Search

Despite data supporting the rapid adoption of telehealth in the delivery of clinical care in North America, the implementation of telehealth visits in clinical research studies has faced critical barriers. These challenges include: (1) variations in state licensure requirements for telehealth; (2) disparities in access to telehealth among disadvantaged populations; (3) lack of consistency among individual Investigational Review Boards (IRBs). Each barrier prevents the systematic conversion of research protocols to include telehealth visits. The Parkinson’s Foundation and members of the Parkinson Study Group submit this Comment to highlight current challenges to implementing telehealth visits for clinical research studies. Our objective is to provide a consensus statement emphasizing the urgent need for regulators to standardize adoption of telehealth practices and to propose recommendations to reduce the burden for implementation in existing research study protocols.

Learning Objectives Upon completion of this activity, participants will be able to:Assess the efficacy of off-the-shelf use of 2-diopter cylinder correction toric intraocular lenses in cataract surgery for patients with preoperative corneal astigmatism of 2.00 D or more, based on a prospective randomised study.Evaluate the safety and patient-reported outcomes of off-the-shelf use of 2-diopter cylinder correction toric intraocular lenses in cataract surgery for patients with preoperative corneal astigmatism of 2.00 D or more, based on a prospective randomised study.Determine the potential suitability of off-the-shelf use of toric intraocular lenses for more widespread adoption by the National Health Service or other large public health programs, and other clinical implications of their efficacy and safety, based on a prospective randomised study. Continuing Medical Education In support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by Medscape, LLC and Springer Nature. Medscape, LLC is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team. Medscape, LLC designates this Journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1.00 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s). Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. All other clinicians completing this activity will be issued a certificate of participation. To participate in this journal CME activity: (1) review the learning objectives and author disclosures; (2) study the education content; (3) take the post-test with a 75% minimum passing score and complete the evaluation at www.medscape.org/journal/eye; (4) view/print certificate. Credit hours 1.0 Release date: July 30, 2020 Expiration date: July 30, 2021 Post-test link: https://medscape.org/eye/posttest929021 Authors/Editors disclosure information Sobha Sivaprasad, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: served as an advisor or consultant for: Allergan, Inc.; Apellis; Bayer AG; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Heidelberg Pharma GmbH; Novartis; Oculis; Optos; Oxurion; Roche. Served as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Allergan, Inc.; Bayer AG; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Optos. Received grants for clinical research from: Allergan, Inc.; Bayer AG; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Optos. Nick Stanojcic, BSc, MCOptom, FRCOphth, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Harry Roberts, MSc, FRCOphth, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: served as an advisor or consultant for: Alcon UK. Vijay Wagh, FRCOphth, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Bruno Zuberbuhler, PhD, FRCOphth, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. David O'Brart, MD (Res), FRCOphth, FRCS, RefCert(RCOphth), has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: received grants for clinical research from: Alcopn Inc., Rayner Ltd, Avedro Inc. Owns stock, stock options, or bonds from: Sparca Inc. Employed by a commercial interest: Sparca Inc., Background/objectives To compare visual and refractive outcomes of monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) with limbal relaxing incisions (LRI) with ‘off-the-shelf’ use of toric IOLs (TIOLs), with a fixed 2-dioptre cylinder (DC) correction, for cataract patients with pre-existing corneal astigmatism in a public-sector setting. Subjects/methods Seventy-seven patients (77 eyes, first treated eye) with visually significant cataract and pre-operative corneal astigmatism ≥2.00 DC were randomised to receive either ‘off-the-shelf’ TIOLs, with a fixed 2.00 DC cylinder correction (39 eyes), or monofocal IOLs (38 eyes) with LRIs. The concept of fixing the cylindrical correction was to minimise costs, allow a full TIOL bank to be available and eliminate the need for individual TIOL ordering. Outcome measures were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and refraction. Astigmatic changes were evaluated using the Alpins vector method. Results Mean UDVA improved from logMAR 0.88 (SD 0.56)[~20/150] pre-operatively to 0.18 (SD 0.19)[~20/30] post-operatively in TIOL group, versus 0.82 (SD 0.55)[~20/130] to 0.27 (SD 0.15)[~20/40] in monofocal/LRI group (P = 0.02; 95% CI: −0.17, −0.01). Mean CDVA improved from logMAR 0.40 (SD 0.26)[~20/50] to 0.01 (SD 0.12)[~20/20] in TIOL group, and 0.41 (SD 0.38)[~20/40] to 0.06 (SD 0.12)[~20/25] in LRI group (P = 0.07; 95% CI: −0.11, 0.01). Average post-operative refractive cylinder in TIOL group was 1.35 DC (SD 0.84 DC) and in LRI group 1.91 DC (SD 1.07 DC) (P = 0.01; 95% CI: −1, −0.12). Mean difference vector magnitude was 1.92 DC (SD 1.08 DC) in LRI group and 1.37 DC (SD 0.84 DC) in TIOL group (P = 0.02; 95% CI: 0.11, 0.99). Conclusions TIOLs with a fixed 2.00 DC correction during cataract surgery may improve UDVA, reduce post-operative cylinder and result in a more reliable astigmatic correction compared with monofocal IOLs with LRIs.