IMPORTANCE: This novel endpoint tracks functional vision changes in patients with inherited retinal dystrophies (IRDs) over time. BACKGROUND: The aims of the study were to determine whether a multi-luminance mobility test (MLMT) can detect functional vision changes over time in subjects with IRDs and to assess natural history and potential effects of investigational agents. DESIGN: This is a prospective, observational study. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-two subjects were enrolled. Sixty (29 normal sighted and 31 visually impaired) were eligible; 54 (28 visually impaired and 26 normal-sighted) completed all testing visits. METHODS: Subjects navigated MLMT courses three times over 1 year. At each visit, subjects completed testing using individual eyes, and both eyes, at up to nine standardized, increasing luminance levels (range 1 to 400 lux). Accuracy and speed were evaluated and compared with visual acuity (VA), visual field (VF) and a visual function questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Accuracy and speed of normal and visually impaired subjects on MLMT, and reliability and content validity of MLMT were the main outcome measures. RESULTS: MLMT distinguished normal-sighted from visually impaired subjects. All control subjects passed all MLMT attempts at all tested light levels. Visually impaired subjects' performance varied widely; some declined over 1 year. Performance declined markedly below certain VA and VF thresholds. Concordance on performance on two baseline visits was high: correlations for accuracy were 94% and 98% for lowest common and highest common lux levels. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: MLMT differentiated visually impaired from control populations and, in visually impaired subjects, identified a range of performances; and tracked performance declines over time, consistent with these progressive conditions.
IMPORTANCE: This novel endpoint tracks functional vision changes in patients with inherited retinal dystrophies (IRDs) over time. BACKGROUND: The aims of the study were to determine whether a multi-luminance mobility test (MLMT) can detect functional vision changes over time in subjects with IRDs and to assess natural history and potential effects of investigational agents. DESIGN: This is a prospective, observational study. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-two subjects were enrolled. Sixty (29 normal sighted and 31 visually impaired) were eligible; 54 (28 visually impaired and 26 normal-sighted) completed all testing visits. METHODS: Subjects navigated MLMT courses three times over 1 year. At each visit, subjects completed testing using individual eyes, and both eyes, at up to nine standardized, increasing luminance levels (range 1 to 400 lux). Accuracy and speed were evaluated and compared with visual acuity (VA), visual field (VF) and a visual function questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Accuracy and speed of normal and visually impaired subjects on MLMT, and reliability and content validity of MLMT were the main outcome measures. RESULTS: MLMT distinguished normal-sighted from visually impaired subjects. All control subjects passed all MLMT attempts at all tested light levels. Visually impaired subjects' performance varied widely; some declined over 1 year. Performance declined markedly below certain VA and VF thresholds. Concordance on performance on two baseline visits was high: correlations for accuracy were 94% and 98% for lowest common and highest common lux levels. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: MLMT differentiated visually impaired from control populations and, in visually impaired subjects, identified a range of performances; and tracked performance declines over time, consistent with these progressive conditions.
Authors: I Perrault; J M Rozet; S Gerber; I Ghazi; C Leowski; D Ducroq; E Souied; J L Dufier; A Munnich; J Kaplan Journal: Mol Genet Metab Date: 1999-10 Impact factor: 4.797
Authors: Albert M Maguire; Katherine A High; Alberto Auricchio; J Fraser Wright; Eric A Pierce; Francesco Testa; Federico Mingozzi; Jeannette L Bennicelli; Gui-shuang Ying; Settimio Rossi; Ann Fulton; Kathleen A Marshall; Sandro Banfi; Daniel C Chung; Jessica I W Morgan; Bernd Hauck; Olga Zelenaia; Xiaosong Zhu; Leslie Raffini; Frauke Coppieters; Elfride De Baere; Kenneth S Shindler; Nicholas J Volpe; Enrico M Surace; Carmela Acerra; Arkady Lyubarsky; T Michael Redmond; Edwin Stone; Junwei Sun; Jennifer Wellman McDonnell; Bart P Leroy; Francesca Simonelli; Jean Bennett Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-10-23 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Stephen Russell; Jean Bennett; Jennifer A Wellman; Daniel C Chung; Zi-Fan Yu; Amy Tillman; Janet Wittes; Julie Pappas; Okan Elci; Sarah McCague; Dominique Cross; Kathleen A Marshall; Jean Walshire; Taylor L Kehoe; Hannah Reichert; Maria Davis; Leslie Raffini; Lindsey A George; F Parker Hudson; Laura Dingfield; Xiaosong Zhu; Julia A Haller; Elliott H Sohn; Vinit B Mahajan; Wanda Pfeifer; Michelle Weckmann; Chris Johnson; Dina Gewaily; Arlene Drack; Edwin Stone; Katie Wachtel; Francesca Simonelli; Bart P Leroy; J Fraser Wright; Katherine A High; Albert M Maguire Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-07-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ahmed M Sayed; Rashed Kashem; Mostafa Abdel-Mottaleb; Vatookarn Roongpoovapatr; Taher K Eleiwa; Mohamed Abdel-Mottaleb; Richard K Parrish; Mohamed Abou Shousha Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2019-10-10 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Arshad M Khanani; Mathew J Thomas; Aamir A Aziz; Christina Y Weng; Carl J Danzig; Glenn Yiu; Szilárd Kiss; Nadia K Waheed; Peter K Kaiser Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 4.456
Authors: Alexander K N Lam; Elaine To; Robert N Weinreb; Marco Yu; Heather Mak; Gilda Lai; Vivian Chiu; Ken Wu; Xiujuan Zhang; Timothy P H Cheng; Philip Yawen Guo; Christopher K S Leung Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 7.389