Search

Purpose: To compare patient preferences for eyeglasses prescribed using a low-cost, portable wavefront autorefractor versus standard subjective refraction (SR). Design: Randomized, cross-over clinical trial. Participants: Patients aged 18 to 40 years presenting with refractive errors (REs) to a tertiary eye hospital in Southern India. Methods: Participants underwent SR followed by autorefraction (AR) using the monocular version of the QuickSee device (PlenOptika Inc). An independent optician, masked to the refraction approach, prepared eyeglasses based on each refraction approach. Participants (masked to refraction source) were randomly assigned to use SR- or AR-based eyeglasses first, followed by the other pair, for 1 week each. At the end of each week, participants had their vision checked and were interviewed about their experience with the eyeglasses. Main Outcome Measures: Patients preferring eyeglasses were chosen using AR and SR. Results: The 400 participants enrolled between March 26, 2018, and August 2, 2019, had a mean (standard deviation) age of 28.4 (6.6) years, and 68.8% were women. There was a strong correlation between spherical equivalents using SR and AR (r = 0.97, P < 0.001) with a mean difference of −0.07 diopters (D) (95% limits of agreement [LoA], −0.68 to 0.83). Of the 301 patients (75.2%) who completed both follow-up visits, 50.5% (n = 152) and 49.5% (n = 149) preferred glasses prescribed using SR and AR, respectively (95% CI, 45.7–56.3; P = 0.86). There were no differences in demographic or vision characteristics between participants with different preferences (P > 0.05 for all). Conclusions: We observed a strong agreement between the prescriptions from SR and AR, and eyeglasses prescribed using SR and AR were equally preferred by patients. Wider use of prescribing based on AR alone in resource-limited settings is supported by these findings

To explore stakeholders’ perceptions of a school-based vision programme (SBVP). We conducted 20 focus groups with 105 parents and teachers at schools in Baltimore, MD, that participated in a SBVP. Facilitators used a semi-structured interview guide to discuss participants’ perceptions of the SBVP. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded using inductive thematic analysis. Participant perceptions fell into three categories: benefits of school-based eye care, limitations of school-based eye care, and observation of impact. The majority of participants had positive comments about the programme; benefits included convenience (location, time, and cost), the comprehensive nature of the programme, the quality of the eyeglasses and ability to receive replacements, and a positive screening/exam experience. Limitations of programme impact were related to communication and organisation, the time to receive the glasses, missed instructional time, and uncertainty about screenings. Observations of impact included academic and classroom improvements, as well as visual and other health improvements. Parents and teachers reported mostly positive perceptions regarding the SBVP. Their appreciation for the convenience underscores that location, cost, time, and comprehensive services are crucial aspects for implementing a successful programme. To maximize impact, programs must also implement robust communication campaigns that integrate into the schools’ workflow to help parents and teachers stay engaged in the process from start to finish.

Objective:\ud To describe the rational for, and the methods that will be employed to develop, the WHO package of eye care interventions (PECI).\ud Methods and analysis:\ud The development of the package will be conducted in four steps: (1) selection of eye conditions (for which interventions will be included in the package) based on epidemiological data on the causes of vision impairment and blindness, prevalence estimates of eye conditions and health facility data; (2) identification of interventions and related evidence for the selected eye conditions from clinical practice guidelines and high-quality systematic reviews by a technical working group; (3) expert agreement on the inclusion of eye care interventions in the package and the description of resources required for the provision of the selected interventions; and (4) peer review. The project will be led by the WHO Vision Programme in collaboration with Cochrane Eyes and Vision. A Technical Advisory Group, comprised of public health and clinical experts in the field, will provide technical input throughout all stages of development.\ud Results:\ud After considering the feedback of Technical Advisory Group members and reviewing-related evidence, a final list of eye conditions for which interventions will be included in the package has been collated.\ud Conclusion:\ud The PECI will support Ministries of Health in prioritising, planning, budgeting and integrating eye care interventions into health systems. It is anticipated that the PECI will be available for use in 2021.

Additional file 1. SPIRIT 2013 Checklist: Recommended items to address in a clinical trial protocol and related documents.

PJF is supported by salary funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) through a grant to the Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology. This work is supported by the Medical Research Council (MRC G0701604) and funding is managed by the NIHR (NIHR-EME 09-800-26) on behalf of the MRC–NIHR partnership. Background . Primary angle-closure glaucoma is a leading cause of irreversible blindness worldwide. In early-stage disease, intraocular pressure is raised without visual loss. Because the crystalline lens has a major mechanistic role, lens extraction might be a useful initial treatment. Methods . From Jan 8, 2009, to Dec 28, 2011, we enrolled patients from 30 hospital eye services in five countries. Randomisation was done by a web-based application. Patients were assigned to undergo clear-lens extraction or receive standard care with laser peripheral iridotomy and topical medical treatment. Eligible patients were aged 50 years or older, did not have cataracts, and had newly diagnosed primary angle closure with intraocular pressure 30 mm Hg or greater or primary angle-closure glaucoma. The co-primary endpoints were patient-reported health status, intraocular pressure, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained 36 months after treatment. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN44464607. Findings . Of 419 participants enrolled, 155 had primary angle closure and 263 primary angle-closure glaucoma. 208 were assigned to clear-lens extraction and 211 to standard care, of whom 351 (84%) had complete data on health status and 366 (87%) on intraocular pressure. The mean health status score (0·87 [SD 0·12]), assessed with the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions questionnaire, was 0·052 higher (95% CI 0·015–0·088, p=0·005) and mean intraocular pressure (16·6 [SD 3·5] mm Hg) 1·18 mm Hg lower (95% CI –1·99 to –0·38, p=0·004) after clear-lens extraction than after standard care. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £14 284 for initial lens extraction versus standard care. Irreversible loss of vision occurred in one participant who underwent clear-lens extraction and three who received standard care. No patients had serious adverse events. Interpretation . Clear-lens extraction showed greater efficacy and was more cost-effective than laser peripheral iridotomy, and should be considered as an option for first-line treatment. Publisher PDF

Primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) is a highly prevalent condition worldwide and the most common cause of irreversible sight loss. The objective is to assess the comparative effectiveness of first-line medical treatments in patients with POAG or ocular hypertension through a systematic review and network meta-analysis, and to provide relative rankings of these treatments.Treatment for POAG currently relies completely on lowering the intraocular pressure (IOP). Although topical drops, lasers, and surgeries can be considered in the initial treatment of glaucoma, most patients elect to start treatment with eye drops.We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a single active topical medication with no treatment/placebo or another single topical medication. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Food and Drug Administration's website. Two individuals independently assessed trial eligibility, abstracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed Bayesian network meta-analyses.We included 114 RCTs with data from 20 275 participants. The overall risk of bias of the included trials is mixed. The mean reductions (95% credible intervals) in IOP in millimeters of mercury at 3 months ordered from the most to least effective drugs were as follows: bimatoprost 5.61 (4.94; 6.29), latanoprost 4.85 (4.24; 5.46), travoprost 4.83 (4.12; 5.54), levobunolol 4.51 (3.85; 5.24), tafluprost 4.37 (2.94; 5.83), timolol 3.70 (3.16; 4.24), brimonidine 3.59 (2.89; 4.29), carteolol 3.44 (2.42; 4.46), levobetaxolol 2.56 (1.52; 3.62), apraclonidine 2.52 (0.94; 4.11), dorzolamide 2.49 (1.85; 3.13), brinzolamide 2.42 (1.62; 3.23), betaxolol 2.24 (1.59; 2.88), and unoprostone 1.91 (1.15; 2.67).All active first-line drugs are effective compared with placebo in reducing IOP at 3 months. Bimatoprost, latanoprost, and travoprost are among the most efficacious drugs, although the within-class differences were small and may not be clinically meaningful. All factors, including adverse effects, patient preferences, and cost, should be considered in selecting a drug for a given patient.

To evaluate risk factors for astigmatism in a population-based sample of preschool children.Population-based cross-sectional study.Population-based samples of 9970 children ages 6 to 72 months from Los Angeles County, California, and Baltimore, Maryland.A cross-sectional study of children participating in the Multiethnic Pediatric Eye Disease Study and the Baltimore Eye Disease Study was completed. Data were obtained by clinical examination or by in-person interview. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to evaluate potential associations between clinical, behavioral, or demographic factors and astigmatism.Odds ratios (ORs) for various risk factors associated with astigmatism.Participants with myopia (≤-1.0 diopters) were 4.6 times as likely to have astigmatism (95% CI, 3.56-5.96) than those without refractive error, whereas participants with hyperopia (≥+2.00 diopters) were 1.6 times as likely (95% CI, 1.39-1.94). Children 6 to12 months of age were approximately 3 times as likely to have astigmatism than children 5 to 6 years of age (95% CI, 2.28-3.73). Both Hispanic (OR, 2.38) and African-American (OR, 1.47) children were as likely to have astigmatism than non-Hispanic white children. Furthermore, children whose mothers smoked during pregnancy were 1.46 times (95% CI, 1.14-1.87) as likely to have astigmatism than children whose mothers did not smoke.In addition to infancy, Hispanic and African-American race/ethnicity and correctable/modifiable risk factors such as myopia, hyperopia, and maternal smoking during pregnancy are associated with a higher risk of having astigmatism. Although the prevalence of smoking during pregnancy is typically low, this association may suggest etiologic pathways for future investigation.The authors have no proprietary or commercial interest in any of the materials discussed in this article.