Search

Introduction Artificial intelligence (AI) development has led to improvements in many areas of medicine. Canada has workforce pressures in delivering cataract care. A potential solution is using AI technology that can automate care delivery, increase effectiveness and decrease burdens placed on patients and the healthcare system. This study assesses the use of ‘Dora’, an example of an AI assistant that is able to deliver a regulated autonomous, voice-based, natural-language consultation with patients over the telephone. Dora is used in routine practice in the UK, but this study seeks to assess the safety, usability, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of using the technology in Canada.Methods and analysis This is a two-phase prospective single-centred trial. An expected 250 patients will be recruited for each phase of the study. For Phase I of the study, Dora will phone patients at postoperative week 1 and for Phase II of the study, Dora will phone patients within 24hours of their cataract surgery and again at postoperative week 1. We will evaluate the agreement between Dora and a supervising clinician regarding the need for further review based on the patients’ symptoms. A random sample of patients will undergo the System Usability Scale followed by an extended semi-structured interview. The primary outcome of agreement between Dora and the supervisor will be assessed using the kappa statistic. Qualitative data from the interviews will further gauge patient opinions about Dora’s usability, appropriateness and level of satisfaction.Ethics and dissemination Research Ethics Board William Osler Health System (ID: 22–0044) has approved this study and will be conducted by guidelines of Declaration of Helsinki. Master-linking sheet will contain the patient chart identification (ID), full name, date of birth and study ID. Results will be shared through peer-reviewed journals and presentations at conferences.

Topic This systematic review and meta-analysis provides a summary of the efficacy and safety of ranibizumab biosimilars relative to reference ranibizumab anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).Methods We conducted systematic searches from January 2003 to August 2022 on Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials. We included studies reporting changes in early treatment diabetic retinopathy study-measured best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), number of patients who lost or gained more than 15 letters in BCVA from baseline, changes in retinal thickness and adverse events between treatment arms. The following studies were excluded: studies that did not report visual outcomes following biosimilar and reference ranibizumab intravitreal injections, study arms combining anti-VEGF agents with laser or steroid injections, sham injections as a control comparator, studies without English full texts and non-comparative, observational study design.Results Five studies reported on four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 1544 eyes at baseline were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The studies in our systematic review found no significant differences between reference ranibizumab and ranibizumab biosimilar medications (FYB201, SB11, RanizuRel and Lupin’s ranibizumab) for visual and anatomical outcomes. No significant differences were detected between biosimilar and reference ranibizumab for treatment emergent adverse events (risk ratio, RR 1.06, 95% CI (0.91 to 1.23), p=0.45, I2=52%) or IOP-related adverse events with significant heterogeneity (RR 2.59, 95% CI (0.11 to 62.25), p=0.56, I2=76%).Conclusion This systematic review of four RCTs demonstrated no significant difference in visual outcomes, retinal thickness outcomes, as well as meta-analysis of adverse events between biosimilar and reference ranibizumab therapies for nAMD treatment.

Introduction Glaucoma is a progressive, chronic condition that can have a significant impact on a patient’s health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Validated, disease-specific HRQoL tools such as the Health Utility for Glaucoma (HUG-5) tool and the Glaucoma Quality of Life Questionnaire (GlauQoL-17) can be used to monitor a patient’s quality of life. However, the utility of these tools in outpatient clinic practice is not well established. The primary objective of this study is to characterise the feasibility of administering periodic HRQoL questionnaires in glaucoma using a semi-automated workflow.Methods and analysis This study will be a single-centre, unblinded, randomised, parallel-group study with an exploratory data analysis framework. We aim to determine the feasibility of administering the HUG-5 in an outpatient clinic using a semi-automated workflow and determine patient engagement through email and telephone contact methods. We will also be investigating the association of the HUG-5 and GlauQoL-17 with patient visual field testing and visual acuity. Mean differences between groups will be tested with analysis of variance to determine if the frequency of calls affects burden, satisfaction and perceived value of information.Ethics and dissemination This study has been approved by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics board (ID: 13046) and will be conducted within Canadian Tri-Council Statement policy. Personal information of the study’s participants will be anonymised with identification codes and data will be kept on an encrypted server. Results of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conferences and internal meetings.