Value of Handheld Optical Illuminated Magnifiers for Sustained Silent Reading by Visually Impaired Adults.

SIGNIFICANCE: Vision rehabilitation providers tend to recommend handheld, illuminated optical magnifiers for short-duration spot reading tasks, but this study indicates that they are also a viable option to improve sustained, continuous text reading (e.g., books or magazines), especially for visually impaired adults who read slowly with only spectacle-based near correction. PURPOSE: The utility of handheld optical magnifiers for sustained silent reading tasks involving normal-sized continuous text could be a valuable indication that is not recognized by vision rehabilitation providers and patients. METHODS: Handheld, illuminated optical magnifiers were dispensed to 29 visually impaired adults who completed the sustained silent reading test by phone at baseline without the new magnifier and 1 month after using the magnifier. Reading speed in words per minute (wpm) was calculated from the time to read each page and then averaged across up to 10 pages or determined for the fastest read page (maximum). RESULTS: From baseline without the magnifier to 1 month with the magnifier, there was a significant improvement in mean reading speed by 14 wpm (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6 to 24; P = .02) and for maximum reading speed by 18 wpm (95% CI, 5.4 to 30; P = .005) on average across participants. Participants who had slower baseline reading speeds without the magnifier demonstrated significantly greater improvements in mean and maximum reading speeds on average with the magnifier (95% CI, 8 to 32 [ P = .003]; 95% CI, 4 to 36 [ P = .02]). A significantly greater number of pages were read with the new magnifier than without it (Wilcoxon z = -2.5; P = .01). A significantly greater number of pages were read with the magnifier by participants who read fewer pages at baseline (95% CI, 0.57 to 5.6; P = .02) or had greater improvements in mean reading speed (95% CI, 0.57 to 5.6; P = .007). CONCLUSIONS: Many visually impaired adults read more quickly and/or read a greater number of pages after using a new magnifier for a month than compared to without it. The largest gains occurred among those with more difficulty at baseline, indicating the potential to improve reading rates with magnifiers for those with greater deficits.

Acceptability of Telerehabilitation for Magnification Devices for the Visually Impaired Using Various Approaches to Facilitate Accessibility.

Purpose: We examined different methods to reduce the burden of accessing technology for videoconferencing during telerehabilitation for magnification devices for the visually impaired. Methods: During telerehabilitation studies over the past 5 years, vision rehabilitation providers assessed and gave training to visually impaired participants with newly dispensed magnification devices at home who connected to Zoom videoconferencing via loaner tablets or smartphones with assistance from (phase 1; n = 10) investigators by phone, (phase 2; n = 11) local Lions Club volunteers in participants' homes, or (phase 3; n = 24) remote access control software in a randomized controlled trial with 13 usual care controls who received in-office training. All participants completed the same post-telerehabilitation phone survey. Results: A significantly greater proportion of phase 3 subjects indicated they strongly or mostly agreed that the technology did not interfere with the session (96%) compared to phase 1 (60%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-12.5; P = 0.03) or phase 2 (55%; 95% CI, 1.8-188; P = 0.01). The majority indicated telerehabilitation was as accurate as in person (68%), they were comfortable with telerehabilitation (91%) and interested in a future session (83%), and their magnifier use improved (79%), with no significant differences in these responses between phases (all P > 0.10), including comparisons of participants randomized to telerehabilitation or in-office training in phase 3 who reported similar overall satisfaction levels (P = 0.84). Conclusions: Participants across all phases reported high levels of acceptance for telerehabilitation, with least interference from technology using remote access control in phase 3. Translational Relevance: With accommodations for accessibility to videoconferencing technology, telerehabilitation for magnification devices can be a feasible, acceptable, and valuable option in countries with resources to support the technology.

Visual Acuity, Contrast Sensitivity and Color Vision Three Years After Iodine-125 Brachytherapy for Choroidal and Ciliary Body Melanoma.

PURPOSE: To report visual acuity, contrast sensitivity and color vision prior to, 1 year after, 2 years after and 3 years after iodine-125 brachytherapy for choroidal and ciliary body melanoma (CCM). DESIGN: Prospective interventional case series. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-seven patients (37 eyes) with CCM. METHODS: Patients had best-corrected Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) visual acuity, Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity and Hardy-Rand-Rittler color vision measurement; comprehensive ophthalmology examination; optical coherence tomography; and ultrasonography at baseline prior to, 1 year after, 2 years after and 3 years after I-125 brachytherapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Visual acuity, contrast sensitivity and color vision prior to, 1 year after, 2 years after and 3 years after brachytherapy. RESULTS: Nineteen (19) men and 18 women with mean age of 58 years (SD 13, range 30-78) prior to, 1 year after, 2 years after and 3 years after brachytherapy had mean best-corrected visual acuity of 77 letters (20/32), 65 letters (20/50), 56 letters (20/80) and 47 letters (20/125); contrast sensitivity of 30, 26, 22 and 19 letters; color vision of 26, 20, 17 and 14 test figures, respectively. Decrease in visual acuity, contrast sensitivity and color vision was statistically significant from baseline at 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after brachytherapy. Decreased acuity at 3 years was associated with mid-choroid and macula melanoma location, ≥ 4.1 mm melanoma height, radiation maculopathy and radiation optic neuropathy. CONCLUSION: 1, 2 and 3 years after brachytherapy, eyes with CCM had significantly decreased visual acuity, contrast sensitivity and color vision.

Visual ability of patients seeking outpatient low vision services in the United States.

IMPORTANCE: Most patients with low vision are elderly and have functional limitations from other health problems that could add to the functional limitations caused by their visual impairments. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors that contribute to visual ability measures in patients who present for outpatient low vision rehabilitation (LVR) services. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: As part of a prospective, observational study of new patients seeking outpatient LVR, 779 patients from 28 clinical centers in the United States were enrolled in the Low Vision Rehabilitation Outcomes Study (LVROS) from April 25, 2008, through May 2, 2011. The Activity Inventory (AI), an adaptive visual function questionnaire, was administered to measure overall visual ability and visual ability in 4 functional domains (reading, mobility, visual motor function, and visual information processing) at baseline before LVR. The Geriatric Depression Scale, Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status, and Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey physical functioning questionnaires were also administered to measure patients' psychological, cognitive, and physical health states, respectively. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Predictors of visual ability and functional domains as measured by the AI. RESULTS: Among the 779 patients in the LVROS sample, the mean age was 76.4 years, 33% were male, and the median logMAR visual acuity score was 0.60 (0.40-0.90 interquartile range). Correlations were observed between logMAR visual acuity and baseline visual ability overall (r = -0.42) and for all functional domains. Visual acuity was the strongest predictor of visual ability (P < .001) and reading ability (P < .001) and had a significant independent effect on the other functional domains. Physical ability was independently associated with (P < .001) overall visual ability as well as mobility and visual motor function. Depression had a consistent independent effect (P < .001) on overall visual ability and on all functional domains, whereas cognition had an effect on only reading and mobility (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Visual ability is a multidimensional construct, with visual acuity, depression, physical ability, and cognition explaining more than one-third of the variance in visual ability as measured by the AI. The significant contributions of the nonvisual factors to visual ability measures and the rehabilitation potential (ie, ceiling) effects they may impose on LVR are important considerations when measuring baseline visual ability and ultimately LVR outcomes in ongoing clinical research.

Assessment of central vision and macular structure in patients undergoing iodine-125 brachytherapy for ciliochoroidal melanoma.

OBJECTIVES: To prospectively report standardized visual function and macular structural assessment in patients undergoing iodine-125 brachytherapy for choroidal and ciliary body melanoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were enrolled for pretreatment and annual posttreatment assessment. Evaluations included ophthalmic history; standardized refraction; visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and color vision measurement; comprehensive ophthalmic examination; fundus photography; fluorescein angiography; optical coherence tomography; and ultrasonography. Radiation doses to the foveola and optic disc margin were calculated. RESULTS: Forty-two patients were enrolled. Melanoma location included 3 in the ciliary body, 7 anterior, 11 equatorial, 13 posterior, and 8 macular tumors. Mean apical tumor height was 4.45 mm (range 1.79-9.83 mm) and mean longitudinal tumor diameter was 9.41 mm (range 4.52-4.73 mm). Pretreatment mean best-corrected Ferris-Bailey early treatment diabetic retinopathy study visual acuity was 50 (standard deviation +/- 15) letters (Snellen equivalent 20/32, range 20/15 to hand motions). The mean Pelli-Robson contrast threshold percentage was 4.1% (+/- 2.5%). The mean Hardy-Rand-Rittler color vision score was 13/14 (+/- 2.7). Mean distances from the posterior edge of the tumor to the foveola and the optic disc margin were 6.99 mm (+/- 6.22 mm) and 7.28 mm (+/- 5.98 mm), respectively. At the foveola, median total radiation dose was 36.2 Gy (+/-50.6 Gy) and median dose rate was 31.6 cGy/h (+/- 39.8 cGy/h). At the optic nerve, median total radiation dose was 42.8 Gy (+/- 30.8 Gy) and median dose rate was 36.2 cGy/h (+/- 21.4 cGy/h). CONCLUSION: This prospective assessment of macular structure and function will provide more complete understanding of the ocular effects of radiation therapy for ocular melanoma.

Surveillance of the eye and vision in clinical trials of CP-675,206 for metastatic melanoma.

PURPOSE: To determine the ocular safety of CP-675,206 (Pfizer, New York, New York, USA), a fully human anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 monoclonal antibody in clinical trials of immunotherapy of metastatic melanoma. DESIGN: Prospective, nonrandomized study of the eye and vision in phase I/II clinical trials of CP-675,206 in metastatic melanoma conducted at the University of California, Los Angeles. METHODS: Patients with regional or distant metastatic melanoma were enrolled in phase I/II clinical trials evaluating the safety and antitumor efficacy of CP-675,206 alone or in combination with melanoma antigen peptide-pulsed dendritic cell vaccines. Ophthalmic evaluation was performed at the onset of CP-675,206 immunotherapy (baseline evaluation), two months or more after the onset of CP-675,206 immunotherapy (end-study evaluation), and at two- to three-month intervals thereafter in patients who continued to receive CP-675,206 immunotherapy (poststudy evaluation). Baseline and end-study evaluations included comprehensive ophthalmic examination, psychophysical and electrophysiologic visual function assessment, fundus photography, fluorescein angiography, and visual function assessment. RESULTS: Twenty patients with metastatic melanoma arising from the skin, mucosa, eye, or unknown site were evaluated. Systemic toxicity attributed to CP-675,206 included dermatologic manifestations, diarrhea, and autoimmune hepatitis with panhypopituitarism. A subset of patients receiving CP-675,206 demonstrated antitumor efficacy with partial response or complete response of metastatic melanoma. Comparison of ophthalmic baseline with end-study evaluations in all 20 patients and limited-term poststudy evaluations showed no adverse effect of CP-675,206 immunotherapy on the eye or vision. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, CP-675,206 immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma did not adversely affect the eye or vision.