Emily Y Chew1, Traci E Clemons, Molly Harrington, Susan B Bressler, Michael J Elman, Judy E Kim, Richard Garfinkel, Jeffrey S Heier, Alexander Brucker, David Boyer. 1. *Clinical Trials Branch, National Eye Institute/National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; †The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, Maryland; ‡The Retina Division at the Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland; §Elman Retina Group, Baltimore, Maryland; ¶Department of Ophthalmology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; **Retina Group of Washington, Washington, D.C.; ††Ophthalmic Consultants of Boston, Boston, Massachusetts; ‡‡Scheie Eye Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; §§Retina-Vitreous Associates Medical Group, Los Angeles, California.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the effectiveness of different monitoring modalities to detect incident neovascularization associated with age-related macular degeneration (AMD). METHODS: Secondary analyses compared the rates of detecting incident neovascular AMD in prescheduled office visits versus office visits triggered by monitoring device or by symptom realization in a randomized trial evaluating home telemonitoring device plus standard care (device arm) versus standard care alone. RESULTS: At prescheduled office visits, neovascular AMD was detected in 14/1927 visits (0.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.4%-1.1%) and 14/1949 visits (0.7%, 95% CI: 0.3%-1.1%) in the device and standard care alone arms, respectively. Thirty-seven participants with neovascular AMD were detected in 318 office visits (11.6%, 95% CI: 8.1%-15.2%) triggered by device or symptom realization and 17 neovascular AMD in 65 office visits (26%, 95% CI: 15.5%-36.8%) triggered by symptom realization in the device and standard care alone arms, respectively. The home device strategy had a higher neovascular-AMD detection rate than prescheduled office visits (relative risk = 16.0 [95% CI: 8.8-29.3]). Neovascular AMD detected at triggered visits were associated with less vision loss from baseline in the device arm versus standard care alone arm (-3 letters vs. -11.5 letters, respectively, P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Telemonitoring may alter the management of patients with AMD and improve vision outcomes.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To determine the effectiveness of different monitoring modalities to detect incident neovascularization associated with age-related macular degeneration (AMD). METHODS: Secondary analyses compared the rates of detecting incident neovascular AMD in prescheduled office visits versus office visits triggered by monitoring device or by symptom realization in a randomized trial evaluating home telemonitoring device plus standard care (device arm) versus standard care alone. RESULTS: At prescheduled office visits, neovascular AMD was detected in 14/1927 visits (0.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.4%-1.1%) and 14/1949 visits (0.7%, 95% CI: 0.3%-1.1%) in the device and standard care alone arms, respectively. Thirty-seven participants with neovascular AMD were detected in 318 office visits (11.6%, 95% CI: 8.1%-15.2%) triggered by device or symptom realization and 17 neovascular AMD in 65 office visits (26%, 95% CI: 15.5%-36.8%) triggered by symptom realization in the device and standard care alone arms, respectively. The home device strategy had a higher neovascular-AMD detection rate than prescheduled office visits (relative risk = 16.0 [95% CI: 8.8-29.3]). Neovascular AMD detected at triggered visits were associated with less vision loss from baseline in the device arm versus standard care alone arm (-3 letters vs. -11.5 letters, respectively, P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Telemonitoring may alter the management of patients with AMD and improve vision outcomes.
Authors: David M Brown; Peter K Kaiser; Mark Michels; Gisele Soubrane; Jeffrey S Heier; Robert Y Kim; Judy P Sy; Susan Schneider Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-10-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Emily Y Chew; Traci E Clemons; Susan B Bressler; Michael J Elman; Ronald P Danis; Amitha Domalpally; Jeffrey S Heier; Judy E Kim; Richard Garfinkel Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2013-11-08 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Gui-shuang Ying; Jiayan Huang; Maureen G Maguire; Glenn J Jaffe; Juan E Grunwald; Cynthia Toth; Ebenezer Daniel; Michael Klein; Dante Pieramici; John Wells; Daniel F Martin Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-10-06 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Emily Y Chew; Traci E Clemons; Susan B Bressler; Michael J Elman; Ronald P Danis; Amitha Domalpally; Jeffrey S Heier; Judy E Kim; Richard A Garfinkel Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2014-02-13 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Jeffrey S Heier; David M Brown; Victor Chong; Jean-Francois Korobelnik; Peter K Kaiser; Quan Dong Nguyen; Bernd Kirchhof; Allen Ho; Yuichiro Ogura; George D Yancopoulos; Neil Stahl; Robert Vitti; Alyson J Berliner; Yuhwen Soo; Majid Anderesi; Georg Groetzbach; Bernd Sommerauer; Rupert Sandbrink; Christian Simader; Ursula Schmidt-Erfurth Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-10-17 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: A C S Tan; R Schwartz; D Anaya; I Chatziralli; M Yuan; M V Cicinelli; L Faes; M Mustapha; N Phasukkijwatana; D Pohlmann; R Reynolds; A Rosenblatt; A Savastano; S Touhami; K Vaezi; C V Ventura; D Vogt; J Ambati; M D de Smet; A Loewenstein Journal: Int J Retina Vitreous Date: 2022-06-07