Joan A Stelmack1, X Charlene Tang2, Yongliang Wei2, Denise Thomas Wilcox3, Timothy Morand4, Karen Brahm5, Scott Sayers6, Robert W Massof7. 1. Blind Rehabilitation Center, Edward Hines Jr Veterans Affairs Hospital, Hines, Illinois2Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, University of Illinois at Chicago School of Medicine, Chicago3Illinois College of Optometry, Chicago. 2. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating Center, Edward Hines Jr. Veterans Affairs Hospital, Hines, Illinois. 3. Surgical Service, Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. Rehabilitation Medicine Service, Dayton Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Dayton, Ohio. 5. Surgical Service, William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin. 6. Blind Rehabilitation Center, Edward Hines Jr Veterans Affairs Hospital, Hines, Illinois2Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, University of Illinois at Chicago School of Medicine, Chicago. 7. Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Randomized clinical trials are needed to compare effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different low-vision (LV) programs. OBJECTIVE: To determine the value of adding LV rehabilitation with a therapist compared with LV services without intervention. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized clinical trial was conducted from September 27, 2010, to July 31, 2014, of 323 veterans with macular diseases and best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVAbetter-eye) of 20/50 to 20/200. Masked interviewers administered questionnaires by telephone before and after LV treatment. Using an intention-to-treat design, participants were randomized to receive LV devices with no therapy or LV devices with a rehabilitation therapist providing instruction and homework on the use of LV devices, eccentric viewing, and environmental modification. Visual ability was measured in dimensionless log odds units (logits) (0.14-logit change in visual ability corresponds to ability change expected from a 1-line change in visual acuity). INTERVENTIONS: Low-vision devices without therapy and LV devices with therapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Comparison of changes (baseline to 4 months) in overall visual ability and in 4 functional domains (reading, visual information, visual motor, and mobility) estimated from responses to the Veterans Affairs Low Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire (higher scores indicates more ability or less difficulty in performing activities), and comparison of MNREAD changes (baseline to end of treatment) in maximum reading speed, critical print size, and reading acuity (higher number indicates lower visual acuity). RESULTS: Of the 323 participants, 314 were male (97.2%); mean (SD) age, 80 (10.5) years. Basic LV was effective in improving visual ability. However, the LV rehabilitation group improved more in all visual function domains except mobility. Differences were 0.34-logit reading (95% CI, 0.0005 to 0.69; P = .05), 0.27-logit visual information (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.53; P = .04), 0.37-logit visual motor (95% CI, 0.08 to 0.66; P = .01), and 0.27-logit overall (95% CI, 0.06 to 0.49; P = .01). For MNREAD measures, there was more improvement in reading acuity (difference, -0.11 logMAR, 95% CI, -0.15 to -0.07; P < .001) and maximum reading speed (mean increase of 21.0 words/min; 95% CI, 6.4 to 35.5; P = .005), but not critical print size for the LV rehabilitation group (-0.06 logMAR; 95% CI, -0.12 to 0.002; P = .06). In stratified analyses, the LV rehabilitation group with BCDVAbetter-eye worse than 20/63 to 20/200 improved more in visual ability (reading, visual motor, and overall). Differences were 0.56-logit reading ability (95% CI, 0.08-1.04; P = .02), 0.40-logit visual motor (95% CI, 0.03-0.78; P = .04), 0.34-logit overall (95% CI, 0.06-0.62; P = .02). There was no significant difference between treatment groups for those with BCDVAbetter-eye of 20/50 to 20/63. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Both basic LV alone and combined with LV rehabilitation were effective, but the added LV rehabilitation increased the effect only for patients with BCDVAbetter-eye worse than 20/63 to 20/200. Basic LV services may be sufficient for most LV patients with mild visual impairment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00958360.
IMPORTANCE: Randomized clinical trials are needed to compare effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different low-vision (LV) programs. OBJECTIVE: To determine the value of adding LV rehabilitation with a therapist compared with LV services without intervention. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized clinical trial was conducted from September 27, 2010, to July 31, 2014, of 323 veterans with macular diseases and best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVAbetter-eye) of 20/50 to 20/200. Masked interviewers administered questionnaires by telephone before and after LV treatment. Using an intention-to-treat design, participants were randomized to receive LV devices with no therapy or LV devices with a rehabilitation therapist providing instruction and homework on the use of LV devices, eccentric viewing, and environmental modification. Visual ability was measured in dimensionless log odds units (logits) (0.14-logit change in visual ability corresponds to ability change expected from a 1-line change in visual acuity). INTERVENTIONS: Low-vision devices without therapy and LV devices with therapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Comparison of changes (baseline to 4 months) in overall visual ability and in 4 functional domains (reading, visual information, visual motor, and mobility) estimated from responses to the Veterans Affairs Low Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire (higher scores indicates more ability or less difficulty in performing activities), and comparison of MNREAD changes (baseline to end of treatment) in maximum reading speed, critical print size, and reading acuity (higher number indicates lower visual acuity). RESULTS: Of the 323 participants, 314 were male (97.2%); mean (SD) age, 80 (10.5) years. Basic LV was effective in improving visual ability. However, the LV rehabilitation group improved more in all visual function domains except mobility. Differences were 0.34-logit reading (95% CI, 0.0005 to 0.69; P = .05), 0.27-logit visual information (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.53; P = .04), 0.37-logit visual motor (95% CI, 0.08 to 0.66; P = .01), and 0.27-logit overall (95% CI, 0.06 to 0.49; P = .01). For MNREAD measures, there was more improvement in reading acuity (difference, -0.11 logMAR, 95% CI, -0.15 to -0.07; P < .001) and maximum reading speed (mean increase of 21.0 words/min; 95% CI, 6.4 to 35.5; P = .005), but not critical print size for the LV rehabilitation group (-0.06 logMAR; 95% CI, -0.12 to 0.002; P = .06). In stratified analyses, the LV rehabilitation group with BCDVAbetter-eye worse than 20/63 to 20/200 improved more in visual ability (reading, visual motor, and overall). Differences were 0.56-logit reading ability (95% CI, 0.08-1.04; P = .02), 0.40-logit visual motor (95% CI, 0.03-0.78; P = .04), 0.34-logit overall (95% CI, 0.06-0.62; P = .02). There was no significant difference between treatment groups for those with BCDVAbetter-eye of 20/50 to 20/63. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Both basic LV alone and combined with LV rehabilitation were effective, but the added LV rehabilitation increased the effect only for patients with BCDVAbetter-eye worse than 20/63 to 20/200. Basic LV services may be sufficient for most LV patients with mild visual impairment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00958360.
Authors: M Austin Coker; Carrie E Huisingh; Gerald McGwin; Russell W Read; Mark W Swanson; Laura E Dreer; Dawn K DeCarlo; Lindsay Gregg; Cynthia Owsley Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Gabrielle D Lacy; Maria Fernanda Abalem; Chris A Andrews; Rebhi Abuzaitoun; Lilia T Popova; Erin P Santos; Gina Yu; Hanan Y Rakine; Natasha Baig; Joshua R Ehrlich; Abigail T Fahim; Kari H Branham; Bonnielin K Swenor; Paul R Lichter; Gislin Dagnelie; Joan A Stelmack; David C Musch; K Thiran Jayasundera Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2020-12-09 Impact factor: 5.258