Properties of visual field defects around the monocular preferred retinal locus in age-related macular degeneration

YesPURPOSE. To compare microperimetric sensitivity around the monocular preferred retinal locus (mPRL) in age-related macular degeneration (AMD) to normative data, and to describe the characteristics of visual field defects around the mPRL in AMD. METHODS. Participants with AMD (total n ¼ 185) were either prospectively recruited (n ¼ 135) or retrospectively reviewed from an existing database (n ¼ 50). Participants underwent microperimetry using a test pattern (37 point, 58 radius) centered on their mPRL. Sensitivities were compared to normative data by spatial interpolation, and conventional perimetric indices were calculated. The location of the mPRL relative to the fovea and to visual field defects was also investigated. RESULTS. Location of mPRL varied approximately 158 horizontally and vertically. Visual field loss within 58 of the mPRL was considerable in the majority of participants (median mean deviation 14.7 dB, interquartile range [IQR] 19.6 to 9.6 dB, median pattern standard deviation 7.1 dB [IQR 4.8–9.0 dB]). Over 95% of participants had mean total deviation worse than 2 dB across all tested locations and similarly within 18 of their mPRL. A common pattern of placing the mPRL just foveal to a region of normal pattern deviation was found in 78% of participants. Total deviation was outside normal limits in this region in 68%. CONCLUSIONS. Despite altering fixation to improve vision, people with AMD exhibit considerable visual field loss at and around their mPRL. The location of the mPRL was typically just foveal to, but not within, a region of relatively normal sensitivity for the individual, suggesting that a combination of factors drives mPRL selection.This report presents independent research funded by the NIH

Predicting visual acuity from visual field sensitivity in age-related macular degeneration

YesPurpose: To investigate how well visual field sensitivity predicts visual acuity at the same locations in macular disease, and to assess whether such predictions may be useful for selecting an optimum area for fixation training. Methods: Visual field sensitivity and acuity were measured at nine locations in the central 10° in 20 people with AMD and stable foveal fixation. A linear mixed model was constructed to predict acuity from sensitivity, taking into account within-subject effects and eccentricity. Cross validation was used to test the ability to predict acuity from sensitivity in a new patient. Simulations tested whether sensitivity can predict nonfoveal regions with greatest acuity in individual patients. Results: Visual field sensitivity (P < 0.0001), eccentricity (P = 0.007), and random effects of subject on eccentricity (P = 0.043) improved the model. For known subjects, 95% of acuity prediction errors (predicted − measured acuity) fell within −0.21 logMAR to +0.18 logMAR (median +0.00 logMAR). For unknown subjects, cross validation gave 95% of acuity prediction errors within −0.35 logMAR to +0.31 logMAR (median −0.01 logMAR). In simulations, the nonfoveal location with greatest predicted acuity had greatest “true” acuity on median 26% of occasions, and median difference in acuity between the location with greatest predicted acuity and the best possible location was +0.14 logMAR (range +0.04 to +0.17). Conclusions: The relationship between sensitivity and acuity in macular disease is not strongly predictive. The location with greatest sensitivity on microperimetry is unlikely to represent the location with the best visual acuity, even if eccentricity is taken into account.College of Optometrists Postdoctoral Research Award (JD and ATA; London, UK) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Postdoctoral Fellowship (ATA; London, UK). Presents independent research funded by the NIHR.Research Development Fund Publication Prize Award winner, August 2018

Community-based testing of migrants for infectious diseases (COMBAT-ID): impact, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of identifying infectious diseases among migrants in primary care: protocol for an interrupted time-series, qualitative and health economic analysis.

BACKGROUND: Migration is a major global driver of population change. Certain migrants may be at increased risk of infectious diseases, including tuberculosis (TB), HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C, and have poorer outcomes. Early diagnosis and management of these infections can reduce morbidity, mortality and onward transmission and is supported by national guidelines. To date, screening initiatives have been sporadic and focused on individual diseases; systematic routine testing of migrant groups for multiple infections is rarely undertaken and its impact is unknown. We describe the protocol for the evaluation of acceptability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an integrated approach to screening migrants for a range of infectious diseases in primary care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a mixed-methods study which includes an observational cohort with interrupted time-series analysis before and after the introduction of routine screening of migrants for infectious diseases (latent TB, HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C) when first registering with primary care within Leicester, UK. We will assess trends in the monthly number and rate of testing and diagnosis for latent TB, HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C to determine the effect of the policy change using segmented regression analyses at monthly time-points. Concurrently, we will undertake an integrated qualitative sub-study to understand the views of migrants and healthcare professionals to the new testing policy in primary care. Finally, we will evaluate the cost-effectiveness of combined infection testing for migrants in primary care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received HRA and NHS approvals for both the interrupted time-series analysis (16/SC/0127) and the qualitative sub-study (16/EM/0159). For the interrupted time-series analysis we will only use fully anonymised data. For the qualitative sub-study, we will gain written, informed, consent. Dissemination of the results will be through local and national meetings/conferences as well as publications in peer-reviewed journals