Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Transl Vis Sci Technol ; 12(7): 19, 2023 07 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37477933

ABSTRACT

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess test-retest variability and discriminatory power of measures from macular integrity assessment (S-MAIA) and AdaptDx. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study of 167 people with intermediate age-related macular degeneration (iAMD), no AMD (controls; n = 54), early AMD (n = 28), and late AMD (n = 41), recruited across 18 European ophthalmology centers. Repeat measures of mesopic and scotopic S-MAIA average (mean) threshold (MMAT decibels [dB] and SMAT [dB]) and rod intercept time (RIT [mins]) at 2 visits 14 (±7) days apart were recorded. Repeat measures were assessed by Bland-Altman analysis, intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) and variability ratios. Secondary analysis assessed the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) to determine the ability to distinguish people as having no AMD, early AMD, or iAMD. Results: Data were available for 128, 131, and 103 iAMD participants for the mesopic and scotopic S-MAIA and AdaptDx, respectively. MMAT and SMAT demonstrate similar test-retest variability in iAMD (95% confidence interval [CI] ICC of 0.79-0.89 and 0.78-0.89, respectively). ICCs were worse in RIT (95% CI ICC = 0.55-0.77). All tests had equivalent AUCs (approximately 70%) distinguishing between subjects with iAMD and controls, whereas early AMD was indistinguishable from iAMD on all measures (AUC = <55%). A learning effect was not seen in these assessments under the operating procedures used. Conclusions: MMAT, SMAT, and RIT have adequate test-retest variability and are all moderately good at separating people with iAMD from controls. Translational Relevance: Expected levels of test-retest variability and discriminatory power of the AdaptDx and MAIA devices in a clinical study setting must be considered when designing future trials for people with AMD.


Subject(s)
Macular Degeneration , Visual Field Tests , Humans , Dark Adaptation , Cross-Sectional Studies
2.
JAMA Ophthalmol ; 140(8): 780-789, 2022 08 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35737401

ABSTRACT

Importance: There is a need for validated clinical end points that are reliably able to quantify potential therapeutic effects of future treatments targeting age-related macular degeneration (AMD) before the onset of serious visual impairment. Objective: To assess the reliability and discriminatory power of 5 simple chart-based visual function (VF) tests as potential measures for clinical trial end points with regulatory and patient-access intention in intermediate AMD (iAMD). Design, Setting, and Participants: This international noninterventional study took place at 18 tertiary ophthalmology departments across Europe. Participants were recruited between April 2018 and March 2020 and were identified during routine clinical review. Participants with no AMD and early AMD were recruited from hospital staff, friends, and family of participants with AMD and via referrals from community ophthalmologists and optometrists. The repeatability and discriminatory power of 5 simple chart-based assessments of VF (best-corrected visual acuity [BCVA], low-luminance visual acuity [LLVA], Moorfields Acuity Test [MAT], Pelli-Robson Contrast Sensitivity [CS], and International Reading Speed Test [IReST]) were assessed in a repeated-measures design. VF assessments were performed on day 0 and day 14. Participants with early AMD, iAMD, late AMD, and no AMD were recruited. Main Outcomes and Measures: Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were computed to assess repeatability. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) determined the discriminatory ability of all measures to classify individuals as having no AMD or iAMD and to differentiate iAMD from its neighboring disease states. Results: A total of 301 participants (mean [SD] age, 71 [7] years; 187 female participants [62.1%]) were included in the study. Thirty-four participants (11.3%) had early AMD, 168 (55.8%) had iAMD, 43 (14.3%) had late AMD, and 56 (18.6%) had no AMD. ICCs for all VF measures ranged between 0.88 and 0.96 when all participants were considered, indicating good to excellent repeatability. All measures displayed excellent discrimination between iAMD and late AMD (AUC, 0.92-0.99). Early AMD was indistinguishable from iAMD on all measures (AUC, 0.54-0.64). CS afforded the best discrimination between no AMD and iAMD (AUC, 0.77). Under the same conditions, BCVA, LLVA, and MAT were fair discriminators (AUC, 0.69-0.71), and IReST had poor discrimination (AUC, 0.57-0.61). Conclusions and Relevance: BCVA, LLVA, MAT, CS, and IReST had adequate repeatability in this multicenter, multiexaminer setting but limited power to discriminate between no AMD and iAMD. The prognostic power of these variables to predict conversion from iAMD to late AMD is being examined in the ongoing longitudinal part of the MACUSTAR study.


Subject(s)
Macular Degeneration , Aged , Contrast Sensitivity , Female , Humans , Macular Degeneration/diagnosis , Reproducibility of Results , Vision Disorders/diagnosis , Vision Tests , Visual Acuity
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...