Trends in Geographic Distribution of Visual Disability - United States, 2010-2019.

PURPOSE: We aimed to describe changes in the geographic distribution of self-reported visual impairment (VI) over the last decade (2010-2019) in the U.S. METHODS: Our study was an analysis of publicly available data collected between 2010 and 2019 from the Census Bureau American Community Survey. RESULTS: The mean overall prevalence of self-reported VI from 2010 to 2019 was 2.31% in the United States, and there was a significant increase in VI over the past decade from 2.25% in 2010-2014 to 2.37% in 2015-2019 (p < .001). VI was significantly higher in rural counties (3.58%), compared to urban (3.10%) or metropolitan counties (2.18%) (p < .001). In terms of geographic region, the South of the United States had the highest rate of VI (2.63%) (p < .001). For age groups > 17-years-old in the 2010-2019 data, women had higher rates of VI compared to men. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of self-reported visual impairment has risen and disproportionately affects certain communities. This includes individuals living in the South, in rural counties, and women.

Does Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) Treatment Influence Patient Falls and Mobility? A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD), a leading cause of irreversible blindness, increases fall risk through impaired central vision. Falls place an enormous economic burden on healthcare systems. We hypothesized that AMD treatments may reduce patients' falls risk. This systematic review (ID #: 172623) synthesized the current understanding of wet and dry AMD treatments' impact on patient falls and mobility, connecting these two public health issues. METHODS: On April 17, 2020, PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were queried. Clinical trials and observational studies were included, while non-English and non-primary studies were excluded. Two authors screened, extracted data, and assessed bias using RoB-2 and ROBINS-I. A third author served as a tie breaker. RESULTS: This database search resulted in 3,525 studies, with an additional 112 identified through bibliography review. Ten articles met eligibility criteria. Most studies featured the outcome of interest as a secondary outcome (n = 4) and patient-reported adverse events (n = 5), rather than a primary focus (n = 2). Ten out of the 11 outcomes had a moderate to serious risk of bias. No two studies used the same instrument to measure falls or mobility. CONCLUSION: Despite the potential positive impact of AMD treatments on patient falls and mobility, quality data on this relationship are lacking. This work underscores the need to broaden ophthalmologic research outcomes beyond visual parameters to include patient-centred, functional measures. Incorporating standardized methods to track falls and screen for difficulty with walking and balance would enable evaluation of AMD treatments on functional outcomes, potentially helping guide management.

Factors protecting against diabetic retinopathy in a geriatric Indian cohort.

PURPOSE: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a potentially sight-threatening complication of diabetes mellitus. The majority of cases are in older adults. This study aims to evaluate modifiable and nonmodifiable protective factors against DR in a geriatric Indian population. METHODS: This retrospective observational study uses data from a multitiered ophthalmology network to evaluate several demographic and clinical variables against diabetic retinopathy and visual acuity. RESULTS: Our data show that high myopia, the female sex, and no cataract surgery are associated with lower prevalence of DR (OR = 0.21, 0.65, and 0.76, respectively; P < 0.001). We also found that among those with DR, people categorized as payers, retirees, and those living in urban or metropolitan areas have better visual acuity (OR = 0.65, 0.65, 0.83, and 0.73, respectively; P < 0.001). Among those with DR, females, presence of cataracts, and no cataract surgery had lower associations with sight-threatening DR (STDR) (OR = 0.68, 0.37, and 0.76, respectively; P < 0.001). Prevalence of DR decreased in older age groups while controlling for DM duration. CONCLUSION: It is probable that high myopia, the female sex, and better glycemic control are protective against DR and STDR in our study cohort of adults over 60 years of age. It is possible that occupations involving manual labor, delayed cataract surgery, and living past the age of 70 are also protective against DR.

E-cigarette or Vaping Product Use-Associated Lung Injury (EVALI) Without Respiratory Symptoms.

Electronic cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) is a newly emerging diagnosis in the United States, yet the incidence has surged greatly in the past year. With the trend of using electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) and vaping rising at an alarming rate among teenagers, many are resorting to friends, illicit drug dealers, and other informal sources to obtain their e-cigarettes, which is greatly contributing to the national outbreak of EVALI. The incidence of adolescents presenting with the constellation of respiratory, gastrointestinal, and constitutional symptoms characteristic of EVALI has been widely reported within the nation. We present one such case of an adolescent boy with a 2-year history of daily vaping who presented with nausea, vomiting, weight loss, and fever but lacked the respiratory symptoms that have been reported in the majority of EVALI cases reported thus far. Computed tomography scan of the abdomen and pelvis revealed an incidental finding of lung pathology characteristic of EVALI, prompting further workup and diagnosis of EVALI. In this case, it is demonstrated that the presentation of EVALI can be variable and is still poorly defined. The rising morbidity and mortality from EVALI reveal the importance of considering EVALI in all patients with a history of vaping or e-cigarette use, regardless of the presence or absence of respiratory symptoms.

Accuracy of Vital Signs Measurements by a Smartwatch and a Portable Health Device: Validation Study.

BACKGROUND: New consumer health devices are being developed to easily monitor multiple physiological parameters on a regular basis. Many of these vital sign measurement devices have yet to be formally studied in a clinical setting but have already spread widely throughout the consumer market. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy and precision of heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and oxygen saturation (SpO2) measurements of 2 novel all-in-one monitoring devices, the BodiMetrics Performance Monitor and the Everlast smartwatch. METHODS: We enrolled 127 patients (>18 years) from the Thomas Jefferson University Hospital Preadmission Testing Center. SBP and HR were measured by both investigational devices. In addition, the Everlast watch was utilized to measure DBP, and the BodiMetrics Performance Monitor was utilized to measure SpO2. After 5 min of quiet sitting, four hospital-grade standard and three investigational vital sign measurements were taken, with 60 seconds in between each measurement. The reference vital sign measurements were calculated by determining the average of the two standard measurements that bounded each investigational measurement. Using this method, we determined three comparison pairs for each investigational device in each subject. After excluding data from 42 individuals because of excessive variation in sequential standard measurements per prespecified dropping rules, data from 85 subjects were used for final analysis. RESULTS: Of 85 participants, 36 (42%) were women, and the mean age was 53 (SD 21) years. The accuracy guidelines were only met for the HR measurements in both devices. SBP measurements deviated 16.9 (SD 13.5) mm Hg and 5.3 (SD 4.7) mm Hg from the reference values for the Everlast and BodiMetrics devices, respectively. The mean absolute difference in DBP measurements for the Everlast smartwatch was 8.3 (SD 6.1) mm Hg. The mean absolute difference between BodiMetrics and reference SpO2 measurements was 3.02%. CONCLUSIONS: Both devices we investigated met accuracy guidelines for HR measurements, but they failed to meet the predefined accuracy guidelines for other vital sign measurements. Continued sale of consumer physiological monitors without prior validation and approval procedures is a public health concern.

The accuracy of blood pressure measurement by a smartwatch and a portable health device.

Objectives: Handheld medical devices and smartwatches that measure BP without a cuff have recently become available. Since these measurements are relatively more user-friendly than conventional cuff-based measurements they may aid in more frequent BP monitoring. We investigated the accuracy and precision of two popular cuff-less devices: the Everlast smartwatch and the BodiMetrics Performance Monitor.Methods: We enrolled 127 patients from the Thomas Jefferson University Hospital Preadmission Testing Center. Research staff were trained to measure BP according to manufacturer guidelines for the investigational devices. The Everlast smartwatch provides measurements of systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) BP, whereas the Bodimetrics only provides SBP. Reference BP measurements were obtained using a hospital-grade automated sphygmomanometer. After 5 minutes of quiet sitting, four standard and three investigational BP measurements were taken with sixty seconds in between each measurement. The reference BP value was calculated by determining the average of the 2 standard BP measurements that bounded the investigational measurements. We thus determined 3 comparison pairs for each investigational device in each subject. We calculated the mean (SD) of the absolute difference between the respective investigational devices and the reference for SBP and DBP.Results: Data from 42 individuals was excluded because of variation in standard BP measurements per prespecified rules. Of 85 participants used for analysis, 36 (42%) were women, the mean (SD) age was 53 (21) years, 32 (38%) self-reported hypertension, and 97% of these (n = 31) reported taking antihypertensive medications. The average differences between the Everlast watch and reference were 16.9 (13.5) mm Hg for SBP and 8.3 (6.1) mm Hg for DBP. The average difference between the Bodimetrics performance monitor and the reference was 5.3 (4.7) mm Hg for SBP.Conclusions: The Everlast smartwatch and the BodiMetrics Performance Monitor we tested are not accurate enough to be used as BP measurement devices.