Characterization and Utility of Remote Interpretation of Visual Field Diagnostic Testing in an Academic Center.

BACKGROUND: The use of remote interpretation of data has risen in neuro-ophthalmology to increase efficiency and maintain social distancing due to the coronavirus disease-19 pandemic. The purpose of this study is to characterize the use and efficiency of remote interpretation of visual fields (VFs) in an academic center and to determine how often the VF interpretation was consistent with the patient's clinical history and imaging at the time of the consult. METHODS: This is a retrospective study at a single academic center that enrolled all patients receiving a remote interpretation of VF from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012. Data were collected regarding the referring department, indication for the VF, interpretation of the VF and comparison with any prior VFs, any associated interventions with the VF, and available follow-up VFs. The main outcome measures included 1) characterizing the use of remote VF interpretations and 2) how many remote VF interpretation results were consistent with the referring diagnosis based on the patient's clinical history and imaging. RESULTS: One hundred eighty patients received remote interpretation of VFs. The most frequent referring departments were endocrinology (79; 44%), neurology (51; 28%), and neurosurgery (43; 24%). The VF indications included parasellar lesion (107; 59%), seizure disorder (26; 14%), meningioma (19; 11%), vascular lesion (11; 6%), and others (17; 9%). There were 78 patients (43%) that had an intervention before the VF, whereas 49 (27%) were preoperative VFs. Eighty-seven (48%) of the VFs were interpreted as abnormal. Of all the 180 remote interpretation of VFs, 156 (87%) had VF interpretations that were consistent with the clinical question posed by the referring provider based on clinical history and imaging. Among the other 24 remote VF interpretations (13% of total remote VF interpretations), there was no clear interpretation because of either additional unexpected VF defects (n = 5, 21%), VF defect mismatch (n = 6, 25%), or unreliable VFs (n = 13, 54%). The median wait time for patients receiving remote VF interpretations was 1 day. CONCLUSIONS: Remote interpretation of VFs was most often requested by endocrinology, neurology, and neurosurgery and could be performed very quickly. The most common indications were parasellar lesions, and just less than half of patients receiving remote VF interpretations had a prior intervention. A majority of remote VF interpretations were able to answer the clinical question, given the patient's clinical history and imaging. Remote interpretation of VFs may thus offer referring departments a more efficient method of obtaining VF interpretations than in-office neuro-ophthalmology examinations.

Lacritin, a novel human tear glycoprotein, promotes sustained basal tearing and is well tolerated.

PURPOSE: Lacritin is a novel human tear glycoprotein that promotes basal tear peroxidase secretion by rat lacrimal acinar cells in vitro. This study investigates whether lacritin is prosecretory when added topically to the ocular surface of normal living rabbits, and if so, what is its efficacy and tolerability versus cyclosporine and artificial tears. METHODS: Purified recombinant human lacritin (1, 10, 50, or 100 µg/mL), inactive lacritin truncation mutant C-25 (10 µg/mL), cyclosporine (0.05%), or artificial tears were topically administered to eyes of normal New Zealand White rabbits either as a single dose or three times daily for 14 days with monitoring of basal tear production. Basal tearing under proparacaine anesthesia was repeatedly assessed throughout and 1 week after chronic treatment ceased. Eyes were examined weekly by slit-lamp biomicroscopy. RESULTS: Lacritin acutely increased basal tearing to 30% over vehicle at 240 minutes. Three times daily treatment with 10-100 µg/mL lacritin was well tolerated. Basal tearing became progressively elevated 4, 7, and 14 days later and was 50% over baseline (50 µg/mL lacritin) 1 week after treatment had ceased. Cyclosporine elevated tearing to a similar level on days 4 and 7 but had little or no effect on day 14 and had returned to baseline 1 week after ending treatment. C-25 and artificial tears had no effect. CONCLUSIONS: Lacritin acutely stimulates basal tear flow that is sustained for at least 240 minutes. Two weeks of lacritin treatment three times daily was well tolerated and progressively elevated the basal tear flow. One week after treatment ended, basal tearing was still 50% over baseline. In contrast, cyclosporine triggered mild to moderate corneal irritation and a temporary elevation in tearing.