS; p = 0.34). There were two posterior capsule tears in the PCS arm. There were no significant differences between the treatment arms for any secondary outcome at 3 months. At 12 months, the mean uncorrected distance visual acuity was 0.14 logMAR (standard deviation 0.22 logMAR) for FLACS and 0.17 logMAR (standard deviation 0.25 logMAR) for PCS, with a difference between the treatment arms of -0.03 logMAR (95% confidence interval -0.06 to 0.01 logMAR; p = 0.17). The mean corrected distance visual acuity was 0.003 logMAR (standard deviation 0.18 logMAR) for FLACS and 0.03 logMAR (standard deviation 0.23 logMAR) for PCS, with a difference of -0.03 logMAR (95% confidence interval -0.06 to 0.01 logMAR; p = 0.11). There were no significant differences between the arms for any other outcomes, with the exception of the mean binocular corrected distance visual acuity with a difference of -0.02 logMAR (95% confidence interval -0.05 to 0.00 logMAR) (p = 0.036), which favoured FLACS. There were no significant differences between the arms for any health, social care or societal costs. For the economic evaluation, the mean cost difference was £167.62 per patient higher for FLACS (95% of iterations between -£14.12 and £341.67) than for PCS. The mean QALY difference (FLACS minus PCS) was 0.001 (95% of iterations between -0.011 and 0.015), which equates to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (cost difference divided by QALY difference) of £167,620. LIMITATIONS: Although the measurement of outcomes was carried out by optometrists who were masked to the treatment arm, the participants were not masked. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that FLACS is not inferior to PCS in terms of vision after 3 months' follow-up, and there were no significant differences in patient-reported health and safety outcomes after 12 months' follow-up. In addition, the statistically significant difference in binocular corrected distance visual acuity was not clinically significant. FLACS is not cost-effective. FUTURE WORK: To explore the possible differences in vision in patients without ocular co-pathology. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN77602616. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Moorfields Eye Charity (grant references GR000233 and GR000449 for the endothelial cell counter and femtosecond laser used).

Cataract is a condition in which the natural lens inside the eye becomes cloudy, leading to loss of vision. In cataract surgery, the cloudy lens is replaced by a clear, artificial one. The standard surgical method (phacoemulsification) is carried out manually by the surgeon using ultrasound. Part of the procedure can now be automated using a computer-controlled laser. This is called femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS). The potential advantages of FLACS include greater precision reproducibility, but this new technique is more expensive than the standard surgery. We performed a randomised controlled trial comparing the two techniques. We assessed vision, surgical complications, patient-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness at 3 and 12 months. We found that the outcomes were almost identical for eyesight, quality of life and complications. Overall, the evidence suggests that the new technique is not worth the additional costs.

Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery compared with phacoemulsification cataract surgery: randomized noninferiority trial with 1-year outcomes.

PURPOSE: To report the 1-year outcomes of a randomized trial comparing femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) and phacoemulsification cataract surgery (PCS). SETTING: Moorfields Eye Hospital, New Cross Hospital, and Sussex Eye Hospital, United Kingdom. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized controlled noninferiority trial. METHODS: Patients undergoing cataract surgery were randomized to FLACS or PCS. Postoperative assessments were masked. Outcomes included uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), complications, corneal endothelial cell count, and patient-reported outcomes measures. RESULTS: The study enrolled 785 participants. A total of 311 of 392 (79%) participants were allocated to FLACS and 292 of 393 (74%) participants were allocated to PCS attended follow-up at 1 year. Mean UDVA was 0.14 (SD = 0.22) for FLACS and 0.17 (0.25) for PCS with difference of -0.03 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) (95%, -0.06 to 0.01, P = .17). Mean CDVA was 0.003 (0.18) for FLACS and 0.03 (0.23) for PCS with difference of -0.03 logMAR (95% CI, -0.06 to 0.01, P = .11); 75% of both FLACS (230/307) and PCS (218/290) cases were within ±0.5 diopters (D) refractive target, and 292 (95%) of 307 eyes of FLACS and 279 (96%) of 290 eyes of PCS groups were within ±1.0 D. There were no significant differences between arms for all other outcomes with the exception of binocular CDVA mean difference -0.02 (-0.05 to 0.002) logMAR (P = .036) favoring FLACS. Mean cost difference was £167.62 per patient greater for FLACS (95% iterations between -£14.12 and £341.67). CONCLUSIONS: PCS is not inferior to FLACS regarding vision, patient-reported health, and safety outcomes after 1-year follow-up. A difference was found for binocular CDVA, which, although statistically significant, was not clinically important. FLACS was not cost-effective.

Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Surgery Versus Phacoemulsification Cataract Surgery (FACT): A Randomized Noninferiority Trial.

PURPOSE: To report the 3-month results of a randomized trial (Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Trial [FACT]) comparing femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) with standard phacoemulsification cataract surgery (PCS). DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized controlled trial funded by the UK National Institute of Health Research (HTA 13/04/46/). PARTICIPANTS: Seven hundred eighty-five patients with age-related cataract. METHODS: This trial took place in 3 hospitals in the UK National Health Service (NHS). Randomization (1:1) was stratified by site, surgeon, and 1 or both eyes eligible using a secure web-based system. Postoperative assessments were masked to the allocated intervention. The primary outcome was unaided distance visual acuity (UDVA) in the study eye at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included corrected distance visual acuity, complications, and patient-reported outcomes measures. The noninferiority margin was 0.1 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR). ISRCTN.com registry, number ISRCTN77602616. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We enrolled 785 participants between May 2015 and September 2017 and randomly assigned 392 to FLACS and 393 to PCS. At 3 months postoperatively, mean UDVA difference between treatment arms was -0.01 logMAR (-0.05 to 0.03), and mean corrected distance visual acuity difference was -0.01 logMAR (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.05 to 0.02). Seventy-one percent of both FLACS and PCS cases were within ±0.5 diopters (D) of the refractive target, and 93% of FLACS and 92% of PCS cases were within ±1.0 D. There were 2 posterior capsule tears in the PCS arm and none in the FLACS arm. There were no significant differences between arms for any secondary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery is not inferior to conventional PCS surgery 3 months after surgery. Both methods are as good in terms of vision, patient-reported health, and safety outcomes at 3 months. Longer-term outcomes of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are awaited.

Five-Year Outcomes of a Randomized Trial of Treatments for Varicose Veins.

BACKGROUND: Endovenous laser ablation and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy are recommended alternatives to surgery for the treatment of primary varicose veins, but their long-term comparative effectiveness remains uncertain. METHODS: In a randomized, controlled trial involving 798 participants with primary varicose veins at 11 centers in the United Kingdom, we compared the outcomes of laser ablation, foam sclerotherapy, and surgery. Primary outcomes at 5 years were disease-specific quality of life and generic quality of life, as well as cost-effectiveness based on models of expected costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained that used data on participants' treatment costs and scores on the EuroQol EQ-5D questionnaire. RESULTS: Quality-of-life questionnaires were completed by 595 (75%) of the 798 trial participants. After adjustment for baseline scores and other covariates, scores on the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (on which scores range from 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating a better quality of life) were lower among patients who underwent laser ablation or surgery than among those who underwent foam sclerotherapy (effect size [adjusted differences between groups] for laser ablation vs. foam sclerotherapy, -2.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.49 to -1.22; P<0.001; and for surgery vs. foam sclerotherapy, -2.60; 95% CI, -3.99 to -1.22; P<0.001). Generic quality-of-life measures did not differ among treatment groups. At a threshold willingness-to-pay ratio of £20,000 ($28,433 in U.S. dollars) per QALY, 77.2% of the cost-effectiveness model iterations favored laser ablation. In a two-way comparison between foam sclerotherapy and surgery, 54.5% of the model iterations favored surgery. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial of treatments for varicose veins, disease-specific quality of life 5 years after treatment was better after laser ablation or surgery than after foam sclerotherapy. The majority of the probabilistic cost-effectiveness model iterations favored laser ablation at a willingness-to-pay ratio of £20,000 ($28,433) per QALY. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research; CLASS Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN51995477.).

A randomised, controlled, observer-masked trial of corneal cross-linking for progressive keratoconus in children: the KERALINK protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The KERALINK trial tests the hypothesis that corneal cross-linking (CXL) treatment reduces the progression of keratoconus in comparison to standard care in patients under 17 years old. KERALINK is a randomised controlled, observer-masked, multicentre trial in progressive keratoconus comparing epithelium-off CXL with standard care, including spectacles or contact lenses as necessary for best-corrected acuity. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A total of 30 participants will be randomised per group. Eligible participants aged 10-16 years with progressive keratoconus in one or both eyes will be recruited. Following randomisation, participants will be followed up 3-monthly for 18 months. The effect on progression will be determined by K2 on corneal topography. The primary outcome measure is between-group difference in K2 at 18 months adjusted for K2 at baseline examination. Secondary outcomes are the effect of CXL on (1) keratoconus progression, (2) time to keratoconus progression, (3) visual acuity, (4) refraction, (5) apical corneal thickness and (6) adverse events. Patient-reported effects will be explored by questionnaires. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research Ethics Committee Approval was obtained on 30 June 2016 (ref: 14/LO/1937). Current protocol: V.5.0 (08/11/2017). Study findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: European Union clinial trials register (EudraCT) 2016-001460-11.

What works to increase attendance for diabetic retinopathy screening? An evidence synthesis and economic analysis.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS) is effective but uptake is suboptimal. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of quality improvement (QI) interventions for DRS attendance; describe the interventions in terms of QI components and behaviour change techniques (BCTs); identify theoretical determinants of attendance; investigate coherence between BCTs identified in interventions and determinants of attendance; and determine the cost-effectiveness of QI components and BCTs for improving DRS. DATA SOURCES AND REVIEW METHODS: Phase 1 - systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating interventions to increase DRS attendance (The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and trials registers to February 2017) and coding intervention content to classify QI components and BCTs. Phase 2 - review of studies reporting factors influencing attendance, coded to theoretical domains (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and sources of grey literature to March 2016). Phase 3 - mapping BCTs (phase 1) to theoretical domains (phase 2) and an economic evaluation to determine the cost-effectiveness of BCTs or QI components. RESULTS: Phase 1 - 7277 studies were screened, of which 66 RCTs were included in the review. Interventions were multifaceted and targeted patients, health-care professionals (HCPs) or health-care systems. Overall, interventions increased DRS attendance by 12% [risk difference (RD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 0.14] compared with usual care, with substantial heterogeneity in effect size. Both DRS-targeted and general QI interventions were effective, particularly when baseline attendance levels were low. All commonly used QI components and BCTs were associated with significant improvements, particularly in those with poor attendance. Higher effect estimates were observed in subgroup analyses for the BCTs of 'goal setting (outcome, i.e. consequences)' (RD 0.26, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.36) and 'feedback on outcomes (consequences) of behaviour' (RD 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.29) in interventions targeting patients and of 'restructuring the social environment' (RD 0.19, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.26) and 'credible source' (RD 0.16, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.24) in interventions targeting HCPs. Phase 2 - 3457 studies were screened, of which 65 non-randomised studies were included in the review. The following theoretical domains were likely to influence attendance: 'environmental context and resources', 'social influences', 'knowledge', 'memory, attention and decision processes', 'beliefs about consequences' and 'emotions'. Phase 3 - mapping identified that interventions included BCTs targeting important barriers to/enablers of DRS attendance. However, BCTs targeting emotional factors around DRS were under-represented. QI components were unlikely to be cost-effective whereas BCTs with a high probability (≥ 0.975) of being cost-effective at a societal willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY included 'goal-setting (outcome)', 'feedback on outcomes of behaviour', 'social support' and 'information about health consequences'. Cost-effectiveness increased when DRS attendance was lower and with longer screening intervals. LIMITATIONS: Quality improvement/BCT coding was dependent on descriptions of intervention content in primary sources; methods for the identification of coherence of BCTs require improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Randomised controlled trial evidence indicates that QI interventions incorporating specific BCT components are associated with meaningful improvements in DRS attendance compared with usual care. Interventions generally used appropriate BCTs that target important barriers to screening attendance, with a high probability of being cost-effective. Research is needed to optimise BCTs or BCT combinations that seek to improve DRS attendance at an acceptable cost. BCTs targeting emotional factors represent a missed opportunity to improve attendance and should be tested in future studies. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016044157 and PROSPERO CRD42016032990. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Treatment of Advanced Glaucoma Study: a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing primary medical treatment with primary trabeculectomy for people with newly diagnosed advanced glaucoma-study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Presentation with advanced glaucoma is the major risk factor for lifetime blindness. Effective intervention at diagnosis is expected to minimise risk of further visual loss in this group of patients. AIM: To compare clinical and cost-effectiveness of primary medical management compared with primary surgery for people presenting with advanced open-angle glaucoma (OAG). METHODS: Design: A prospective, pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT). SETTING: Twenty-seven UK hospital eye services. PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred and forty patients presenting with advanced OAG, according to the Hodapp-Parish-Anderson classification of visual field loss. INTERVENTION: Participants will be randomised to medical treatment or augmented trabeculectomy (1:1 allocation minimised by centre and presence of advanced disease in both eyes). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome is vision-related quality of life measured by the National Eye Institute-Visual Function Questionnaire-25 at 24 months. Secondary outcomes include generic EQ-5D-5L, Health Utility Index-3 and glaucoma-related health status (Glaucoma Utility Index), patient experience, visual field measured by mean deviation value, logarithm of the mean angle of resolution visual acuity, intraocular pressure, adverse events, standards for driving and eligibility for blind certification. Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) based on EQ-5D-5L and glaucoma profile instrument will be estimated. RESULTS: The study will report the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of medical treatment against augmented trabeculectomy in patients presenting with advanced glaucoma in terms of patient-reported health and visual function, clinical outcomes and incremental cost per QALY at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of Advanced Glaucoma Study will be the first RCT reporting outcomes from the perspective of those with advanced glaucoma. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN56878850, Pre-results.

Glaucoma and intraocular pressure in EPIC-Norfolk Eye Study: cross sectional study.

Objectives To report the distribution of intraocular pressure (IOP) by age and sex and the prevalence of glaucoma.Design Community based cross sectional observational study.Setting EPIC-Norfolk cohort in Norwich and the surrounding rural and urban areas.Participants 8623 participants aged 48-92 recruited from the community who underwent ocular examination to identify glaucoma.Main outcome measures Prevalence and characteristics of glaucoma, distribution of IOP, and the sensitivity and specificity of IOP for case finding for glaucoma.Results The mean IOP in 8401 participants was 16.3 mm Hg (95% confidence interval 16.2 mm Hg to 16.3 mm Hg; SD 3.6 mm Hg). In 363 participants (4%), glaucoma was present in either eye; 314 (87%) had primary open angle glaucoma. In the remaining participants, glaucoma was suspected in 607 (7%), and 863 (10.0%) had ocular hypertension. Two thirds (242) of those with glaucoma had previously already received the diagnosis. In 76% of patients with newly diagnosed primary open angle glaucoma (83/107), the mean IOP was under the threshold for ocular hypertension (21 mm Hg). No one IOP threshold provided adequately high sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of glaucoma.Conclusions In this British community, cases of glaucoma, suspected glaucoma, and ocular hypertension represent a large number of potential referrals to the hospital eye service. The use of IOP for detection of those with glaucoma is inaccurate and probably not viable.

Early lens extraction with intraocular lens implantation for the treatment of primary angle closure glaucoma: an economic evaluation based on data from the EAGLE trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of early lens extraction with intraocular lens implantation for the treatment of primary angle closure glaucoma (PACG) compared to standard care. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a multicentre pragmatic two-arm randomised controlled trial. Patients were followed-up for 36 months, and data on health service usage and health state utility were collected and analysed within the trial time horizon. A Markov model was developed to extrapolate the results over a 5-year and 10-year time horizon. SETTING: 22 hospital eye services in the UK. POPULATION: Males and females aged 50 years or over with newly diagnosed PACG or primary angle closure (PAC). INTERVENTIONS: Lens extraction compared to standard care (ie, laser iridotomy followed by medical therapy and glaucoma surgery). OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs of primary and secondary healthcare usage (UK NHS perspective), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for lens extraction versus standard care. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 67.5 (8.42), 57.5% were women, 44.6% had both eyes eligible, 1.4% were of Asian ethnicity and 35.4% had PAC. The mean health service costs were higher in patients randomised to lens extraction: £2467 vs £1486. The mean adjusted QALYs were also higher with early lens extraction: 2.602 vs 2.533. The ICER for lens extraction versus standard care was £14 284 per QALY gained at three years. Modelling suggests that the ICER may drop to £7090 per QALY gained by 5 years and that lens extraction may be cost saving by 10 years. Our results are generally robust to changes in the key input parameters and assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: We find that lens extraction has a 67-89% chance of being cost-effective at 3 years and that it may be cost saving by 10 years. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN44464607; Results.

Can Automated Imaging for Optic Disc and Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Analysis Aid Glaucoma Detection?

PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of automated imaging for glaucoma. DESIGN: Prospective, direct comparison study. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with suspected glaucoma or ocular hypertension referred to hospital eye services in the United Kingdom. METHODS: We evaluated 4 automated imaging test algorithms: the Heidelberg Retinal Tomography (HRT; Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany) glaucoma probability score (GPS), the HRT Moorfields regression analysis (MRA), scanning laser polarimetry (GDx enhanced corneal compensation; Glaucoma Diagnostics (GDx), Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA) nerve fiber indicator (NFI), and Spectralis optical coherence tomography (OCT; Heidelberg Engineering) retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) classification. We defined abnormal tests as an automated classification of outside normal limits for HRT and OCT or NFI ≥ 56 (GDx). We conducted a sensitivity analysis, using borderline abnormal image classifications. The reference standard was clinical diagnosis by a masked glaucoma expert including standardized clinical assessment and automated perimetry. We analyzed 1 eye per patient (the one with more advanced disease). We also evaluated the performance according to severity and using a combination of 2 technologies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and specificity, likelihood ratios, diagnostic, odds ratio, and proportion of indeterminate tests. RESULTS: We recruited 955 participants, and 943 were included in the analysis. The average age was 60.5 years (standard deviation, 13.8 years); 51.1% were women. Glaucoma was diagnosed in at least 1 eye in 16.8%; 32% of participants had no glaucoma-related findings. The HRT MRA had the highest sensitivity (87.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 80.2%-92.1%), but lowest specificity (63.9%; 95% CI, 60.2%-67.4%); GDx had the lowest sensitivity (35.1%; 95% CI, 27.0%-43.8%), but the highest specificity (97.2%; 95% CI, 95.6%-98.3%). The HRT GPS sensitivity was 81.5% (95% CI, 73.9%-87.6%), and specificity was 67.7% (95% CI, 64.2%-71.2%); OCT sensitivity was 76.9% (95% CI, 69.2%-83.4%), and specificity was 78.5% (95% CI, 75.4%-81.4%). Including only eyes with severe glaucoma, sensitivity increased: HRT MRA, HRT GPS, and OCT would miss 5% of eyes, and GDx would miss 21% of eyes. A combination of 2 different tests did not improve the accuracy substantially. CONCLUSIONS: Automated imaging technologies can aid clinicians in diagnosing glaucoma, but may not replace current strategies because they can miss some cases of severe glaucoma.

Randomised, single-masked non-inferiority trial of femtosecond laser-assisted versus manual phacoemulsification cataract surgery for adults with visually significant cataract: the FACT trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Cataract is one of the leading causes of low vision in the westernised world, and cataract surgery is one of the most commonly performed operations. Laser platforms for cataract surgery are now available, the anticipated advantages of which are broad and may include better visual outcomes through greater precision and reproducibility, and improved safety. FACT is a randomised single masked non-inferiority trial to establish whether laser-assisted cataract surgery is as good as or better than standard manual phacoemulsification. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 808 patients aged 18 years and over with visually significant cataract will be randomised to manual phacoemulsification cataract surgery (standard care) or laser-assisted cataract surgery (intervention arm). Outcomes will be measured at 3 and 12 months after surgery. The primary clinical outcome is uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA, logMAR) at 3 months in the study eye recorded by an observer masked to the trial group. Secondary outcomes include UDVA at 12 months, corrected distance visual acuity at 3 and 12 months, complications, endothelial cell loss, patient-reported outcome measures and a health economic analysis conforming to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence standards. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research Ethics Committee Approval was obtained on 6 February 2015, ref: 14/LO/1937. Current protocol: v2.0 (08/04/2015). Study findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals. ISRCTN: 77602616.

Optical coherence tomography for the monitoring of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review.

TOPIC: To compare the accuracy of optical coherence tomography (OCT) with alternative tests for monitoring neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) and detecting disease activity among eyes previously treated for this condition. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Traditionally, fundus fluorescein angiography (FFA) has been considered the reference standard to detect nAMD activity, but FFA is costly and invasive. Replacement of FFA by OCT can be justified if there is a substantial agreement between tests. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis. The index test was OCT. The comparator tests were visual acuity, clinical evaluation (slit lamp), Amsler chart, color fundus photographs, infrared reflectance, red-free images and blue reflectance, fundus autofluorescence imaging, indocyanine green angiography (ICGA), preferential hyperacuity perimetry, and microperimetry. We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, Biosis, Science Citation Index, the Cochrane Library, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, MEDION, and the Health Technology Assessment database. The last literature search was conducted in March 2013. We used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) to assess risk of bias. RESULTS: We included 8 studies involving more than 400 participants. Seven reported the performance of OCT (3 time-domain [TD] OCT, 3 spectral-domain [SD] OCT, 1 both types) and 1 reported the performance of ICGA in the detection of nAMD activity. We did not find studies directly comparing tests in the same population. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of TD OCT and SD OCT for detecting active nAMD was 85% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72%-93%) and 48% (95% CI, 30%-67%), respectively. One study reported ICGA with sensitivity of 75.9% and specificity of 88.0% for the detection of active nAMD. Half of the studies were considered to have a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial disagreement between OCT and FFA findings in detecting active disease in patients with nAMD who are being monitored. Both methods may be needed to monitor patients comprehensively with nAMD.

External validation of the OHTS-EGPS model for predicting the 5-year risk of open-angle glaucoma in ocular hypertensives.

AIMS: To independently evaluate and compare the performance of the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study-European Glaucoma Prevention Study (OHTS-EGPS) prediction equation for estimating the 5-year risk of open-angle glaucoma (OAG) in four cohorts of adults with ocular hypertension. METHODS: Data from two randomised controlled trials and two observational studies were analysed individually to assess transferability of the prediction equation between different geographical locations and settings. To make best use of the data and to avoid bias, missing predictor values were imputed using multivariate imputation by chained equations. Using the OHTS-EGPS risk prediction equation, predicted risk was calculated for each patient in each cohort. We used the c-index, calibration plot and calibration slope to evaluate predictive ability of the equation. RESULTS: Analyses were based on 393, 298, 188 and 159 patients for the Rotterdam, Moorfields, Dunfermline, and Nottingham cohorts, respectively. The discriminative ability was good, with c-indices between 0.69 and 0.83. In calibration analyses, the risk of OAG was generally overestimated, although for the Rotterdam cohort the calibration slope was close to 1 (1.09, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.46), the ideal value when there is perfect agreement between predicted and observed risks. CONCLUSIONS: The OHTS-EGPS risk prediction equation has predictive utility, but further validation in a population-based setting is needed.