Comparison of the amblyopia treatment study HOTV and the electronic-early treatment of diabetic retinopathy study visual acuity protocols in amblyopic children aged 5 to 11 years.

As part of the long-term follow-up of amblyopic children who were enrolled in the Amblyopia Treatment Study, we tested visual acuity in both eyes of 142 patients by using 2 established visual acuity protocols, the Amblyopia Treatment Study HOTV (ATS HOTV) visual acuity protocol and the Electronic-Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (E-ETDRS) protocol, at one of the annual visits. Mean age at the time of testing was 9.0 years (range, 5.6-11.9 years). The ATS-HOTV protocol resulted in a slight mean overestimate of visual acuity relative to the E-ETDRS protocol (0.68 lines for amblyopic eyes; 0.25 lines for fellow eyes). The overestimation occurred primarily when the E-ETDRS visual acuity was poorer than 0.3 logMAR. ATS-HOTV acuity also underestimated interocular visual acuity differences by 0.42 lines. When one uses the ATS-HOTV protocol, it may be wise to exercise caution when interpreting "near-normal" visual acuity or interocular differences as "within normal" because the ATS-HOTV method may have a slight bias toward better performance of amblyopic eyes than E-ETDRS.

Comparison of the modified Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study and mild macular grid laser photocoagulation strategies for diabetic macular edema.

OBJECTIVE: To compare 2 laser photocoagulation techniques for treatment of diabetic macular edema: the modified Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) direct/grid photocoagulation technique and a potentially milder (but potentially more extensive) mild macular grid (MMG) laser technique in which microaneurysms are not treated directly and small mild burns are placed throughout the macula, whether or not edema is present. METHODS: Two hundred sixty-three subjects (mean age, 59 years) with previously untreated diabetic macular edema were randomly assigned to receive laser photocoagulation by either the modified ETDRS (162 eyes) or MMG (161 eyes) technique. Visual acuity, fundus photographs, and optical coherence tomography measurements were obtained at baseline and at 3.5, 8, and 12 months. Treatment was repeated if diabetic macular edema persisted. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Change in optical coherence tomography measurements at 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: Among eyes with a baseline central subfield thickness of 250 microm or greater, central subfield thickening decreased by an average of 88 microm in the modified ETDRS group and by 49 microm in the MMG group at 12-month follow-up (adjusted mean difference, 33 microm; 95% confidence interval, 5-61 microm; P = .02). Weighted inner zone thickening by optical coherence tomography decreased by 42 microm in the modified ETDRS group and by 28 microm in the MMG group (adjusted mean difference, 14 microm; 95% confidence interval, 1-27 microm; P = .04); maximum retinal thickening (maximum thickening of the central and 4 inner subfields) decreased by 66 and 39 microm, respectively (adjusted mean difference, 27 microm; 95% confidence interval, 6-47 microm; P = .01), and retinal volume decreased by 0.8 and 0.4 mm3, respectively (adjusted mean difference, 0.3 mm3; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.53 mm3; P = .03). At 12 months, the mean change in visual acuity was 0 letters in the modified ETDRS group and 2 letters worse in the MMG group (adjusted mean difference, 2 letters; 95% confidence interval, -0.5 to 5 letters; P = .10). CONCLUSIONS: At 12 months after treatment, the MMG technique was less effective at reducing optical coherence tomography-measured retinal thickening than the more extensively evaluated current modified ETDRS laser photocoagulation approach. However, the visual acuity outcome with both approaches is not substantially different. Given these findings, a larger long-term trial of the MMG technique is not justified. APPLICATION TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Modified ETDRS focal photocoagulation should continue to be a standard approach for treating diabetic macular edema. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00071773.

Reproducibility of macular thickness and volume using Zeiss optical coherence tomography in patients with diabetic macular edema.

PURPOSE: To evaluate optical coherence tomography (OCT) reproducibility in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN: Prospective 1-day observational study. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred twelve eyes of 107 patients with DME involving the macular center by clinical examination and OCT central subfield thickness of > or =225 microm. METHODS: Retinal thickness was measured with the OCT3 system, and scans were evaluated by a reading center. Reproducibility of retinal thickness measurements was assessed, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for a change in thickness were estimated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reproducibility of OCT-measured central subfield thickness. RESULTS: Reproducibility was better for central subfield thickness than for center point thickness (half-width of the 95% CI for absolute change, 38 microm vs. 50 microm, and for relative change, 11% vs. 17%, respectively; P<0.001). The median absolute difference between replicate measurements of the central subfield was 7 microm (2%). Half-widths of the 95% CI for a change in central subfield thickness were 22, 23, 33, and 56 microm for scans with central subfield thicknesses of <200, 200 to <250, 250 to <400, and > or =400 microm, respectively. When expressed as percentage differences between 2 measurements, half-widths of the 95% CI for a change in central subfield thickness were 10%, 10%, 10%, and 13% for scans with central subfield thicknesses of <200, 200 to <250, 250 to <400, and > or =400 microm, respectively. We were unable to identify an effect on reproducibility of central subfield measurements with respect to the presence of cystoid abnormalities, subretinal fluid, vitreomacular traction, or reduced visual acuity. Reproducibility was better when both scans had a standard deviation (SD) of the center point of <10.0% (half-width of the 95% CI for change, 33 microm vs. 56 microm; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Reproducibility is better for central subfield thickness measurements than for center point measurements, and variability is less with retinal thickness when expressed as a percent change than when expressed as an absolute change. A change in central subfield thickness exceeding 11% is likely to be real. Scans with an SD of the center point of > or =10.0% are less reproducible and should be viewed with caution when assessing the validity of an observed change in retinal thickness in patients with DME.