Needs assessment for direct ophthalmoscopy training in neurology residency.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of the ocular fundus, traditionally by direct ophthalmoscopy (DO), is essential to evaluate many neurologic diseases. However, the status of DO training in neurology residencies is unknown. We conducted a needs assessment to determine current attitudes, curricula, and gaps in DO training. METHODS: A survey was developed and administered to residents and program directors (PDs) at ACGME accredited neurology residencies in the United States. The survey assessed factors such as current DO curricula, perceived importance of DO, confidence of skills, and need for improvement. Data analysis was performed using the Mann Whitney U test and Fisher Exact Test. RESULTS: Nineteen PDs (11.6%) and 74 (41.1%) residents responded to the survey. 97.1% of residents and 100.0% of PDs believe DO is an important skill to learn. 29.4% of PDs expected graduating residents to have completed > 10 supervised DO exams, while 0.0% of graduating fourth year residents reported doing so (p = 0.03). 35.7% of graduating residents had never correctly identified an abnormal finding on DO. The number of times residents practiced DO unsupervised correlated with increasing confidence in all components of the DO exam (p < 0.05). Residents who felt their program emphasized DO were more likely to perform DO at least once a week compared to residents who did not perceive program emphasis (61.9% vs. 35.0%, p = 0.02) and were more confident in DO (p < 0.05). 66.7% of residents and 42.1% of PDs were not satisfied with current levels of DO training. 96.7% of residents and 78.9% of PDs felt it was important to improve curriculum for DO training. Supervised practice and practice skills sessions were identified as the most helpful interventions to improve DO training. CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of neurology PDs and residents believe DO is an important skill to learn, are unsatisfied with the current level of DO training, and advocate for improvement in DO curricula. Current DO curricula have limited formal didactic training and supervised practice. The bulk of DO learning occurs through unsupervised practice, which is influenced by motivational factors such as perceived residency emphasis on DO learning.

METformin for the MINimization of Geographic Atrophy Progression (METforMIN): A Randomized Trial.

Purpose: Metformin use has been associated with a decreased risk of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) progression in observational studies. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of oral metformin for slowing geographic atrophy (GA) progression. Design: Parallel-group, multicenter, randomized phase II clinical trial. Participants: Participants aged ≥ 55 years without diabetes who had GA from atrophic AMD in ≥ 1 eye. Methods: We enrolled participants across 12 clinical centers and randomized participants in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral metformin (2000 mg daily) or observation for 18 months. Fundus autofluorescence imaging was obtained at baseline and every 6 months. Main Outcome Measures: The primary efficacy endpoint was the annualized enlargement rate of the square root-transformed GA area. Secondary endpoints included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and low luminance visual acuity (LLVA) at each visit. Results: Of 66 enrolled participants, 34 (57 eyes) were randomized to the observation group and 32 (53 eyes) were randomized to the treatment group. The median follow-up duration was 13.9 and 12.6 months in the observation and metformin groups, respectively. The mean ± standard error annualized enlargement rate of square root transformed GA area was 0.35 ± 0.04 mm/year in the observation group and 0.42 ± 0.04 mm/year in the treatment group (risk difference = 0.07 mm/year, 95% confidence interval = -0.05 to 0.18 mm/year; P = 0.26). The mean ± standard error decline in BCVA was 4.8 ± 1.7 letters/year in the observation group and 3.4 ± 1.1 letters/year in the treatment group (P = 0.56). The mean ± standard error decline in LLVA was 7.3 ± 2.5 letters/year in the observation group and 0.8 ± 2.2 letters/year in the treatment group (P = 0.06). Fourteen participants in the metformin group experienced nonserious adverse events related to metformin, with gastrointestinal side effects as the most common. No serious adverse events were attributed to metformin. Conclusions: The results of this trial as conducted do not support oral metformin having effects on reducing the progression of GA. Additional placebo-controlled trials are needed to explore the role of metformin for AMD, especially for earlier stages of the disease. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.