Life space limitations in visually impaired older adults.

SIGNIFICANCE: Future work should develop and evaluate interventional strategies to help overcome visual and health-related barriers to travel in visually impaired seniors and mitigate adverse impacts of loneliness for those who do not leave town. PURPOSE: Life space refers to the area in which a person travels within a given time period. We explored whether demographics, vision, and/or health characteristics were related to restrictions in self-reported life space for visually impaired seniors. METHODS: Visually impaired (n = 114) clinical trial participants aged ≥55 years learned visual assistive iPhone apps and completed the following baseline questionnaires: Life Space, 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, University of California, Los Angeles Loneliness Scale, and New-General Self-efficacy Scale. Multiple logistic regressions evaluated associations between life space and patient factors after accounting for their distance to the next county or state. RESULTS: During 2021 to 2023, 17%, 43%, and 70% of participants had not left their town, county, or state, respectively, in the past 3 months, or planned to in the next 3 months. Those with reduced distance best-corrected visual acuity had greater odds of not leaving the county in these time frames (odds ratio [OR] = 3.5; p=0.04). Minority race was associated with greater odds of not leaving town or the county in the past 2 weeks or future 3 months (OR = 4.3 to 6.4; p=0.009 to 0.049). Increased self-efficacy was associated with reduced odds of not leaving the state in the past 3 months, next 3 months, or past and/or future 3 months (OR = 0.54 to 0.55; p=0.02 to 0.03). Better physical function was associated with reduced odds of not leaving the state in the past 2 weeks or 3 months (OR = 0.96 to 0.98; p=0.01 to 0.04). Increased loneliness was related to greater odds of not leaving town in the past and/or future 3 months (OR = 1.8 to 2.0; p=0.007 to 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Minority race, reduced vision, self-efficacy, and physical health were related to life space restrictions in this cohort of visually impaired seniors, whereas loneliness was greater among those who were not leaving town.

Factors related to training time and achieving proficiency with visual-assistive mobile applications in visually impaired older adults.

SIGNIFICANCE: A majority of visually impaired older adults were able to learn to proficiently use visual-assistive iPhone applications (apps) following a median 1 hour and/or multiple training sessions, which should be considered when planning vision rehabilitation service delivery, including the option for remote telerehabilitation for those who prefer that modality. PURPOSE: Older adults with low vision are increasingly using technology to improve their visual functioning. We examined whether age-related comorbidities were potential barriers to success in learning to use visual-assistive apps on a smartphone. METHODS: A clinical trial assessed visual-assistive apps in 116 older adults aged 55+ years (mean [standard deviation], 72 [10] years). Subjects were randomized to use an app (SuperVision+, Seeing AI, or Aira) preloaded to a loaner iPhone and completed one-on-one training. App proficiency was measured by the participant's ability to use the iPhone/app without cueing at the end of training sessions. Training time was recorded for the initial session and totaled after subsequent sessions. Multiple regression models explored significant factors associated with training time and proficiency. RESULTS: Median initial and total training times were 45 and 60 minutes, respectively. Increased initial and total training times were both significantly related to increased age (p<0.001), legal blindness (p<0.007), Seeing AI versus SuperVision+ app (p<0.03), and participants from New England versus California (p<0.001). Most (71%) achieved proficiency after the initial training session; those odds were significantly greater among younger participants (p=0.04), those who opted for telerehabilitation (p=0.03), those who had higher cognitive scores (p=0.04), or those who were from New England (p=0.04). The majority (90%) was ultimately proficient with the app; those odds were significantly greater among participants who already had an optical magnifier (p=0.008), but were unrelated to other factors including study site. CONCLUSIONS: Following multiple, extensive training sessions, age, mild cognitive loss, or level of visual impairment did not preclude gaining proficiency with visual-assistive apps by visually impaired seniors, but those factors were associated with longer training times. Telerehabilitation can be a viable option to provide app training remotely for visually impaired seniors who choose that modality.

Telerehabilitation for people with low vision.

BACKGROUND: Low vision affects over 300 million people worldwide and can compromise both activities of daily living and quality of life. Rehabilitative training and vision assistive equipment (VAE) may help, but some visually impaired people have limited resources to attend in-person visits to rehabilitation clinics to be trained to learn to use VAE. These people may be able to overcome barriers to care through access to remote, internet-based consultation (telerehabilitation). OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of telerehabilitation with face-to-face (e.g. in-office or inpatient) vision rehabilitation services for improving vision-related quality of life and near reading ability in people with visual function loss due to any ocular condition. Secondary objectives were to evaluate compliance with scheduled rehabilitation sessions, abandonment rates for VAE devices, and patient satisfaction ratings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2021, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any language restriction or study design filter in the electronic searches; however, we restricted the searches from 1980 onwards because the internet was not introduced to the public until 1982. We last searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase, and PubMed on 14 September 2021, and the trial registries on 16 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) in which participants diagnosed with low vision had received vision rehabilitation services remotely from a human provider using internet, web-based technology compared with an approach involving in-person consultations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts retrieved by the searches of the electronic databases and then full-text articles for eligible studies. Two review authors independently abstracted data from the included studies. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: We identified one RCT/CCT that indirectly met our inclusion criteria, and two ongoing trials that met our inclusion criteria. The included trial had an overall high risk of bias. We did not conduct a quantitative analysis since multiple controlled trials were not identified.  The single included trial of 57 participants utilized a parallel-group design. It compared 30 hours of either personalized low vision training through telerehabilitation with a low vision therapist (the experimental group) with the self-training standard provided by eSight using the eSkills User Guide that was self-administered by the participants at home for one hour per day for 30 days (the comparison group). The trial investigators found a similar direction of effects for both groups for vision-related quality of life and satisfaction at two weeks, three months, and six months. A greater proportion of participants in the comparison group had abandoned or discontinued use of the eSight Eyewear at two weeks than those in the telerehabilitation group, but discontinuance rates were similar between groups at one month and three months. We rated the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes as very low due to high risk of bias in randomization processes and missing outcome data and imprecision.   AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The included trial found similar efficacy between telerehabilitation with a therapist and an active control intervention of self-guided training in mostly younger to middle-aged adults with low vision who received a new wearable electronic aid. Given the disease burden and the growing interest in telemedicine, the two ongoing studies, when completed, may provide further evidence of the potential for telerehabilitation as a platform for providing services to people with low vision.

Value of Handheld Optical Illuminated Magnifiers for Sustained Silent Reading by Visually Impaired Adults.

SIGNIFICANCE: Vision rehabilitation providers tend to recommend handheld, illuminated optical magnifiers for short-duration spot reading tasks, but this study indicates that they are also a viable option to improve sustained, continuous text reading (e.g., books or magazines), especially for visually impaired adults who read slowly with only spectacle-based near correction. PURPOSE: The utility of handheld optical magnifiers for sustained silent reading tasks involving normal-sized continuous text could be a valuable indication that is not recognized by vision rehabilitation providers and patients. METHODS: Handheld, illuminated optical magnifiers were dispensed to 29 visually impaired adults who completed the sustained silent reading test by phone at baseline without the new magnifier and 1 month after using the magnifier. Reading speed in words per minute (wpm) was calculated from the time to read each page and then averaged across up to 10 pages or determined for the fastest read page (maximum). RESULTS: From baseline without the magnifier to 1 month with the magnifier, there was a significant improvement in mean reading speed by 14 wpm (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6 to 24; P = .02) and for maximum reading speed by 18 wpm (95% CI, 5.4 to 30; P = .005) on average across participants. Participants who had slower baseline reading speeds without the magnifier demonstrated significantly greater improvements in mean and maximum reading speeds on average with the magnifier (95% CI, 8 to 32 [ P = .003]; 95% CI, 4 to 36 [ P = .02]). A significantly greater number of pages were read with the new magnifier than without it (Wilcoxon z = -2.5; P = .01). A significantly greater number of pages were read with the magnifier by participants who read fewer pages at baseline (95% CI, 0.57 to 5.6; P = .02) or had greater improvements in mean reading speed (95% CI, 0.57 to 5.6; P = .007). CONCLUSIONS: Many visually impaired adults read more quickly and/or read a greater number of pages after using a new magnifier for a month than compared to without it. The largest gains occurred among those with more difficulty at baseline, indicating the potential to improve reading rates with magnifiers for those with greater deficits.

New insights into visually impaired patients' preferred reading illumination and home-based reading speed with new task-lighting.

INTRODUCTION: When optimal lighting is applied to hard-copy materials for visually impaired individuals, laboratory-based reading performance can improve significantly. However, it is not known whether their lighting preferences are related to ocular factors or if laboratory-based reading improvements will translate to home-based environments. METHODS: Preferences for brightness (lux) and colour temperature (degrees Kelvin; K) with the LuxIQ/2 for 'most comfort' while reading at near were evaluated in-clinic for 71 adults with ocular disease affecting the outer (n = 37; 52%), inner or all retinal layers (n = 34; 48%). Twenty participants received either an OttLite Cobra lamp or a generic gooseneck lamp with a bulb resembling LuxIQ/2 parameters for their preferred reading light, and then completed home-based telephone evaluations using the sustained silent reading test. RESULTS: Participants with outer retinal disease preferred significantly brighter light intensity by an average of 838 lux versus those with inner retinal disease (95% CI: 331, 1344; p = 0.002). No participants opted for a coloured tint for reading based on the LuxIQ/2 measurements since they preferred white light only; most preferred the OttLite Cobra lamp. At home, reading speed improved significantly by an average of 37 words per minute with the new lamp (95% CI: 12, 62; p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with outer retinal disease prefered brighter light intensity for reading. Clinic-based lighting preferences yielded improvements in reading speed when using a new task light at home.

Bluetooth Low Energy Beacon Sensors to Document Handheld Magnifier Use at Home by People with Low Vision.

We explored the feasibility of using Bluetooth low energy (BLE) beacon sensors to determine when individuals with low vision (LV) use handheld magnifiers at home. Knowing the frequency and duration of magnifier use would be helpful to document increased magnifier use after successful rehabilitation training, or conversely, to know when someone has abandoned a magnifier and requires assistance. Estimote Sticker BLE beacon sensors were attached to the handles of optical handheld magnifiers and dispensed to eight LV subjects to use at home. Temperature and motion data from the BLE beacon sensors were collected every second by a custom mobile application on a nearby smartphone and transmitted to a secure database server. Subjects noted the date and start/end times of their magnifier use in a diary log. Each of the 99 diary-logged self-reports of magnifier use across subjects was associated with BLE beacon sensor recordings of motion (mean 407 instances; SD 365) and increased temperature (mean 0.20 °C per minute; SD 0.16 °C) (mean total magnitude 5.4 °C; SD 2.6 °C). Diary-logged duration of magnifier use (mean 42 min; SD 24) was significantly correlated with instances of motion (p < 0.001) and rate of temperature increase (p < 0.001) recorded by the BLE beacon sensors. The BLE beacon sensors reliably detected meaningfully increased temperature, coupled with numerous instances of motion, when magnifiers were used for typical reading tasks at home by people with LV.

Telerehabilitation for people with low vision.

BACKGROUND: Low vision affects over 300 million people worldwide and can compromise both activities of daily living and quality of life. Rehabilitative training and vision assistive equipment (VAE) may help, but some visually impaired people have limited resources to attend in-person visits at rehabilitation clinics to receive training to learn to use VAE. These people may be able to overcome barriers to care through remote, Internet-based consultation (i.e. telerehabilitation). OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of telerehabilitation with face-to-face (e.g. in-office or inpatient) vision rehabilitation services for improving vision-related quality of life and near reading ability in people with visual function loss due to any ocular condition. Secondary objectives were to evaluate compliance with scheduled rehabilitation sessions, abandonment rates for VAE devices, and patient satisfaction ratings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2019, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any language restriction or study design filter in the electronic searches; however, we restricted the searches from 1980 onwards because the Internet was not introduced to the public until 1982. We last searched the electronic databases on 24 June 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) in which participants diagnosed with low vision were undergoing low vision rehabilitation using an Internet, web-based technology compared with an approach involving in-person consultations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and then full-text articles against the eligibility criteria. We planned to have two review authors independently abstract data from the included studies. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: We identified two ongoing studies, but did not find any completed RCTs and CCTs that met the inclusion criteria for this review. We did not conduct a quantitative analysis. We discussed review articles on telemedicine for facilitating communication with elderly individuals or for providing remote ophthalmological care. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any evidence from RCTs or CCTs on the efficacy of using telerehabilitation for remote delivery of rehabilitation services to individuals with low vision. Given the disease burden and the growing interest in telemedicine, the two ongoing studies, when completed, may provide evidence in understanding the potential for telerehabilitation as a platform for providing services to people with low vision.

U.S. Optometrists' Reported Practices and Perceived Barriers for Low Vision Care for Mild Visual Loss.

SIGNIFICANCE: Identification of modifiable barriers to low vision rehabilitation (LVR) can inform efforts to improve practice management of patients with low vision (LV), through, for example, targeted educational programs for optometrists who do not practice LVR. PURPOSE: Mild vision loss (20/25 to 20/70) is increasing in prevalence among the aging population, yet it is unclear whether near-reading complaints (the highest presenting chief complaint) are being addressed. Studies of LVR provision by U.S. optometrists are currently lacking. This study elucidated self-reported optometric practice patterns for patients with mild vision loss. METHODS: Anonymous surveys were completed by 229 actively practicing optometrists across the United States. The survey inquired about the frequency of providing LVR for mild vision loss patients and the top barriers that prevent them from offering LVR management (including optical aids or referral). RESULTS: Compared with those moderately actively practicing LVR, twice as many (2.08×) practitioners who do not practice any LVR reported that they never prescribe near-reading add power of 4 D or greater for mild vision loss (P < .001). Among those who do not practice LVR, 39 and 11% indicated that they never prescribe any LVR management strategies for patients with visual acuity of 20/25 to 20/40 and 20/50 to 20/70, respectively. The two most commonly reported barriers to LVR indicated by about half of respondents were "cost of the LV exam and/or devices" and that "patients are not interested or would not go to an LV exam." Nearly a third of providers reported that "it is not feasible to stock magnifiers in office." CONCLUSIONS: A sizable group of non-LVR providers in the United States may not be addressing the near-vision needs of patients with mild vision loss. Several of the reported top barriers are potentially modifiable through the development of targeted educational programs for providers.

Reliability of Mesopic Measures of Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity and Their Correlation with Rod and Cone Function in Retinitis Pigmentosa.

BACKGROUND: Mesopic conditions elicit both rod and cone responses, and they are more commonly encountered in daily life than are scotopic conditions; yet visual function outcome measures of mesopic visual acuity (VA) or contrast sensitivity (CS) are rarely evaluated. OBJECTIVE: In retinitis pigmentosa (RP), we explored whether visual reductions in mesopic versus photopic conditions were correlated with cone or rod function, as well as the between-visit test-retest variability in mesopic measures. METHODS: At each of two visits, 22 RP subjects completed mesopic and photopic ETDRS VA and Pelli-Robson chart CS tests obtained with and without a U23 NoIR 4% transmission filter; testing of perifoveal scotopic cone or rod sensitivity with the AdaptDx; and the Rabin Cone Contrast Test (CCT). RESULTS: A greater CS reduction in mesopic versus photopic conditions was significantly related to absence of scotopic rod function (p = 0.038) or longer self-reported duration of night vision loss (p = 0.044). VA reductions >0.2 logMAR in mesopic versus photopic conditions were significantly related to reduced cone-mediated scotopic sensitivity (p = 0.038). Significant predictors of the CCT ratio of S-cone to M- and L-cone sensitivity were mesopic VA (p = 0.038) and absence of AdaptDx rod function (p = 0.008). Test-retest 95% coefficients of repeatability were not significantly different when comparing between photopic and mesopic tests of VA (0.16 and 0.12 logMAR, respectively) or CS (0.21 and 0.24 logCS, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Perifoveal scotopic rod and cone function measured with the AdaptDx was significantly correlated with mesopic CS and VA, respectively, which had good, acceptable test-retest repeatability; thus, they appear to be suitable outcome measures to monitor mesopic visual function in clinical practice or trials. RP subjects with reduced mesopic VA and no perifoveal rod function had a greater loss of sensitivity for S-cones than for L-/M-cones.

Longevity of visual improvements following transcorneal electrical stimulation and efficacy of retreatment in three individuals with retinitis pigmentosa.

PURPOSE: A small-scale randomized controlled trial conducted by our group found that four of seven retinitis pigmentosa (RP) subjects who received six weekly Transcorneal Electrical Stimulation (TES) sessions developed significant improvements in visual acuity (VA), quick contrast sensitivity function (qCSF), and/or Goldmann visual fields (GVF). We longitudinally monitored three of these participants for declining visual function due to natural RP progression to determine the duration of their responses and administered retreatments. METHODS: Over a period of 29-35 months, repeated ETDRS VA, qCSF and/or GVF tests and three to six TES treatment courses consisting of six weekly sessions were administered in each eye of three RP participants every four to 16 months in an unmasked, prospective case series study. RESULTS: For two participants, there were significant VA improvements of 44-52 letters (0.88-1.04 logMAR) and 15-23 letters (0.3-0.46 logMAR) in the worse eye at baseline after each of three or four treatment courses of TES compared to initial baseline. They had no significant decreases from baseline for VA or qCSF over 29 to 35 months, The third participant had a significant mean improvement in VA in the eye with better baseline vision (p = 0.004) and binocularly (p < 0.001) following six treatment courses over the 29-month period. For the first two participants, mean annual rates of GVF change for each eye ranged from -5% to 0% with the V4e stimulus, and -26% to +33% the III4e stimulus. The third participant's mean annual GVF changes were +14 to +35%, with a statistically significant improvement across 29 months for both the V4e and III4e stimuli in the right eye (p = 0.045; p = 0.015) and the V4e stimulus in the left eye (p = 0.047). CONCLUSION: Following encouraging visual improvements after TES that lasted for several months, it appears it may be possible to restore and prevent slowly diminishing vision over time with retreatments, which requires confirmation in a large-scale randomized controlled trial.

PREVALENCE OF VITREOMACULAR ADHESION IN PATIENTS WITHOUT MACULOPATHY OLDER THAN 40 YEARS.

PURPOSE: To determine the prevalence and factors influencing vitreomacular adhesion (VMA) or vitreomacular traction (VMT) in subjects without maculopathy older than age 40 years. METHODS: In a prospective cross-sectional study, 1,950 eyes in 1,090 participants aged 40 to 89 years representing various ethnic groups from 14 centers in the United States underwent a comprehensive eye examination, including spectral domain optical coherence tomography. A team of independent, masked readers classified the presence or absence of VMA/VMT on spectral domain optical coherence tomography based on the International Vitreomacular Traction Study Group rubric. RESULTS: Across all eyes, the prevalence of VMA or VMT was 39% or 1%, respectively. For every 1-year increase in age, there was a statistically significant 7% decreased odds of having VMA or VMT (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-0.96; P < 0.001), whereas African Americans had 55% significantly reduced odds of having VMA or VMT when than whites (95% CI: 0.23-0.90; P = 0.025). Vitreomacular adhesion >1,500 µm was significantly more likely than VMA <1,500 µm in younger adults (95% CI: 0.70-0.86; P < 0.001), hyperopes versus emmetropes (95% CI: 1.49-35.9; P = 0.01), primary eye care versus tertiary practices (95% CI: 0.03-0.92; P = 0.04), and patients without hyperlipidemia (95% CI: 0.04-0.83; P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Vitreomacular adhesion is highly prevalent among middle-aged adults. Diagnostic screening with spectral domain optical coherence tomography may help to accurately detect VMA or VMT, prompting routine monitoring and timely therapeutic intervention.

Variability and Errors of Manually Digitized Goldmann Visual Fields.

PURPOSE: Goldmann visual fields (GVFs) are useful for tracking changes in areas of functional retina, including the periphery, in inherited retinal degeneration patients. Quantitative GVF analysis requires digitization of the chart coordinates for the main axes and isopter points marked by the GVF operator during testing. This study investigated inter- and intra-digitizer variability among users of a manual GVF digitization program. METHODS: Ten digitizers were trained for 1 hour, then digitized 23 different GVFs from inherited retinal degeneration patients in each of three testing blocks. Digitizers labeled each isopter as seeing or non-seeing, and its target size. Isopters with the same test target within each GVF were grouped to create isopter groups. RESULTS: The standard deviation of isopter group area showed an approximate square-root relationship with total isopter group area. Accordingly, the coefficient of variation for isopter group area decreased from 68% to 0.2% with increasing isopter group area. A bootstrap version of ANOVA did not reveal a significant effect of digitizers on isopter group area. Simulations involving random sampling of digitizers showed that five to seven digitizers would be required to catch 95% to 99% of labeling errors and isopter misses, on the basis of data discrepancies, with 99% probability. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that any minimally trained digitizer would be capable of reliably determining any isopter area, regardless of size. Studies using this software could either use five to seven minimally trained digitizers for each GVF, three digitizers who demonstrate low frequencies of errors on a practice set of GVFs, or two digitizers with an expert reader to adjudicate discrepancies and catch errors.

Oral 9-cis retinoid for childhood blindness due to Leber congenital amaurosis caused by RPE65 or LRAT mutations: an open-label phase 1b trial.

BACKGROUND: Leber congenital amaurosis, caused by mutations in RPE65 and LRAT, is a severe form of inherited retinal degeneration leading to blindness. We aimed to assess replacement of the missing chromophore 11-cis retinal with oral QLT091001 (synthetic 9-cis-retinyl acetate) in these patients. METHODS: In our open-label, prospective, phase 1b trial, we enrolled patients (aged ≥6 years) with Leber congenital amaurosis and RPE65 or LRAT mutations at McGill University's Montreal Children's Hospital. Patients received 7 days of oral QLT091001 (10-40 mg/m(2) per day). We assessed patients at baseline and days 7, 9, 14, and 30, and then 2 months and every 2 months thereafter for up to 2·2 years for safety outcomes and visual function endpoints including Goldmann visual fields (GVF), visual acuity, and functional MRI assessment. We regarded patients as having an improvement in vision if we noted at least a 20% improvement in retinal area on GVF compared with baseline or a visual acuity improvement of five or more letters compared with baseline in two consecutive study visits (or any improvement from no vision at baseline). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01014052. FINDINGS: Between December, 2009, and June, 2011, we enrolled and treated 14 patients aged 6-38 years who were followed up until March, 2012. Ten (71%) of 14 patients had an improvement in GVF areas (mean increase in retinal area of 28-683%). Six (43%) patients had an improvement in visual acuity (mean increase of 2-30 letters). Self-reported or parent-reported improvements in activities of daily living supported these findings. After 2 years, 11 (79%) patients had returned to their baseline GVF retinal area and ten (71%) had returned to baseline visual acuity letter values. Thus, three (21%) patients had a sustained GVF response and four (30%) had a sustained visual acuity response. Four patients had functional MRI scans, which correlated with visual response or absence of response to treatment. No serious adverse events occurred, although we noted transient headaches (11 patients), photophobia (11 patients), reduction in serum HDL concentrations (four patients), and increases in serum triglycerides (eight patients) and aspartate aminotransferase concentrations (two patients). INTERPRETATION: Non-invasive oral QLT091001 therapy is well tolerated, and can rapidly improve visual function in some patients with Leber congenital amaurosis and RPE65 and LRAT mutations. FUNDING: QLT, Foundation Fighting Blindness Canada, CIHR, FRSQ, Reseau Vision.

Telerehabilitation for people with low vision.

BACKGROUND: Low vision affects over 300 million people worldwide and can compromise both activities of daily living and quality of life. Rehabilitative training and vision assistive equipment (VAE) may help, but some visually impaired people have limited resources to attend in-person visits at rehabilitation clinics. These people may be able to overcome barriers to care through remote, Internet-based consultation (i.e., telerehabilitation). OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of telerehabilitation with face-to-face (e.g., in-office or inpatient) vision rehabilitation services for improving vision-related quality of life and reading speed in people with visual function loss due to any ocular condition. Secondary objectives are to evaluate compliance with scheduled rehabilitation sessions, abandonment rates for visual assistive equipment devices, and patient satisfaction ratings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2015 Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1980 to June 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to June 2015), PubMed (1980 to June 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any language restriction or study design filter in the electronic searches; however, we restricted the searches from 1980 onwards because the Internet was not introduced to the public until 1982. We last searched the electronic databases on 15 June 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) in which participants were diagnosed with low vision and were undergoing low vision rehabilitation using an Internet, web-based technology compared with an approach based on in-person consultations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts, and then full-text articles against the eligibility criteria. We planned to have two authors independently abstract data from included studies. We resolved discrepancies by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: We did not find any study that met the inclusion criteria for this review and, hence, we did not conduct a quantitative analysis. As a part of the background, we discussed review articles on telemedicine for facilitating communication with elderly individuals or for providing remote ophthalmological care. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any evidence on whether the use of telerehabilitation is feasible or a potentially viable means to remotely deliver rehabilitation services to individuals with low vision. Given the disease burden and the growing interest in telemedicine, there is a need for future pilot studies and subsequent clinical trials to explore the potential for telerehabilitation as a platform for providing services to people with low vision.

Telerehabilitation for people with low vision.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: Our goal is to systematically review the literature on telerehabilitation's effectiveness for improving vision-related quality of life and/ or reading speed compared to face-to-face (e.g., in-office or inpatient) low vision rehabilitation services in patients with low vision or visual function loss due to any ocular condition. Secondary objectives are to evaluate compliance with scheduled rehabilitation sessions, VAE device abandonment rates, and/or patient satisfaction ratings in the same studies.

Outcomes of Telerehabilitation Versus In-Office Training With Magnification Devices for Low Vision: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Purpose: An evidence basis is lacking but needed to compare reading ability outcomes after magnification device training remotely via telerehabilitation versus in office. Methods: A multicenter randomized controlled trial at academic centers and vision rehabilitation private practices randomized 61 visually impaired adults to telerehabilitation or in-office training 1 to 4 months after dispensing new portable electronic, hand-held, or stand optical magnifiers. Telerehabilitation included loaner equipment for Zoom videoconferencing with remote control access software. Using a multilevel regression model, changes in Activity Inventory responses using Rasch analysis estimated reading ability in dimensionless log odds units (logits) (0.14-logit change corresponds with ability change expected from a one-line change in visual acuity). Results: Across 47 participants who completed the trial, reading ability with new magnifiers improved significantly by 0.61 logits on average (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.86; P < 0.001) from baseline to 1 month, and by an additional 0.44 logits on average (95% CI, 0.19-0.69; P < 0.001) from 1 to 4months (i.e., after magnifier training), with very similar significant findings for both telerehabilitation (n = 29; mean improvement = 0.44 logits; 95% CI, 0.08-0.80; P = 0.018) and in-office training (n = 18; mean improvement = 0.43 logits; 95% CI, 0.15-0.71; P = .003), and no significant difference between randomized groups across both follow-ups (95% CI, -0.43 to 0.61; P = .73). Vision, demographics, and health factors were nonsignificantly related to reading ability changes from 1 to 4 months. Conclusions: Reading ability improved after the provision of newly dispensed magnifiers, with further improvements following additional magnifier training via either telerehabilitation or in-office usual care. Translational Relevance: These findings provide support for the use of telerehabilitation to enhance reading ability with newly prescribed magnifiers as an alternative modality of care delivery.

Retinal mid-peripheral capillary free zones are enlarged in cognitively unimpaired older adults at high risk for Alzheimer's disease.

BACKGROUND: Compared to standard neuro-diagnostic techniques, retinal biomarkers provide a probable low-cost and non-invasive alternative for early Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk screening. We have previously quantified the periarteriole and perivenule capillary free zones (mid-peripheral CFZs) in cognitively unimpaired (CU) young and older adults as novel metrics of retinal tissue oxygenation. There is a breakdown of the inner retinal blood barrier, pericyte loss, and capillary non-perfusion or dropout in AD leading to potential enlargement of the mid-peripheral CFZs. We hypothesized the mid-peripheral CFZs will be enlarged in CU older adults at high risk for AD compared to low-risk individuals. METHODS: 20 × 20° optical coherence tomography angiography images consisting of 512 b-scans, 512 A-scans per b-scan, 12-µm spacing between b-scans, and 5 frames averaged per each b-scan location of the central fovea and of paired major arterioles and venules with their surrounding capillaries inferior to the fovea of 57 eyes of 37 CU low-risk (mean age: 66 years) and 50 eyes of 38 CU high-risk older adults (mean age: 64 years; p = 0.24) were involved in this study. High-risk participants were defined as having at least one APOE e4 allele and a positive first-degree family history of AD while low-risk participants had neither of the two criteria. All participants had Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores ≥ 26. The mid-peripheral CFZs were computed in MATLAB and compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The periarteriole CFZ of the high-risk group (75.8 ± 9.19 µm) was significantly larger than that of the low-risk group (71.3 ± 7.07 µm), p = 0.005, Cohen's d = 0.55. The perivenule CFZ of the high-risk group (60.4 ± 8.55 µm) was also significantly larger than that of the low-risk group (57.3 ± 6.40 µm), p = 0.034, Cohen's d = 0.42. There were no significant differences in foveal avascular zone (FAZ) size, FAZ effective diameter, and vessel density between the two groups, all p > 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show larger mid-peripheral CFZs in CU older adults at high risk for AD, with the potential for the periarteriole CFZ to serve as a novel retinal vascular biomarker for early AD risk detection.

Orientation and mobility assessment in retinal prosthetic clinical trials.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to develop an orientation and mobility (O&M) assessment protocol to implement in subjects who have been implanted with an artificial silicon retina (ASR), and to use this experience to propose a research agenda for O&M with prosthetic vision. METHODS: A controlled and naturalistic assessment was developed that included walking a prescribed obstacle course and travel to and from a hospital cafeteria. Subjects were tested before and 3 and 6 months after being implanted with the ASR. Outcome measures were walking speed and number of contacts with obstacles. The experiences from this study led to a proposed research agenda in O&M. RESULTS: Eight subjects with retinitis pigmentosa participated in this study. The vision status of the subjects ranged from <20/1600 to 20/80 visual acuity and visual fields of <5 to 40°. Using a repeated-measures analysis of variance, no differences were found in the primary outcome measures. Four subjects were observed to have reduced mobility after implantation. Three subjects self-reported enhancements of travel after implantation, but this enhancement was not observed. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that mobility might not be improved with prosthetic vision. The proposed research agenda emphasizes the importance of developing individualized assessments, identifying specific items of orientation rather than mobility for measuring the effect of prosthetic vision, and to develop and evaluate instructional programs that may be needed to obtain the full benefit of the technology.

Use and Perceptions of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems by Older Drivers With and Without Age-Related Macular Degeneration.

Purpose: Advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) have been reported to improve the safety of elderly and normally sighted drivers. The purpose of this study was to assess exposure to, perceived safety of, comfort level with, and interest in using ADAS among drivers with age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Methods: Current drivers aged 60+ years were recruited at four US sites to complete a survey about ADAS and driving habits. Frequency of use and/or perceptions of eight ADAS were investigated. An avoidance score was generated using questions about difficult driving situations. Results: The survey was completed by 166 participants (80 with AMD vs. 86 without). Participants with AMD had worse self-rated vision than those without (34% vs. 2% poor or fair rating), and drove fewer weekly miles (median [interquartile range [IQR] 30 [15 to 75] vs. 60 [30 to 121] miles, P = 0.002). Participants with AMD reported more avoidance of difficult driving situations (P < 0.001). There was no difference in the number of ADAS used by AMD status (median [IQR for AMD = 2.5 [1 to 5] vs. 3 [2 to 4] without, P = 0.87). Greater reported number of ADAS used was associated with less avoidance of difficult situations (P = 0.02). The majority perceived improved safety with most ADAS. Conclusions: Many drivers with AMD utilize common ADAS, which subjectively improve their road safety and may help to reduce self-imposed restrictions for difficult situations and mileage. Translational Relevance: Drivers with AMD are adopting readily available ADAS, for which they reported potential benefits, such as safety and less restrictive driving.