Grand Challenges in global eye health: a global prioritisation process using Delphi method

Background: We undertook a Grand Challenges in Global Eye Health prioritisation exercise to identify the key issues that must be addressed to improve eye health in the context of an ageing population, to eliminate persistent inequities in health-care access, and to mitigate widespread resource limitations. Methods: Drawing on methods used in previous Grand Challenges studies, we used a multi-step recruitment strategy to assemble a diverse panel of individuals from a range of disciplines relevant to global eye health from all regions globally to participate in a three-round, online, Delphi-like, prioritisation process to nominate and rank challenges in global eye health. Through this process, we developed both global and regional priority lists. Findings: Between Sept 1 and Dec 12, 2019, 470 individuals complete round 1 of the process, of whom 336 completed all three rounds (round 2 between Feb 26 and March 18, 2020, and round 3 between April 2 and April 25, 2020) 156 (46%) of 336 were women, 180 (54%) were men. The proportion of participants who worked in each region ranged from 104 (31%) in sub-Saharan Africa to 21 (6%) in central Europe, eastern Europe, and in central Asia. Of 85 unique challenges identified after round 1, 16 challenges were prioritised at the global level; six focused on detection and treatment of conditions (cataract, refractive error, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, services for children and screening for early detection), two focused on addressing shortages in human resource capacity, five on other health service and policy factors (including strengthening policies, integration, health information systems, and budget allocation), and three on improving access to care and promoting equity. Interpretation: This list of Grand Challenges serves as a starting point for immediate action by funders to guide investment in research and innovation in eye health. It challenges researchers, clinicians, and policy makers to build collaborations to address specific challenges. Funding: The Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust, Moorfields Eye Charity, National Institute for Health Research Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, Wellcome Trust, Sightsavers, The Fred Hollows Foundation, The Seva Foundation, British Council for the Prevention of Blindness, and Christian Blind Mission. Translations: For the French, Spanish, Chinese, Portuguese, Arabic and Persian translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section

Grand Challenges in global eye health: a global prioritisation process using Delphi method

Background We undertook a Grand Challenges in Global Eye Health prioritisation exercise to identify the key issues that must be addressed to improve eye health in the context of an ageing population, to eliminate persistent inequities in health-care access, and to mitigate widespread resource limitations. Methods Drawing on methods used in previous Grand Challenges studies, we used a multi-step recruitment strategy to assemble a diverse panel of individuals from a range of disciplines relevant to global eye health from all regions globally to participate in a three-round, online, Delphi-like, prioritisation process to nominate and rank challenges in global eye health. Through this process, we developed both global and regional priority lists. Findings Between Sept 1 and Dec 12, 2019, 470 individuals complete round 1 of the process, of whom 336 completed all three rounds (round 2 between Feb 26 and March 18, 2020, and round 3 between April 2 and April 25, 2020) 156 (46%) of 336 were women, 180 (54%) were men. The proportion of participants who worked in each region ranged from 104 (31%) in sub-Saharan Africa to 21 (6%) in central Europe, eastern Europe, and in central Asia. Of 85 unique challenges identified after round 1, 16 challenges were prioritised at the global level; six focused on detection and treatment of conditions (cataract, refractive error, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, services for children and screening for early detection), two focused on addressing shortages in human resource capacity, five on other health service and policy factors (including strengthening policies, integration, health information systems, and budget allocation), and three on improving access to care and promoting equity. Interpretation This list of Grand Challenges serves as a starting point for immediate action by funders to guide investment in research and innovation in eye health. It challenges researchers, clinicians, and policy makers to build collaborations to address specific challenge

Biosimilar SB15 versus reference aflibercept in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: 1-year and switching results of a phase 3 clinical trial

To evaluate efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics (PK) and immunogenicity of SB15 versus reference aflibercept (AFL), and switching from AFL to SB15 in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).Prospective, double-masked, randomised, phase 3 trial.Participants with nAMD were randomised 1:1 to receive SB15 (N=224 participants) or AFL (N=225). At week 32, participants either continued on SB15 (SB15/SB15, N=219) or AFL (AFL/AFL, N=108), or switched from AFL to SB15 (AFL/SB15, N=111). This manuscript reports 1-year and switching results of secondary efficacy endpoints such as changes from baseline to week 56 in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central subfield thickness (CST, from internal limiting membrane (ILM) to retinal pigment epithelium), and total retinal thickness (TRT, from ILM to Bruch's membrane). Additional endpoints included safety, PK and immunogenicity.Efficacy results were comparable between groups. The least squares mean (LSmean) change in BCVA from baseline to week 56 was 7.4 letters for SB15/SB15 and 7.0 letters for AFL/AFL (difference (95% CI)=0.4 (-2.5 to 3.2)). The LSmean changes from baseline to week 56 in CST and TRT were -119.2 µm and -132.4 µm for SB15/SB15 and -126.6 µm and -136.3 µm for AFL/AFL, respectively (CST: difference (95% CI)=7.4 µm (-6.11 to 20.96); TRT: difference (95% CI)=3.9 µm (-18.35 to 26.10)). Switched and non-switched participants showed similar LSmean changes in BCVA from baseline to week 56 (AFL/SB15, 7.9 letters vs AFL/AFL, 7.8 letters; difference (95% CI)=0.0 (-2.8 to 2.8)). Safety, PK and immunogenicity were comparable between groups.Efficacy, safety, PK and immunogenicity were comparable between SB15 and AFL and between switched and non-switched participants

Enabling RFCMOS solutions for emergingadvanced applications

The enablement of advanced RF applications with CMOS is discussed. This is accomplished through a broad menu of low-cost and high-performance modular technology features with accompanying scalable devices models which are accurate to frequencies well above application conditions