Nina Tahhan

Comparison of reverse-geometry lens designs for overnight orthokeratology.

Purpose. The efficacy of overnight wear of four types of reverse-geometry lenses was compared. The length of time needed to achieve correction and any adverse events that occurred during the course of the study were recorded. Methods. In this prospective, randomized study, 60 subjects (18 to 35 years old) with refractive error between −1.00 to −4.00 D (cyl ≤ −1.50) wore reverse-geometry lenses overnight only. All subjects were assigned a Rinehart Reeves lens in one eye, and subsets of 20 subjects were randomly assigned a Mountford BE, DreimLens, or Contex D Series 4 lens for the contralateral eye. Visits included baseline, dispensing, 1 day, 1 week, and 1 month. Biomicroscopy, unaided visual acuity, subjective refraction, best-corrected visual acuity at high and low contrast and high and low illumination, corneal topography, and subjective rating data were collected. Results. Forty-six subjects completed the study. At 1 month, there were no significant differences between lens types in their effect on unaided visual acuity, subjective sphere, subjective cylinder, best-corrected visual acuity at high and low contrast at high illumination and low contrast at low illumination, apical corneal radius, corneal eccentricity, and subjective ratings. Between 1 week and 1 month, there was a significant improvement in subjective ratings of quality of day and night vision (p < 0.05) but no significant change in the objective measures. No significant ocular adverse events were observed during the trial. Conclusions. The lens types tested were all similarly effective in the reduction of myopic refractive error. Subjective ratings continued to improve after objective measures stabilized at 1 week. Overnight lens wear proceeded for 1 month without significant adverse reactions.

Utility and Uncorrected Refractive Error

PURPOSE To investigate utility (a preference-based quality of life [QoL] measure) associated with uncorrected refractive error (URE). DESIGN Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS A cohort of 341 consecutive patients 40 to 65 years of age with refractive error and no ocular disease impairing vision worse than 20/25 (0.1 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR] units) in the better eye. Without vision correction, 30 had no vision impairment, 65 had only distance vision impairment (DVI), 97 had only near vision impairment (NVI), 112 had moderate amounts of both distance and near vision impairment (DNVI), and 37 had severe impairment (distance or near worse than 20/200 [>1.0 logMAR]) in the better eye. METHODS All participants underwent a comprehensive eye examination with refraction, aided and unaided visual acuity (VA) at 6 m and 40 cm, and ocular health assessment. Utilities were elicited for a number of scenarios using a standardized, face-to-face time trade-off (TTO) interview method. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The main outcome measure was TTO utility for the participants own uncorrected vision state. Utilities ranged from 0 to 1, where 0 = death and 1 = perfect vision, and were scaled to account for comorbidities so that 1 = perfect health (adjusted utility). RESULTS Unaided VA was 0.50 ± 0.24 logMAR at distance in the DVI group, 0.43 ± 0.17 logMAR at near in the NVI group, and 0.72 ± 0.36 and 0.56 ± 0.29 at distance and near, respectively, in the DNVI group. Adjusted utilities for the 3 groups were 0.82 ± 0.16 in the DVI group, 0.81±0.17 in the NVI group, and 0.68 ± 0.25 in the DNVI group. The DVI and NVI group utilities (adjusted and unadjusted) did not differ significantly (P = 0.73 and P = 0.77, respectively). The DNVI utility was significantly worse than that of the DVI and NVI groups (adjusted and unadjusted, P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS The URE is associated with measurable reductions in utility (and therefore QoL). Reductions are similar regardless of whether near or distance vision is impaired, but worse when both are impaired. The results underscore the significance of the effect of URE on QoL, particularly with respect to uncorrected presbyopia, which has been a relatively neglected area in research and policy. The utility figures in this study can be used as inputs for cost-effectiveness studies relating to URE to assist resource allocation decisions. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S) The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

Power profiles and short-term visual performance of soft contact lenses.

Purpose. To investigate the manner in which contemporary soft contact lenses differ in the distribution of optical power within their optic zones and establish if these variations affect the vision of wearers or the prescribing procedure for back vertex power (BVP). Methods. By using a Visionix VC 2001 contact lens power analyzer, power profiles were measured across the optic zones of the following contemporary contact lenses ACUVUE 2, ACUVUE ADVANCE, O2OPTIX, NIGHT & DAY and PureVision. Single BVP measures were obtained using a Nikon projection lensometer. Visual performance was assessed in 28 masked subjects who wore each lens type in random order. Measurements taken were high and low contrast visual acuity in normal illumination (250 Cd/m2), high contrast acuity in reduced illumination (5 Cd/m2), subjective visual quality using a numerical rating scale, and visual satisfaction rating using a Likert scale. Results. Marked differences in the distribution of optical power across the optic zone were evident among the lens types. No significant differences were found for any of the visual performance variables (p > 0.05, analysis of variance with repeated measures and Friedman test). Conclusions. Variations in power profile between contemporary soft lens types exist but do not, in general, result in measurable visual performance differences in the short term, nor do they substantially influence the BVP required for optimal correction.

Uncorrected refractive error in the northern and eastern provinces of Sri Lanka

Background:  The 2004 tsunami focused unprecedented international aid and resources on Sri Lanka. Among other responses, a program delivered by volunteer optometrists enabled many local people to access eye examinations and spectacles for the first time. The data collected from the eye‐care delivery program during 2005 are summarised in this report, as an evidence base for planning future eye‐care interventions in these provinces or similar areas.

Towards better estimates of uncorrected presbyopia

Normal vision depends upon the ability of the ocular lens to change shape, ensuring that light is focused on the most sensitive part of the retina. Anyone living beyond middle age is inevitably affected by presbyopia, an inability to focus on near objects, due to the loss of flexibility of the ocular lens. It is estimated that over half of the one billion people affected globally cannot afford the spectacles needed to correct their eyesight. Most of the people with uncorrected visual impairment live in low- and middle-income countries.1,2

Prevalence and causes of vision loss in high-income countries and in Eastern and Central Europe in 2015: magnitude, temporal trends and projections

Background Within a surveillance of the prevalence and causes of vision impairment in high-income regions and Central/Eastern Europe, we update figures through 2015 and forecast expected values in 2020. Methods Based on a systematic review of medical literature, prevalence of blindness, moderate and severe vision impairment (MSVI), mild vision impairment and presbyopia was estimated for 1990, 2010, 2015, and 2020. Results Age-standardised prevalence of blindness and MSVI for all ages decreased from 1990 to 2015 from 0.26% (0.10–0.46) to 0.15% (0.06–0.26) and from 1.74% (0.76–2.94) to 1.27% (0.55–2.17), respectively. In 2015, the number of individuals affected by blindness, MSVI and mild vision impairment ranged from 70 000, 630 000 and 610 000, respectively, in Australasia to 980 000, 7.46 million and 7.25 million, respectively, in North America and 1.16 million, 9.61 million and 9.47 million, respectively, in Western Europe. In 2015, cataract was the most common cause for blindness, followed by age-related macular degeneration (AMD), glaucoma, uncorrected refractive error, diabetic retinopathy and cornea-related disorders, with declining burden from cataract and AMD over time. Uncorrected refractive error was the leading cause of MSVI. Conclusions While continuing to advance control of cataract and AMD as the leading causes of blindness remains a high priority, overcoming barriers to uptake of refractive error services would address approximately half of the MSVI burden. New data on burden of presbyopia identify this entity as an important public health problem in this population. Additional research on better treatments, better implementation with existing tools and ongoing surveillance of the problem is needed.

Global Prevalence of Presbyopia and Vision Impairment from Uncorrected Presbyopia: Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Modelling

TOPIC Presbyopia prevalence and spectacle-correction coverage were estimated by systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiologic evidence, then modeled to expand to country, region, and global estimates. CLINICAL RELEVANCE Understanding presbyopia epidemiologic factors and correction coverage is critical to overcoming the burden of vision impairment (VI) from uncorrected presbyopia. METHODS We performed systematic reviews of presbyopia prevalence and spectacle-correction coverage. Accepted presbyopia prevalence data were gathered into 5-year age groups from 0 to 90 years or older and meta-analyzed within World Health Organization global burden of disease regions. We developed a model based on amplitude of accommodation adjusted for myopia rates to match the regionally meta-analyzed presbyopia prevalence. Presbyopia spectacle-correction coverage was analyzed against country-level variables from the year of data collection; variation in correction coverage was described best by a model based on the Human Development Index, Gini coefficient, and health expenditure, with adjustments for age and urbanization. We used the models to estimate presbyopia prevalence and spectacle-correction coverage in each age group in urban and rural areas of every country in the world, and combined with population data to estimate the number of people with near VI. RESULTS We estimate there were 1.8 billion people (prevalence, 25%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7-2.0 billion [23%-27%]) globally with presbyopia in 2015, 826 million (95% CI, 686-960 million) of whom had near VI because they had no, or inadequate, vision correction. Global unmet need for presbyopia correction in 2015 is estimated to be 45% (95% CI, 41%-49%). People with presbyopia are more likely to have adequate optical correction if they live in an urban area of a more developed country with higher health expenditure and lower inequality. CONCLUSIONS There is a significant burden of VI from uncorrected presbyopia, with the greatest burden in rural areas of low-resource countries.

Prevalence and causes of vision loss in North Africa and Middle East in 2015: magnitude, temporal trends and projections

Background To assess the prevalence and causes of vision impairment in North Africa and the Middle East (NAME) from 1990 to 2015 and to forecast projections for 2020. Methods Based on a systematic review of medical literature, the prevalence of blindness (presenting visual acuity (PVA) <3/60 in the better eye), moderate and severe vision impairment (MSVI; PVA <6/18 but ≥3/60) and mild vision impairment (PVA <6/12 but ≥6/18) was estimated for 2015 and 2020. Results The age-standardised prevalence of blindness and MSVI for all ages and genders decreased from 1990 to 2015, from 1.72 (0.53–3.13) to 0.95% (0.32%–1.71%), and from 6.66 (3.09–10.69) to 4.62% (2.21%–7.33%), respectively, with slightly higher figures for women than men. Cataract was the most common cause of blindness in 1990 and 2015, followed by uncorrected refractive error. Uncorrected refractive error was the leading cause of MSVI in the NAME region in 1990 and 2015, followed by cataract. A reduction in the proportions of blindness and MSVI due to cataract, corneal opacity and trachoma is predicted by 2020. Conversely, an increase in the proportion of blindness attributable to uncorrected refractive error, glaucoma, age-related macular degeneration and diabetic retinopathy is expected. Conclusions In 2015 cataract and uncorrected refractive error were the major causes of vision loss in the NAME region. Proportions of vision impairment from cataract, corneal opacity and trachoma are expected to decrease by 2020, and those from uncorrected refractive error, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy and age-related macular degeneration are predicted to increase by 2020.

Prevalence and causes of vision loss in South-east Asia and Oceania in 2015: magnitude, temporal trends and projections

Background To assess prevalence and causes of vision impairment in South-east Asia and Oceania regions from 1990 to 2015 and to forecast the figures for 2020. Methods Based on a systematic review of medical literature, prevalence of blindness (presenting visual acuity (PVA) <3/60 in the better eye), moderate and severe vision impairment (MSVI; PVA <6/18 but ≥3/60), mild vision impairment (PVA <6/12 but ≥6/18) and near vision impairment (>N5 or N8 in the presence of normal vision) were estimated for 1990, 2010, 2015 and 2020. Results The age-standardised prevalence of blindness for all ages and both genders was higher in the Oceania region but lower for MSVI when comparing the subregions. The prevalence of near vision impairment in people≥50 years was 41% (uncertainty interval (UI) 18.8 to 65.9). Comparison of the data for 2015 with 2020 predicts a small increase in the numbers of people affected by blindness, MSVI and mild VI in both subregions. The numbers predicted for near VI in South-east Asia are from 90.68 million in 2015 to 102.88 million in 2020. The main causes of blindness and MSVI in both subregions in 2015 were cataract, uncorrected refractive error, glaucoma, corneal disease and age-related macular degeneration. There was no trachoma in Oceania from 1990 and decreasing prevalence in South-east Asia with elimination predicted by 2020. Conclusions In both regions, the main challenges for eye care come from cataract which remains the main cause of blindness with uncorrected refractive error the main cause of MSVI. The trend between 1990 and 2015 is for a lower prevalence of blindness and MSVI in both regions.