Search

In 2021, WHO Member States endorsed a global target of a 40-percentage-point increase in effective refractive error coverage (eREC; with a 6/12 visual acuity threshold) by 2030. This study models global and regional estimates of eREC as a baseline for the WHO initiative.The Vision Loss Expert Group analysed data from 565 448 participants of 169 population-based eye surveys conducted since 2000 to calculate eREC (met need/[met need + undermet need + unmet need]). A binary logistic regression model was used to estimate eREC by Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study super region among adults aged 50 years and older.In 2021, distance eREC was 79·1% (95% CI 72·4-85·0) in the high-income super region; 62·1% (54·7-68·8) in north Africa and Middle East; 49·5% (45·0-54·0) in central Europe, eastern Europe, and central Asia; 40·0% (31·7-48·2) in southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania; 34·5% (29·4-40·0) in Latin America and the Caribbean; 9·0% (6·5-12·0) in south Asia; and 5·7% (3·1-9·0) in sub-Saharan Africa. eREC was higher in men and reduced with increasing age. Global distance eREC increased from 2000 to 2021 by 19·0%. Global near vision eREC for 2021 was 20·5% (95% CI 17·8-24·4).Over the past 20 years, distance eREC has increased in each super region yet the WHO target will require substantial improvements in quantity and quality of refractive services in particular for near vision impairment.WHO, Sightsavers, The Fred Hollows Foundation, Fondation Thea, Brien Holden Vision Institute, Lions Clubs International Foundation.

PubMed: 28779882, Background Global and regional prevalence estimates for blindness and vision impairment are important for the development of public health policies. We aimed to provide global estimates, trends, and projections of global blindness and vision impairment. Methods We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based datasets relevant to global vision impairment and blindness that were published between 1980 and 2015. We fitted hierarchical models to estimate the prevalence (by age, country, and sex), in 2015, of mild visual impairment (presenting visual acuity worse than 6/12 to 6/18 inclusive), moderate to severe visual impairment (presenting visual acuity worse than 6/18 to 3/60 inclusive), blindness (presenting visual acuity worse than 3/60), and functional presbyopia (defined as presenting near vision worse than N6 or N8 at 40 cm when best-corrected distance visual acuity was better than 6/12). Findings Globally, of the 7·33 billion people alive in 2015, an estimated 36·0 million (80% uncertainty interval [UI] 12·9–65·4) were blind (crude prevalence 0·48%; 80% UI 0·17–0·87; 56% female), 216·6 million (80% UI 98·5–359·1) people had moderate to severe visual impairment (2·95%, 80% UI 1·34–4·89; 55% female), and 188·5 million (80% UI 64·5–350·2) had mild visual impairment (2·57%, 80% UI 0·88–4·77; 54% female). Functional presbyopia affected an estimated 1094·7 million (80% UI 581·1–1686·5) people aged 35 years and older, with 666·7 million (80% UI 364·9–997·6) being aged 50 years or older. The estimated number of blind people increased by 17·6%, from 30·6 million (80% UI 9·9–57·3) in 1990 to 36·0 million (80% UI 12·9–65·4) in 2015. This change was attributable to three factors, namely an increase because of population growth (38·4%), population ageing after accounting for population growth (34·6%), and reduction in age-specific prevalence (?36·7%). The number of people with moderate and severe visual impairment also increased, from 159·9 million (80% UI 68·3–270·0) in 1990 to 216·6 million (80% UI 98·5–359·1) in 2015. Interpretation There is an ongoing reduction in the age-standardised prevalence of blindness and visual impairment, yet the growth and ageing of the world's population is causing a substantial increase in number of people affected. These observations, plus a very large contribution from uncorrected presbyopia, highlight the need to scale up vision impairment alleviation efforts at all levels. Funding Brien Holden Vision Institute. © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license

To determine whether confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopic imaging (Heidelberg retinal tomography [HRT]) can predict visual field change in glaucoma.The study included 561 patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension whose clinical course was followed at the Mount Sinai Faculty practice. Humphrey visual fields (HVFs) and HRT images were collected on one randomly selected eye per patient. Glaucoma progression was determined by the presence of two sequential statistically significant negative slopes in mean deviation (MD) or visual field index (VFI) at any point during the study period. Trend-based analysis on HRT parameters was used to determine progressive changes and whether these occurred before or after HVF change. Sensitivity and specificity of HRT to predict HVF change were calculated. HVF rate of change was correlated to the rate of change detected by HRT imaging.Approximately 17% of patients progressed by either MD or VFI criteria. MD and VFI correlated highly and identified overlapping sets of patients as progressing. HRT global parameters had poor sensitivity (∼42%) and moderate specificity (∼67%) to predict HVF progression. Regional stereometric parameters were more sensitive (69%-78%) but significantly less specific (24%-27%). Sensitivity of global stereometric parameters in detecting HVF change was not significantly affected by the level of visual field damage (P=.3, Fisher exact test). HVF rate of change did not correlate with rate of change of HRT parameters.Trend-based analysis of HRT parameters has poor sensitivity and specificity in predicting HVF change. This may be related specifically to HRT imaging or may reflect the fact that in some patients with glaucoma, functional changes precede structural alterations.

Purpose: To report the results of two studies on the use of dorzolamide as adjunctive therapy to timolol in patients with elevated intraocular pressure (IOP). In the larger study, the additive effect of dorzolamide administered twice daily also was compared with 2% pilocarpine. Methods: Both studies were parallel, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled comparisons. In the pilot study, 32 patients received 0.5% timolol twice daily plus either 2% dorzolamide twice daily or placebo twice daily for 8 days. In the Pilocarpine Comparison Study, 261 patients received 0.5% timolol twice daily plus 0.7% dorzolamide twice daily, 2% dorzolamide twice daily, 2% pilocarpine four times daily, or placebo (twice daily or 4 times daily) for 2 weeks. Patients then entered a 6-month extension period and received 0.5% timolol twice daily plus either 0.7% dorzolamide twice daily, 2% dorzolamide twice daily, or 2% pilocarpine four times daily. Results: In the pilot study, after 8 days, additional mean percent reductions in IOP for 2% dorzolamide and placebo were 17% and 3% at morning trough and 19% and 2% at peak, respectively. In the Pilocarpine Comparison Study, after 6 months, additional mean percent reductions in IOP (morning trough) were 9%, 13%, and 10% for 0.7% dorzolamide, 2% dorzolamide, and 2% pilocarpine, respectively. Patients receiving 2% pilocarpine had the highest rate of discontinuation due to a clinical adverse experience, and the use of dorzolamide was not associated with systemic side effects commonly observed with the use of oral carbonic anhydrase inhibitors. Conclusion: Dorzolamide twice daily was effective and well tolerated by the patients in these studies as adjunctive therapy to timolol. The larger study demonstrated that both concentrations of dorzolamide produce similar IOP-lowering effects to 2% pilocarpine.

The objective of this study was to develop a "best-practice" treatment algorithm for the management of primary open-angle glaucoma in patients receiving initial medical therapy, to serve as a consideration for future ophthalmology practice. For comparison, a baseline, "common-practice" treatment algorithm was also created that reflects current ophthalmology practice patterns. Survey instruments were developed based on a comprehensive review of relevant literature, along with input from a general ophthalmologist. A panel of eight ophthalmologists subspecialized in glaucoma management was surveyed. Consensus was achieved using a modified Delphi technique. A comparison of common- and best-practice treatment algorithms suggests that in contrast with expert opinion, nonselective beta blockers are currently used more often, and alpha-2 agonists less often, as first-line therapy for the treatment of primary open-angle glaucoma.